Afghans turn to Taleban justice as insurgents set up shadow government

Jerome Starkey in Kabul

When Habiba’s elderly husband was badly beaten in a village brawl there was only one place, she said, that she could turn to for help and justice.

Barefoot and weeping, the farmer’s wife, 50, trekked for four hours through Afghanistan’s Hindu Kush mountains to meet the local Taleban commander.

“My feet were bleeding and I cried the whole way but I didn’t care about my safety,” she said. “We are poor people. We know the Government doesn’t help people like us.”

Corruption and incompetence in President Karzai’s Government — particularly at local level — have forced a growing number of people to seek the services of the Taleban.

The shadow government is not limited to justice. In Helmand, in August, Taleban commanders issued printed travel permits on headed notepaper from the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” to let people through checkpoints on the roads in and out of Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital.

A senior Nato intelligence official admitted this week that the Taleban “has a government-in-waiting, with ministers chosen,” ready to take over the moment the current administration failed. He warned, in a bleak assessment of the insurgents’ strength: “Time is running out. Taleban influence is expanding.”

The Taleban, which Nato says run shadow governments in 33 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces, are only too willing to help settle local disputes. Their strict, if brutal, interpretation of Islamic law is often preferable to the lengthy and costly Government alternative.

“My husband had a broken leg so he sent me to find Mullah Zafar,” Habiba said. “We don’t know anyone in the Government and we know they won’t solve our problems.”

Mullah Zafar Akhund is the Taleban’s shadow governor in Jaghatu district, Wardak province, a short drive south of Kabul.

Habiba’s husband, Abdullah, who is 20 years her senior, fought with a neighbour called Qasim over water rights. Village customs prescribe which fields should be watered at which times. Habiba said that Qasim was stealing the water when it was not his time and turned violent when her husband challenged him.

“I waited two hours to see Mullah Zafar,” she said. “He listened to my story and sent three of his soldiers to come back to my village. They spoke to the village elders who told them the same thing. The soldiers beat Qasim and ordered him to give us his water for seven nights.”

Habiba, an ethnic Hazara, is not a natural ally of the Taleban. Most of them are Pashtuns, and thousands of Hazaras were massacred under the Taleban regime. The insurgents have exploited local disputes that the Government cannot solve to gain footholds in new areas, irrespective of the ethnic divides. For many years, locals said, Mullah Zafar provided an alternative to Government institutions.

Six months ago he felt sufficiently entrenched in Jaghatu to issue a decree that anyone found using Government services would face summary execution.

“Not everybody likes them but they were good to me,” said Reza Yousef, one of Habiba’s neighbours with a similar experience of Taleban justice. He spent four years petitioning government officials for help with a land dispute. “They didn’t care,” he said. “It took Mullah Zafar four days.

“Ten years ago we had a problem with our land,” he said. “One of our neighbours was powerful because he had connections [to a warlord] and he took some of our land.

“When [Hamid Karzai’s] Government came I complained many, many times but they didn’t hear me.”

Mr Yousef said that he could not afford the mandatory bribe to push his complaint through the system. He took his case to the village elders, or shura, and they ruled in his favour three times.

His neighbour, Younus, ignored their decisions, confident that he was protected through his links to Karim Khalili, the Hazara warlord recently appointed as one of Mr Karzai’s vice-presidents.

“It was around three years ago I went to Mullah Zafar and showed him the papers which prove the land is mine,” Mr Yousef said. “He sent four of his soldiers to my village to see for themselves and the next day he came to the village himself and held a shura with all the elders.”

The meeting, overlooked by insurgents armed with Kalashnikovs and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, was, in effect, a Taleban court.

“Younus was hiding in the place where they keep cows but they found him and they beat him badly. His face was bleeding,” Mr Yousef said.

Younus was exiled for two months and ordered to hand back the land. “If you complain to the Government it takes years; they ask you for bribes and you have to go to their offices every day,” Mr Yousef said. “That’s why people choose the Taleban.

Source:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6970962.ece

The Necklace

The cheerful little girl with bouncy golden curls was almost five. Waiting with her mother at the checkout stand, she saw them, a circle of glistening white pearls in a pink foil box.

“Oh mommy please, Mommy. Can I have them? Please, Mommy, please?”

Quickly the mother checked the back of the little foil box and then looked back into the pleading blue eyes of her little girl’s upturned face.

“A dollar ninety-five. That’s almost $2.00. If you really want them, I’ll think of some extra chores for you and in no time you can save enough money to buy them for yourself. Your birthday’s only a week away and you might get another crisp dollar bill from Grandma.”

As soon as Jenny got home, she emptied her penny bank and counted out 17 pennies. After dinner, she did more than her share of chores and she went to the neighbor and asked Mrs. McJames if she could pick dandelions for ten cents. On her birthday,Grandma did give her another new dollar bill and at last she had enough money to buy the necklace.

Jenny loved her pearls. They made her feel dressed up and grown up. She wore them everywhere, Sunday school, kindergarten, even to bed. The only time she took them off was when she went swimming or had a bubble bath. Mother said if they got wet, they might turn her neck green.

Jenny had a very loving daddy and every night when she was ready for bed, he would stop whatever he was doing and come upstairs to read her a story. One night as he finished the story, he asked Jenny, “Do you love me?”

“Oh yes, daddy. You know that I love you.”

“Then give me your pearls.”

“Oh, daddy, not my pearls. But you can have Princess, the white horse from my collection, the one with the pink tail. Remember, daddy? The one you gave me. She’s my very favorite.”

“That’s okay, Honey, daddy loves you. Good night.” And he brushed her cheek with a kiss.

About a week later, after the story time, Jenny’s daddy asked again, “Do you love me?”

“Daddy, you know I love you.”

“Then give me your pearls.”

“Oh Daddy, not my pearls. But you can have my baby doll. The brand new one I got for my birthday. She is beautiful and you can have the yellow blanket that matches her sleeper.”

“That’s okay. Sleep well. God bless you, little one. Daddy loves you.”

And as always, he brushed her cheek with a gentle kiss.

A few nights later when her daddy came in, Jenny was sitting on her bed with her legs crossed Indian style.

As he came close, he noticed her chin was trembling and one silent tear rolled down her cheek. “What is it, Jenny? What’s the matter?”

Jenny didn’t say anything but lifted her little hand up to her daddy. And when she opened it, there was her little pearl necklace. With a little quiver, she finally said, “Here, daddy; this is for you.”

With tears gathering in his own eyes, Jenny’s daddy reached out with one hand to take the dime store necklace, and with the other hand he reached into his pocket and pulled out a blue velvet case with a strand of genuine pearls and gave them to Jenny.

He had them all the time… He was just waiting for her to give up the dime-store stuff so he could give her the genuine treasure.

So it is, with God. He is waiting for us to give up the cheap things in our lives so that he can give us beautiful treasures.

Are you holding onto things that God wants you to let go of?

Are you holding on to harmful or unnecessary partners, relationships, habits and activities that you have come so attached to that it seems impossible to let go? Sometimes it is so hard to see what is in the other hand but do believe this one thing.

God will never take away something without giving you something better in its place.

No girl in this country should suffer what my daughter went through, says father

“Former Chief Ministers shielded Rathore”


Vrinda Sharma & Rajesh Ahuja

CHANDIGARH: Breaking his silence, the father of the 14-year-old tennis player who committed suicide in 1993 after having been molested by the former Haryana Director-General of Police, S.P.S. Rathore in 1990, accused the former Chief Minister, Om Parkash Chautala, and other politicians of shielding the officer.

Talking to journalists at Panchkula on Thursday, he broke down while narrating the police harassment meted out to him and his family at the behest of Mr. Rathore, who was appointed DGP by Mr. Chautala in 1999.

Demanding a harsher sentence for Mr. Rathore for “abetting in the suicide,” he said had the Hukam Singh government acted against the officer in 1990 on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the then DGP, R.R. Singh, “my daughter would have been alive today.”

Why was Mr. Rathore not charged with “abetment to suicide” though the Special CBI Court at Ambala, where the case was heard initially, held that a case of abetment to suicide was also made out?

Successive Chief Ministers, including Bhajan Lal, the late Bansi Lal and Mr. Chautala “virtually shielded” Mr. Rathore and promoted him, said the father of the girl. The governments did nothing to prevent police harassment of his family when it was framed “in false cases.” It was only the courts that came to the rescue of the family and absolved it of the “fake charges.”

“My daughter was molested, harassed and driven to death. My son was tormented and false cases were filed against him. We were harassed at every stage. We were forced to go into hiding and leave Chandigarh owing to the harassment by Rathore and his colleagues. We were forced to withdraw the complaint as policemen were sent to our house to threaten us,” he said, his voice choking with emotion. “No girl in this country should go through what my daughter went through.”

He said he and his family were still “living in terror” and might have to seek “security,” as Mr. Rathore, who still enjoyed “political patronage and influence with the authorities,” was out on bail. The sentence of six-month imprisonment awarded to Mr. Rathore was “too little, too late,” said the father.

Mr. R.R. Singh and the former Haryana Home Secretary, J.K. Duggal, have said they recommended action against Mr. Rathore, but the political masters refused to initiate any action.

The case, which dragged on for 19 years, tells a long tale of a girl’s family which faced harassment — the girl was turned out of Sacred Heart School here for “indiscipline” and forced to appear for Class 10 board exams from the open school before she committed suicide. Neither the school nor the Haryana police are willing to talk about the “harassment meted out to the family.”

Madhu Prakash, a close friend and one of the complainants, said the fight was on to ensure that the abetment-to-suicide case was reopened and action taken against “those in authority” who harassed the family. However, a senior police officer said on condition of anonymity that it would be difficult to “trace the records” of “harassment” as sometimes such “activities” were “carried out off the record.”

Soon after molestation, the girl was suspended from the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association, then headed by Mr. Rathore. False cases of theft, murder and civil defamation were filed against her father and brother.

In October 1993, the girl’s brother, who was also in his teens, had multiple cases of car theft slapped on him, and was arrested in 11 cases. He was arrested by the Crime Branch of the Panchkula police and kept in illegal detention for more than two months. He was allegedly forced to sign on blank papers, which the police used to show his “confession” that he had stolen 11 cars. Mr. Rathore allegedly asked him to tell his sister that if she did not take back the complaint, her family would face the same action. On December 28, 1993, traumatised by the repeated humiliation and mental agony, the girl consumed poison and died the next day.

Source:http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/25/stories/2009122558040100.htm

A Word From The Taliban

Regarding the Invaders Recent Brutalities.

Remarks of Z. Mujahid, Spokesman of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan


December 18, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- The public of the world, particularly, our country men know that the invading forces usually detain miserable Afghans under various pretexts and then mercilessly torture them. These atrocities have been continuing at the hand of the invaders for the past eight years. Besides these, there are other savageries being committed by the invading forces. Even mass murder has been committed by the cut- throat troops. But the so-called advocates of the human rights and the international community have always turned a blind eye to all these crimes. They have never put out a protest nor issued any word of condemnation, despite that the atrocities have been continuing unabatedly. Here, we present our readers with facts about the following gruesome events:

On October 22, foreign invaders killed two Afghan prisoners and put their dead bodies near Kikorak Shrine in Sabari district. Earlier, the brutal invaders had arrested them in Sara Bagh during a night raid on their houses. One week before this gruesome incident, foreign invaders in Khost, had detained Haji Badshah Khan, a resident of Bak district. They killed him pointblank and put his dead body in a dried river bed near Sara Bagh Bus stop. He had been mercilessly tortured to death by the callous foreign troops. A few days ago, the cut-throat invading forces, detained Nadeem, resident of Ali Sher district and Noor Wazir, resident of Moli area of Sabari district. They were on their way home, riding on motor cycles after doing shopping in Khost Bazaar. The invading American troops signaled them to stop and arrested them forthwith. Then, the brutal soldiers killed them at Khana Kandaw during the night and left their corpses there. They had been tied up with shackles and ropes usually used by American and foreign soldiers. American trained dogs had devoured flesh of their bodies. In Laghman, Kunduz, Zabul and Ghazni provinces, similar brutalities have taken place.

In our view, the cunning and coward enemy suffers material and soul losses every day. They lose dozens of military tanks as a result of face-to-face battles with Mujahideen. Therefore, they vent their revenge on innocent people, to create rift and hatred between Mujahideen and the common people intentionally. But it should be made clear to them, if the enemy resorts to such horrendous actions in order to weaken the morale of the people, so that they would withdraw their support from the Mujahideen., they are wrong. Their inhuman actions will only give rise to creating sensitivities against the invaders and they will face a shameful defeat with the passage of time.

The Afghans have never subjugated by foreign invaders throughout the history nor have they accepted existence of foreign invaders on their soil. They have always struggled in the way of freedom and succeeded, in the long run, in liberating not only their land but lands of other occupied people thanks to their self-less sacrifices.

The people of Khost and human rights entities themselves witnessed the dead bodies of these miserable Afghans. We call on all human right organizations not to remain silent over the massacre of common people any more and conduct a neutral investigation about the killings and live up to the expectation for what they have been established to begin with.

Source:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24222.htm

As Yet Another Year Comes to a Close…

Have you ever thought of how many years you have left? With every sunrise and sunset, we have one day less left in this world. Death does not come to only the old and weak. Death also comes to the young and strong. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Imam Al-Ghazali says: “[Time] is nothing other than your life, and your life is the capital that you use to reach success in the proximity of Allah.”

Wise are the words of the one who said ... "I expect to pass through this world but once; any good therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now; let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again. The Prophet, Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam said: “There is no day upon which the sun rises except that it says, 'O son of Adam, I am a new creation and a witness to your deeds, so use me well, as I will not return until the Day of Judgment'.”

One's time is in fact his age. It is the material of his eternal life either in everlasting joy or painful torture. It passes more quickly than clouds do. It is only the time one dedicates to Allah that constitutes one's real life and age. The rest does not count.” (Ibnul-Qayyim)

In Islam there is no room for slogans like "killing time" In fact; wasting time is much more dangerous than squandering property, because unlike property, time cannot be compensated. You cannot kill time without harming your hereafter! In reality when you kill time, it is time that is really killing you! Free time is a blessing that is overlooked, and not wholly appreciated by many people. The Prophet Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam said: “There are two of Allah's favours that are forgotten by many people: health and free time.”

On the transience of human life, the Prophet Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam said: “I am in this world like a rider who halts in the shade of a tree for a short time, and after taking some rest resumes his journey and leaves the tree behind.” (Tirmidhi)

“When you pass the day and arrive at the evening, do not expect that you will pass night and hope to reach morning, and when you arrive in the morning do not look forward to the evening. While in health, be ready for illness, and while alive, prepare for death.' (Bukhari)

Ibnul Qayyim says: “A sign that Allah despises you is when you find yourself wasting your time with trivial matters; in this way, you miss your chance of going to heaven. A sign that Allah likes you is when you find yourself fulfilling more duties than you have time for.” A famous quote reads: “Don't count every hour in the day, make every hour in the day count.”

May Allah grant us a life that is productive and fruitful. May HE protect us from wasting away our days in frivolous pursuits. Ameen.

Source:http://www.jamiat.co.za/newsletter/online_newsletter_0449.htm

A Step at a Time

It is foolhardy to climb two
trees at once just because
one has two feet.

(Ethiopian Proverb)

Everything happens in the Wisdom of Allah

Message from the Ameer of the Jamiatul Ulama

(This is a re-run of one of the Ameer’s previous messages)

A story is told about a certain King in Africa who had a close friend that he grew up with. The friend had a habit of looking at every situation that ever occurred in his life (positive or negative) by remarking, "This is good, Allah Almighty knows best"

One day the King and his friend were out on a hunting expedition. The friend would load and prepare the guns for the King. The friend had apparently done something wrong in preparing one of the guns, for after taking the gun from his friend, the King fired it and his thumb was blown off. Examining the situation the friend remarked as usual, "This is good! Allah Almighty knows best." To which the King replied, "No, this is NOT good!" and ordered his soldiers to put his friend into jail.

About a year later, the King was hunting in an area that he should have known to stay clear of. Cannibals captured the King and took him to their village. They tied his hands, stacked some wood, set up a stake and bound him to the stake.

As they came near to set fire to the wood, they noticed that the King was missing a thumb. Being superstitious, they never ate anyone who was less than whole. So after untying the King, they chased him out of the village. When the King reached his palace, he was reminded of the event that had taken his thumb and felt remorse for his treatment of his friend. He went immediately to the jail to speak with his friend.

"You were right" the King said, "It was good that my thumb was blown off." And he proceeded to tell the friend all that had just happened. "I am very sorry for sending you to jail for so long. It was bad for me to do this."
"No," his friend replied, "this is good...Allah Almighty knows best"

"What do you mean, 'this is good'! How could it be good that I sent my friend to jail for a year?"

The King's friend replied: "Remember that the Almighty knows best and if I had NOT been in jail, I would have been with you on that hunting trip!"

As Muslims, we should never question the decision of Allah in anything, and we should bear our afflictions with patience. Allah says: "He knows what is before them and what is behind them: And to Allah go back all questions (for decision)" (Surah Al Hajj 22:76)

Do Not Judge Things or Events by its Immediate Outcome!

Almighty, the Most High is the All-Knowledgeable, the All-Knower. He chooses to show us things, but sometimes we are not shown the wisdom behind some things. When we are confronted by circumstances that are not very pleasing and we are quick to say: "This is not good..." but is it really? We might not know the purpose behind it. Thus, when we are faced with any situation, we should not be too quick to judge and always remember that this life is a test and there is nothing that happens for no reason.

Source:http://www.jamiat.co.za/newsletter/online_newsletter_0449.htm

Countdown to climate change

SANA SYED

It is in our hands to save our world.

The countdown has begun. The alarm bell for the rapid change in climate rings even as the the leaders of the world are brainstorming on the issue at Copenhagen (Denmark) to find an effective solution.

The chief reason for climate change is the rise in emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, and others due to industrialisation and technological developments.

The result: sea levels could rise by close to one metre this century in response to a temperature rise of up to one degree from the present levels. This will have severe impact on the coastal flora and fauna.

In India, around 7,000 sq. km of coastal land could submerge byrising sea levels.

A significant portion of this inundation will also occur in our state, informs Farida Tampal, State Director, AP & Coordinator, Education Programme Coordination Group (EPCG), WWF-India

Apart from this, what other obvious consequence of climate change are we facing?

“The symbiotic relationship between plants and animals is getting disturbed with the onslaught. We have already started bearing the brunt with the Sundarban deltas submerging in water, Gangotri glaciers melting and the forests of the Godavari and Krishna river valleys and the Eastern Ghats facing survival threat with rise in temperature.

Insects like the honey bee that are an indispensable link between flora and fauna are hard-hit by such environmental disturbances.

Insects, a crucial link in the eco system are gradually moving towards northern areas”, says B. V. Ramana Murthy, Member Secretary, A.P Biodiversity Board.

“Agriculturally, we can tone down the pollution effect by planting short duration crops like millets.

Unlike wheat or paddy it can grow throughout the year, even in water scarce regions and does not require great amount of fertilizers”, he adds.

Simple measures

Is there nothing we can do at the individual level?

Yes we can. Thanks to the positive outlook of students like Anil, Vamshi and Harsh who think a lot can be done at the personal level.

Apart from conserving energy and preferring public transport, Anil uses recycled goods; Vamshi prefers water cooled in earthen pitchers than refrigerated one and Harsh waters the garden every morning to help the green cause. But their academician C.V.K. Shastri, Dean of Academics, Mathematics and Sciences, Abhyasa School, Toopran takes a dig at the conscience of nation states asking, is it not worthwhile for both the developed and developing nations to be a little less ambitious in terms of technology frenzy and material comfort that is taking the world so near its destruction?

Let's wake up before it's too late.

Fact focus

With temperature increase, flora will be unable to perform vital biological functions

When forests shrink the animals depending on them will face extinction threat

In India, species such as Spotted deer, Sambar, Four horned antelope, Barking deer, Blue Bull and Gaur may disappear

With failing rains, freshwater flora and fauna are also in danger.

Birds like Spoonbill, the White stork, the Painted stork, the Ruddy Shelduck, the Mallard, the Garganey, and others may become extinct

Source:http://www.hindu.com/yw/2009/12/15/stories/2009121551301400.htm

Why Do Airstrikes in Afghanistan Keep Killing Exactly 30 People?

By Megan Carpentier, Air America. Posted December 11, 2009.


Pentagon policy from the Rumsfeld days on acceptable kill rates still seems to be the guiding logic for what field commanders are telling the news media.>

This first appeared on Air America Radio.

On Monday, the anonymous blogger Security Crank noticed something interesting: all the U.S. and NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan seemingly kill exactly 30 people every time. How can that be?

Security Crank documented no less than 12 occasions in which news reports, relying on field commanders' estimates, noted that exactly 30 suspected Taliban were killed in airstrikes and, occasionally, artillery attacks. He said:

But the much more important point remains: how could we possibly have any idea how the war is going, here or anywhere else, when the bad guys seem only to die in groups of 30? The sheer ubiquity of that number in fatality and casualty counts is astounding, to the point where I don’t even pay attention to a story anymore when they use that magic number 30. It is an indicator either of ignorance or deliberate spin… but no matter the case, whenever you see the number 30 used in reference to the Taliban, you should probably close the tab and move onto something else, because you just won’t get a good sense of what happened there.

So, why is it always 30? Do thirty casualties seem like enough to justify a military attack, or few enough to not attract too much attention to an incident?

Another blogger, Joshua Foust of the Central Asia blog Registan, seemingly stumbled upon the answer. In a tweet, he noted:

In 2003, an air strike killing 30 civilians could be launched w/o issues. 31 dead civilians and Rummy had to approve.

Foust then linked to an LA Times article from last July by Nicholas Goldberg that documented what field commanders were told.

In a grisly calculus known as the "collateral damage estimate," U.S. military commanders and lawyers often work together in advance of a military strike, using very specific, Pentagon-imposed protocols to determine whether the good that will come of it outweighs the cost.

We don't know much about how it works, but in 2007, Marc Garlasco, the Pentagon's former chief of high-value targeting, offered a glimpse when he told Salon magazine that in 2003, "the magic number was 30." That meant that if an attack was anticipated to kill more than 30 civilians, it needed the explicit approval of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or President George W. Bush. If the expected civilian death toll was less than 30, the strike could be OKd by the legal and military commanders on the ground.

In other words, the Pentagon determined that 30 casualties, even if they were civilian, were too few to matter politically or to attract the attention of the press for more than a few words. If commanders expected more civilian casualties than that, political leaders had to sign off on the attack in advance to make sure they were prepared for the PR fall-out.

That PR calculus of how many deaths matter to the average American has apparently carried over from the Bush Administration to the Obama Adminstration, at least insofar as ground commanders are concerned. But the American people deserve the truth about how many Afghans--civilian and otherwise--are being killed by our forces. Just because senior officials at the Pentagon think that killing 30 people doesn't warrant their attention doesn't mean they're right.

http://www.alternet.org/world/144509/why_do_airstrikes_in_afghanistan_keep_killing_exactly_30_people/

Despised Life, Fulfilled Life

“A sign that Allah despises you
is when you find yourself
wasting your time with trivial matters; in this way, you miss your chance of going to heaven. A sign that Allah likes you is when you find yourself fulfilling more duties than you have time for.”
(Ibn Qayyim Rahimatullahi ‘alayhi)

Source:http://www.jamiat.co.za/newsletter/online_newsletter_0448.htm

Don’t lose your Imaan

Message from the Ameer of the Jamiatul Ulama

The foundation upon which the entire edifice of the belief and practice of a Muslim is based upon, is the concept of tawheed.

No-one or no being or thing is worthy of worship besides Allah. He is the Creator, Sustainer and Lord of the entire creation-the universe and beyond; He is Everlasting – existing beyond the boundaries of time; He is All-Powerful – absolutely nothing takes place except through His command instruction or permission; He is not dependent upon anything and everything and every being is dependent upon Him; He has no children, parents or family and He has no equal or likeness in any way whatsoever. None deserves or has a right to be worshipped or even respected as He does. He has provided for us in every way, physically and spiritually. We do not require anybody besides Him and we do not need any way other than what He has prescribed. These are only some aspects related to tawheed.

Directly opposed to tawheed is shirk – associating partners with Allah. Shirk is mentioned as the most severe of sins that a person can engage in, and Allah states that He will never forgive the person who is engaged in shirk.

It has been observed that certain practices that work toward destroying the imaan and faith of people have begun to surreptitiously creep into the lives of Muslims. From amongst these practices, two most dangerous ones are:

1. Visiting the various bogus ‘traditional, faith-healers’, ‘herbalists’ or self-proclaimed ‘religious/spiritual healers’. They proclaim to be able to assist in, among others, solving of health and sexual problems, financial difficulties, marriage and social issues and even the ‘winning of the lottery’. The farce of these frauds must be absolutely clear to all sensible persons. The danger of even visiting them ‘for fun’s sake’, in as far as engaging in practices of either direct shirk or close to shirk can never be ignored. Listening to and taking the ‘medication’ of such dubious characters puts a person in the position of risking the loss of his imaan and being thrown out of the fold of Islam.

2. Taking part in ‘trendy’, programmes which claim to have distressing characteristics and are linked to or have their basis in Indian, or other, ancient traditional or religious practices. Ideas that come into open conflict with tawheed are clandestinely and slyly sneaked into the supposed exercises aimed at ‘de-stressing’. Aspects such as becoming ‘one with mother-earth’, ‘greeting the sun’, and the utterances of ‘meaningless’ words or phrases as mantras are only a few examples. A statement by a representative of the Hindu faith explained in a newspaper, last week, that it is impossible to separate yoga from Hinduism.

There is no need to search for help outside of the boundaries of what is allowed or prescribed by the most beautiful and complete deen of Islam. There can be no better way of de-stressing than the performance of salah and engaging in dhikr of Allah.

Tawheed demands that we turn to Allah, and submit fully to Him in every way. We must submit to the Deen of Allah completely and totally, having full faith and conviction in the truth of the message of Islam, believing in the fact that success lies only in what Islam prescribes through the Qur`an and the sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam), and we must submit to all the commands of Allah, without exception. We must know that there is no other way.

Allah (azza wa jalla) says in the Holy Qur`an: O ye who believe! enter into Islam completely; and follow not the footsteps of the Shaytaan; for he is to you an avowed enemy. (2:208)

Source: http://www.jamiat.co.za/newsletter/online_newsletter_0448.htm

Two BJP men, so alike and so different

Vidya Subrahmaniam

The Liberhan Commission provides an opportunity to make a more honest and less black-and-white evaluation of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani.

Critics have panned the Liberhan Commission report on the December 6, 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid on multiple counts, berating Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan especially for placing the Teflon Atal Bihari Vajpayee alongside such accomplished disrupters as Vinay Katiyar, Sadhvi Rithambara and Pravin Togadia.

It is a measure of the rarefied place politics has accorded the former Prime Minister that on Monday the Congress was forced to jump on the ‘save Vajpayee’ bandwagon. Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Salman Khursheed, Minister for Minority Affairs, all but regretted Mr. Vajpayee’s inclusion in the list of 68 men and women whom the Liberhan report held culpable for the Babri crime. Hardly anyone objected to the presence of Lal Krishna Advani’s name on the same list.

The judge’s conclusions are undoubtedly problematic. Unlike Mr. Advani who was in the thick of pre- and post-demolition action in Ayodhya, Mr. Vajpayee was all along on the sidelines. Yet in conferring this dubious honour on the former Prime Minister, the learned judge unwittingly broke the enduring stereotype of “moderate-Vajpayee” and “hardline Advani,” thereby providing an opportunity for a more honest and less black-and-white appraisal of the former Prime Minister and his deputy.

The celebration of Mr. Vajpayee has grown inversely with the popularity of his party, reaching hagiographic proportions in the currently adrift Bharatiya Janata Party. Mr. Advani’s inability to arrest the BJP’s precipitous decline, and the impression he has given of clinging to position, have only added to the Vajpayee persona and aura.

The Liberhan Commission report provides the perfect backdrop for re-evaluating the two key figures who, between them, shaped the BJP’s fortunes. Under their watch, the party scaled great heights as it plumbed the depths but, more relevantly, it grew from a sidelined introvert to a fearsome bully capable of repeatedly pushing the country to the brink. Analysts have judged Mr. Advani more guilty of divisive politics than Mr. Vajpayee, and not without reason. Mr. Advani was visibly in command whenever the BJP ran amok, as was the case during the Ram rath yatra, which he used to whip up frenzy and which inevitably set the stage for the destruction of the Babri Masjid.

By contrast, the former Prime Minister was famously toasted as the “right man in the wrong party.” He would be in the background as Mr. Advani rallied and thundered, emerging to take his place at the top once the BJP began to assimilate the limitations of combative politics. Mr. Advani was the chosen one as far as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was concerned. The RSS distrusted Mr. Vajpayee, and would not easily accept the transition to the Vajpayee era. But as the former Deputy Prime Minister himself records in his book, My Country, My Life, the ideologue was ill-suited to forge electoral partnerships, which alone could place the BJP within the reach of power. Who better to drive the coalition than the “liberal-secular” Mr. Vajpayee?

Mr. Vajpayee’s accomplishments are many, and it is entirely to his credit that the BJP-led alliance ruled for six years. But his vulnerabilities have been numerous too, though such has been the Vajpayee myth that he could move to the periphery when a wrong was done, and win commendations when a right happened.

Indeed, a dispassionate reading of the BJP’s history will establish not only Mr. Vajpayee’s frequent excursions into “communal” territory but also his failure to frontally confront the RSS despite being uniquely placed to do so. Ironically, and probably for all the wrong reasons, that job was done by Mr. Advani. In a speech delivered at the party’s national executive in Chennai on September 18-19, 2005, the former Home Minister showed the RSS its place in a manner that went beyond anything attempted by Mr. Vajpayee and which is unlikely to be equalled by any future BJP leader. Long ago, in August 1979, Mr. Vajpayee did write an article in the Indian Express, critical of the RSS but that was by a compact with the BJP’s mentor. The Jana Sangh, which was under pressure to renounce the RSS, needed to save its place in the Janata Party. Mr. Vajpayee’s piece was intended to suggest distance between the Jana Sangh members of the Janata Party and the RSS.

Mr. Vajpayee was a schoolboy when he penned a poem which went on to attain fame beyond the imagination of a child his age. The lyrics, Hindu tan man, Hindu jeevan, rag, rag mera Hindu parichay (I am Hindu in heart and body, my life is Hindu, Hindu is my only identity), inspired many generations of RSS volunteers and continues to be sung at RSS shakhas. Obviously, the song was justified by the path he took. Mr. Vajpayee joined the RSS and was among the first batch of pracharaks to migrate to the Jana Sangh.

In 1983, Mr. Vajpayee hit the headlines for a speech he made during the violent Assam election which was fought on the foreigners’ issue, and which saw the massacre of over 2000 mostly Muslim men and women in Nellie. The BJP disowned the speech. However, thanks to the irrepressible Indrajit Gupta, who read out excerpts from it in the Lok Sabha while debating the motion of confidence moved by Mr. Vajpayee on May 28, 1996, we now know what he said. And what Mr. Vajpayee said (about foreigners being chopped into pieces) is not very different from what Varun Gandhi would say a quarter of a century later, winning universal approbation for the violent, divisive imagery he evoked.

This was not the only occasion when Mr. Vajpayee slipped into libellous language. He did so as Prime Minister. In the aftermath of the 2002 Gujarat pogrom, he famously asked “kisne lagayee aag? (who lit the fire?),” and went on to insinuate that Muslims cannot co-exist with non-Muslims. A hallmark of Mr. Vajpayee’s career has been his effortless ability to flip-flop between statesmanlike large-heartedness and pandering to the vile instincts of a raw swayamsevak. He rose to towering heights when he visited the Minar-e-Pakistan, when he pushed for peace with our western neighbour and when he reached out to Kashmiris. No assessment of Mr. Vajpayee can be complete without acknowledging that Kashmir held its first free and fair election under a government headed by him.

But then there is also the string of self-indicting statements — while on a visit to Staten Island in September 2000, he shared a platform with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and declared himself a swayamsevak first. Three months later, on the anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition, he described the construction of the Ram temple as “a national sentiment” that awaited fulfilment. It was an impolitic thing to say on a day that commemorated the Masjid’s brutal end. In the Lok Sabha, Jaipal Reddy would describe the remark as the “slip of the mask.” Yet Mr. Vajpayee got away with it because with characteristic aplomb he would soon make a u-turn — handing out the assurance from distant Kumarakom that any solution to Ayodhya would have to be “peaceful and amicable.”

What sets Mr. Vajpayee apart from Mr. Advani is the former’s instinctive reaction to situations. He could change colour and tone so often and so quickly that critics would tear their hair trying to pin him down to one position. For every comment that Mr. Vajpayee made, there would be a counter comment with an escape clause.

Those who know the former Prime Minister insist that he was genuinely stricken by the enormity of December 6, 1992, and wrote out his resignation in atonement. A month into the cataclysmic climax, Mr. Vajpayee himself acknowledged the speculation, saying in witty verse, “jaaye to jaaye kahan? (where do I go?)”. And yet in March 2005, the weekly magazine Outlook produced a video recording of a speech he made in Lucknow on December 5, 1992, which captured a relaxed Mr. Vajpayee quite enjoying the prospect of karsevaks gathering in strength at Ayodhya. “Kar seva rok ne ka sawal hi nahi hai (no question of stopping the kar seva),” he asserted, adding that it was natural for people to assemble in large numbers for it.

When Mr. Advani tried the somersault, he landed on his nose. This is because he could never multi-task like his senior colleague. Mr. Advani breathed so much fire during the Ayodhya agitation that the embers virtually extinguished his career. His Jinnah Avatar did not work because his audience was not trained to accept deviations from the Ayodhya warrior. Nonetheless, history will record that Mr. Advani went where Mr. Vajpayee dared not go. Asked to resign for the Jinnah adventure, Mr. Advani lambasted the RSS: “But lately an impression has gained ground that no political or organisation decision can be taken without the consent of the RSS functionaries. This perception, we hold, will do no good either to the party [BJP] or the RSS…”

Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Advani come from the same stock and subscribe to a common divisive worldview. Except one was clever enough to appear different and the other tried but failed.

Source:http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/09/stories/2009120954940800.htm

Pakistan is a target and not a US ally

Band of five, USA-UK-Israel-India-Afghanistan have ganged up to trap Pakistan under the garb of friendship so that it could be denuclearised and ultimately reduced to a vassal state.

Mon, 2009-12-07 01:12 — editor

By Asif Haroon Raja

Either Obama Administration is totally confused or is inept or is purposely behaving wickedly. What is certain is that it is not behaving straight and with honesty of purpose? Lot of hopes were pinned on Obama in the Muslim world that he will undo the wrongs inflicted upon the Muslims by Bush led draconian regime. Instead of getting rid of highly unpopular war in Afghanistan Obama inherited from Bush, he has got tied to it.

As against overwhelming support Bush received from Americans to invade and occupy Afghanistan, Obama is confronted with divided opinion. Majority seeks end to war and withdrawal of US troops while shrinking minority want continuation of futile war and are in favour of sending more troops into the inferno of Afghanistan till the accomplishment of unachievable objectives.

Ignoring the sentiments of majority in America, Obama opted to take the unpopular decision of sending additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan. He hopes that troop surge would help in stabilising deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan not realising that it will result in more destruction and bloodshed on both sides and also contribute towards instability of Pakistan. In other words he would be reinforcing failure. Americans suffering under back breaking taxes, spiralling prices due to rising inflation and unemployment are least interested in senseless Afghan war. They want jobs, healthcare, homes and early return of their near and dear ones who have been pushed into the inferno of Afghanistan.

Irrespective of divided opinion on Afghanistan, both Republicans and Democrats place Pakistan in bad books and India in good books. Ignoring huge sacrifices rendered by Pakistan in fighting US war on terror, the US regards Pakistan as a tactical partner and India as a strategic ally. It has taken India, Israel, Afghanistan and UK on board but kept Pakistan out of the loop although it doesn’t tire saying that Pakistan is its strategic partner and is doing a very fine job and without its support the US cannot hope to win war in Afghanistan. It is playing a crude joke with Pakistan since all what it is professing is humbug and far from truth since Pakistan is a target and not an ally. USA is not only concerned about its own homeland security but also of Israel, India and Afghanistan but is least concerned about Pakistan security. Band of five, USA-UK-Israel-India-Afghanistan have ganged up to trap Pakistan under the garb of friendship so that it could be denuclearised and ultimately reduced to a vassal state. While preparing India for carrying out two-directional war, all efforts are geared towards achieving their objectives without applying military instrument since it has an element of risk. Application of covert means to weaken institutions and destabilise Pakistan as a whole is the preferred course of action.

US leaders speak with a forked tongue. While one official praises Pakistan Army but soon after another official says something quite opposite which further vitiates the atmosphere. Same kind of duplicitous stance is adopted on our nuclear program. While some say that Pakistan has set up a robust security system, but it is soon contradicted by someone else saying that nuclear sites are unsafe. Pakistan on one hand is incessantly pushed by USA to do more and on the other it expresses its mistrust and lack of confidence. It ignores cross border terrorism of RAW and RAAM against Pakistan taking place right under its nose but joins hands with the two to malign Pakistan on similar charges. Any act of terror taking place in India and Afghanistan is promptly lumped on ISI. While the US is trying hard to negotiate with Afghan Taliban, it bars Pakistan from talking to any militant faction in Pakistan including Tehrik-e-Taliban, which is sponsored by RAW. It also wants Pakistan to gun down Afghan Shura allegedly based in Quetta without providing intelligence. It provides aid tied to stringent conditions but deceptively takes back half of it as service charges, counselling, coordination fee and still keeps censuring Pakistan that aid money has been pilfered.

Appointment of Richard Holbrooke as coordinator for Pak-Afghan affairs, framing of Pakistan specific Af-Pak policy, making Afghanistan-Pakistan into single battle zone, placing Al-Qaeda leadership including Osama in FATA knowing full well that he is dead since long, positioning Mullah Omar and his Shura in Quetta, acceleration of drone attacks in Waziristan against pro-Pakistan elements, threatening to send forces into FATA, insisting upon Pakistan that India is no threat to Pakistan and it should move all its forces from eastern to western border to fight the militants, assigning key position to India in Afghan affairs, ignoring Pakistan protests and closing its eyes to cross border terrorism of RAW from Afghan soil, slanderous media warfare to undermine Pakistan and its premier institutions, mistrusting ISI and the army and wishing the ISI to be placed under total control of civilians, projecting Pak nuclear assets unsafe, putting economy in the stranglehold of IMF and leadership in the grip of Washington, issuance of harsh Kerry-Lugar Bill to rob Pakistan of its sovereignty point towards biased and discriminatory posture of Washington. Obama Administration is repeating old policy of Bush regime based on lies and deception.

When the time and circumstances were favourable for USA and people of Afghanistan and Pakistan wanted USA to stay put, it decided to quit in indecent haste. Now when political and military environments are unfavourable and people of the two affected countries are keen that US troops should exit, it doesn’t want to leave on the plea that it must not commit the same mistake of ditching Pakistan and Afghanistan again. Those constantly advising US leaders not to abdicate but to increase military presence and convert Afghanistan into a permanent military base fail to realise that ground situation has undergone a radical change. The US today is seen as an opportunist imperialist power and Muslim basher. It is seen as a betrayer who had used Muslim fighters as cannon fodder to serve its selfish interests and when the time came to recompense them for their colossal sacrifices rendered they were ditched at a time when they needed their support the most to rebuild devastated Afghanistan. They were betrayed and converted from holy warriors to terrorists, hounded, put in infamous Guantanamo jail and mercilessly killed by trigger happy US forces in Afghanistan.

Pakistanis too have genuine grievances against USA for leaving them in a lurch after playing a key role in defeating Soviet forces which paved the way for fragmentation of Soviet Empire. Instead of rewarding Pakistan for sacrifices rendered, the US opted to penalise it by putting it under harsh sanctions for a full decade and befriending India that was part of Soviet camp and had decried USA. It is again playing a wicked game by sidelining Afghan Pashtuns including the Taliban that had ruled Afghanistan effectively from 1996 onwards till they were forcibly dethroned. It is supporting highly unpopular US stooge Karzai and non-Pashtun war lords of Northern Alliance.

The US doesn’t want Pakistan to sink, but it also doesn’t want it to become politically, militarily and economically healthy and starts pursuing an independent foreign policy. The US would prefer an unhealthy Pakistan, dependent upon oxygen provided by USA and subservient to India. Like Bush, Obama too is pursuing imperialist agenda. His decision to send additional US troops to Afghanistan is a precursor for physical intervention into Pakistan so as to secure US objectives in Middle East and Central Asia. For the attainment of vast energy resources, it is essential for USA to assert its military and geo-political ascendancy over these strategic regions. All those nurturing fond hopes that Pakistan is an ally of USA and hence out of danger should keep its finger crossed. Ongoing acts of terror are coordinated by invisible hands. Coming months are crucial for Pakistan.

- Asian Tribune -

Source: http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2009/12/07/pakistan-target-and-not-us-ally

How the recession has changed US consumer behavior

Companies waiting for a return to normality following the recession may be disappointed. Their customers have tried cheaper products—and actually like them.

DECEMBER 2009 • Betsy Bohlen, Steve Carlotti, and Liz Mihas
Source: Retail Practice

While the downturn has certainly changed the economic landscape, it may also have fundamentally altered the behavior of numerous US consumers, who are now learning to live without expensive products. Many companies with strong premium brands are anticipating a rapid rebound in consumer behavior—a return to normality, as after previous recessions. They are likely to be disappointed.
New McKinsey research1 found that, in any given category, an average of 18 percent of consumer-packaged-goods consumers bought lower-priced brands in the past two years. Of the consumers who switched to cheaper products, 46 percent said they performed better than expected, and the large majority of these consumers said the performance of such products was much better than expected. As a result, 34 percent of the switchers said they no longer preferred higher-priced products, and an additional 41 percent said that while they preferred the premium brand, it “was not worth the money.”
As a result, a growing number of consumers are now in play. The percentage up for grabs varies by category and depends on how many consumers switch from higher-priced brands, their experience with cheaper ones, and the way they revise their buying intentions.

Taken from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Retail_Consumer_Goods/Strategy_Analysis/How_the_recession_has_changed_US_consumer_behavior_2477

Taliban's Official View

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST COMPASSIONATE, THE MOST MERCIFUL

LECTURE: Taliban in Afghanistan

Syed Rahmatullah Hashimi

(Senior Advisor to Amir ul-Mu'mineen, Mullah 'Umar, Afghanistan)

MARCH 10, 2001

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

*Note: [--] Indicate words that were not heard clearly in the recording.

I was just coming from [a meeting with] a group of scholars, and the first thing we started there was the statues. And the first thing we started here was also the statues. It s very unfortunate how little we see and how little we know. And it really confuses me, if people really know that

little or not. Nobody has seen the problems of Afghanistan; nobody saw their problems before. And the only thing that represents Afghanistan today are the statues.

The problem of Afghanistan was not new. As you know that Afghanistan is called, The Crossroads of Asia. So, we are suffering because of our geo-strategic location. We have suffered in the 18th century, 19th century, and we are still suffering in this century.

We have not attacked the British. We have not attacked the Russians. It was them who attacked us. So the problems in Afghanistan you see is not our creation. That reflects the image of the world. If you don t like the image in the mirror, do not break the mirror; break your face.

The problems in Afghanistan started in 1979. Afghanistan was a peaceful country and it was doing its own job. The Russians, along with their 140,000 troops attacked Afghanistan in the December of 1979, just 21 years ago, stayed there for a decade, killed one and a half million people, maimed one million more people, and six million out of the eighteen million people migrated because of the Russian brutalities. Even today, our children are dying because of the landmines that they planted for us. And nobody knows about this.

After the Russians left during the Russian occupation, on the other side, the American government, the British government, the French, the Chinese, and all of the rest, supported the counter-revolutionaries called the Mujahideen; 7 parties only in Pakistan and 8 parties in Iran who fought the Russian occupation. And after the Russians left, these parties went into Afghanistan. All of them had different ideologies, a lot of weapon[s]. And instead of having a single administration, they fought in Afghanistan. The destruction that they brought was worse than the destruction the Russians brought. 63,000 people were only killed in the capitol, Kabul. Seeing all this chaos, and the complete destruction of our country, and I don t have to forget that after the Soviets left, another million people migrated because of the lawlessness that existed in

Afghanistan 7 million people.

So seeing this destruction and lawlessness, a group of students called the Taliban (Taliban is the plural word of students in our language; it may be two students in Arabic, but in our language it means students) so a group of students started a movement called the Movement of Students. It first started in a village in the southern province of Afghanistan, called Kandahar. It happened when a war-lord, or a commander abducted two minor girls, raped them, and the parents of those girls went to a school and asked the teacher of the school to help them. The teacher of that school, along with his 53 students, finding only 16 guns, went and attacked the base of that commander. After releasing those two girls, they hanged that commander, and so many of their [the commander s] people were also hanged. This story was told everywhere; and this was called the terrorist story of the Taliban, or the Students. BBC also quoted this story. Seeing or hearing this story, many other students joined this movement and started disarming the rest of the warlords, who were worse than these. I will not prolong this story so far, this same students movement controls 95% of the country; they captured the capitol, including the four major cities. And only a bunch of those warlords are remaining in the northern corridor of Afghanistan.

So our achievements are as follows. We are in a government for only five years, and the following things that we have done, and many of you may not know:

* The first thing we have done is reunify the fragmented country. Afghanistan was formerly fragmented into five parts. The first thing we have done is to reunify that country. The United Nations, the United States, everybody was confused as to how to reunify that country, and

nobody could do it. First thing we have done is to reunify that country.

* Second thing we have done, which everybody failed to do, was disarming a population. After dealing [with] the war of the Russians, and the Americans I would say, every Afghan got a Kalashnikov, and even sophisticated weapons such as stinger missiles, and they even got fighter planes and fighter helicopters. So disarming these people was impossible. The United Nations in 1992 passed an appeal asking for 3 billion dollars to re-purchase that arms, to start a process of repurchasing those arms. And suddenly, because of its impracticalibility, that plan never materialized, and everybody forgot about Afghanistan. So the second thing we have done is to disarm 95% of that country.

* And the third thing that we have done is to establish a single administration under Afghanistan, which did not exist for 10 years.

* And the fourth achievement that we have that is surprising to everybody is that we have eradicated 75% of all worlds Opium cultivation. Afghanistan produced 75% of all worlds Opium. The drug, you know that Opium? The Narcotics business? And last year we issued an

edict asking the people to stop growing Opium, and this year, the United Nations Drug Control Program, UNDCP, and their head, [Mr.] Barnard F., proudly announced that there was 0% of Opium cultivation. Not at all. And this was not a good news for UN itself because many of them lost their jobs. In the UNDCP, 700 so called experts were working there and they got their salaries and they! never went into Afghanistan. So when we issued this edict, I know that they were not happy. And this year they lost their jobs. And this was our fourth achievement.

* The fifth achievement that we have, but it s a little controversial, some of our friends will not know is the restoration of Human rights. Now, YOU may think that is a violation of Human Rights, but from OUR perspective that is the restoration of Human Rights. Because usually [among] the fundamental rights of a human being is the right to Live. Before us, nobody could live peacefully in Afghanistan. So the first thing we have done, begun [to give] to the people is a secure and peaceful life. The second major thing that we have restored is to give them free and fair justice; you don t have to buy justice, unlike here. You will have justice freely. And you have criticized us for violating women s rights; now, who knows what happened before us. Only some symbolic schools, or symbolic posts were given to some women in the ministry, and that was called the restoration of women s rights. I can see some Afghans living here, and they will agree with me, that in the rural areas of Afghanistan, women were used as animals. They were SOLD actually. The first thing we have done is to give the self-determination to women, and it happened not in the history of Afghanistan. Throughout the history of Afghanistan, during all the so-called civilized kings or whatever, they didn t give this right to women, so women were sold.! They didn t have the right to select their husbands, or to reject their husbands. First thing we have done is to let them choose their future. And you will know that throughout south Asia, women are killed under the title of honor killings. It happens when a woman s relation is detected with a man, whether or not the relation was sexual, they're both killed. But now this is not happening in our country. And the third thing that happened only in Afghanistan, was women were exchanged as gifts; this was not something religious; this was something cultural. When two tribal tribes were fighting among themselves, then in order to get their tribal issue reconciliated, they would exchange women, and then [they]! would make, or announce reconciliation. And this has been stopped. If we [had to give] fundamental rights of woman, we had to start from zero; we couldn t jump in the middle. Now you ve asked me about the rights of women s education and the rights of women's work. Unlike what is said here, women do work in Afghanistan. You're right that until 1997 I mean, in 1996 when we captured the capitol Kabul, we did ask women to stay home. It didn t mean that we wanted them to stay at home forever, but nobody listened to us. We said that there is no law, and there is no order, and have to stay at home. They were raped before us, ever! yday. So, after we disarmed the people, and after we brought law and order, and now women are working. You are right that women are not working in the ministry of defense, like here. We don t want our women to be fighter pilot[s], or to be used as objects of decoration for advertisements. But they do work. They work in the Ministry of Health, Interior, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social Affairs, and so on. So, and we don t have any problem with women s education. We have said that we want education, and we will have education whether or not we are under anybody s pressure, because that is part of our belief. We are ordered to do that. When we say that there should be segregated schools, it does not mean that we don t want our

women to be educated. It is true that we are against co-education; but it is not true that we are against women s education. We do have schools even now, but the problem is the resources. We cannot expand these programs. Before, our government there were numerous curriculums that

were going on; there were curriculums which preached the king for the kings, and there were curriculums which preached for the communists, and there were curriculums from all these seven parties [the previously mentioned]. So, the Students were confused as to what to study, and the first we have done today is to unify that curriculum, and that s going on. But we are criticized, and we say that instead of criticism, if you just help us once, that will make a difference. Because criticism will not make a difference. If you [talk?] criticism from New York, thousands of miles away, we don t care. But if you come there and help us, we do care. So actually there are more girls students studying in the faculty of medical sciences than boys are. This is not me who is saying this, it is the United Nations who has announced this. Recently we reopened the faculty of medical science in all major cities of Afghanistan and in Kandahar, there are more girl students than boys. But they are segregated. And the Swedish committees have also established schools for girls. I know they are not enough, but that s what we can do. So, that

is what I say that we have restored. I don t say we are 100% perfect, and nobody will say that they are 100% perfect. We do have shortcomings, and we do need to amend our policies. But we can t do everything over night.

* And the sixth problem, that we are... is it sixth or seventh? Seventh I think the seventh problem that we are accused of is Terrorism, or the existence of terrorists in Afghanistan. And for Americans terrorism or terrorist means only bin Laden. Now you will not know that Afghanistan,

or bin Laden was in Afghanistan 17 years before even we existed. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, fought the Soviet Union, and Mr. Ronald Reagan, the president of America in that time, and Dick, Mr. Dick Chaney called such people freedom fighters or the Heroes of Independence, because they were fighting for their cause. So Osama bin Laden was one of those guys who was instigated by such media reports, so in that provocation by these countries to go to Afghanistan and fight the Soviets there. And now when the Soviet Union is fragmented, such people were not needed anymore, and they were transformed into terrorists from heroes to terrorists. So exactly like Mr. Yassir Arafat was transformed from a terrorist to a hero. So we don t know as to what is the definition of Terrorism. We do regret that the terrorists were actually horrific acts and they were terrorist acts. But if they are terrorist acts, what is the difference between those terrorist acts and the attacks on Afghanistan when in 1998 attacks, cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan. Neither of the two were declared and both of them killed civilians. So we are confused as to what is the definition of Terrorism. If it means killing civilians blindly, both of them killed civilians blindly. And the fact is, I m not going to be offensive or rude, or rude about this, I m going to be frank. And I think it s sometimes honest to be rude. If the United States that it has acted for its defense, lets see. The United States government tried to kill a man without even giving him a fair trial. In 1998, they just sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan and they announced that they were trying to kill Osama bin Laden. We didn't know Osama bin Laden then. I didn t know him; he was just a simple man. So we were all shocked. I was one of those men who was sitting at home at night, I was called for an immediate council meeting and we all were told the United States have attacked Afghanistan. With 75 cruise missiles and trying to kill one man. And they missed that man; killed 19 other students and never apologized for those killings. So what would you do if you were in our status; if we were to go and send 75 cruise missiles into the United States and say that we were going to kill a man that we thought not believed that we thought was responsible for our embassy, and we missed that man, and we killed 19 other Americans what would the United States do? An instant declaration of war. But we we! re polite. We didn't declare war. We had a lot of problems at home; we didn't t want further problem[s]. And since then, we are very open-minded on this issue. We have said, that if really this man is involved in the Kenya/Tanzania acts, if anybody can give us proof or evidence about his involvement in these horrific acts, we will punish him. Nobody gave us evidence. We put him on trial for 45 days and nobody gave us any kind of evidence. The fact is that the United States told us they did not believe in our judicial system. We were surprised as to what kind of judicial system they have. They showed us as to what they are doing to the people they just tried to kill a man without even giving him a fair trial, even if one of us is a criminal here, the police is not going to blow his house, he must go to a court first. So, that was rejected. Our first proposal, despite all these things, was rejected. They said they will not believe in our judicial system, and we must give him to New York. The second proposal that we gave after the rejection of this first proposal we gave was, we are ready to accept an international monitoring group to come into Afghanistan and monitor this man s activities in Afghanistan. So that he does nothing. Even that he has no telecommunications [--]. That proposal was also rejected. And the third proposal we gave, six months ago, was that we were ready, that we were ready to try or accept a third Islamic country s decision, or the trial of [--] in a third Islamic country, with consent of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that was also rejected. So we don t know, as to what is the problem behind. If bin Laden was the only issue, we are still very open minded, and for the fourth time, I m here, with a letter from my leadership that I m going to submit to the state department hoping that they will resolve the problem. But I don t think so [that] they'll solve the problem. Because we think, and I personally think now that maybe the United States is looking for a Boogy Man always. Remember what Gorbachev said? He said, that he s going to do the worst thing ever to the United States. And everybody thought that he s going to blow the United States with nuclear weapon[s]. But he said, "I m going to remove their enemy". And then he fragmented Soviet Union. And he was right. After he fragmented Soviet Union, a lot of people lost their jobs in the Pentagon, in the CIA, and the FBI, because they were not needed anymore. So we think that maybe these guys are looking for a Boogy Man now. Maybe they want to justify their annual budget, maybe they want to make their citizens feel that they are still needed to defend them. Afghanistan is not a terrorist state; we cannot even make a needle. How are we going to be a terrorist state? How are we going to be a threat to the world? If the world terrorism is really derived from the word terror , then there are countries making weapons of mass destruction, countries making nuclear weapons, forest deforestation, soil, air, and water pollution they are terrorist states; we are not. We cannot even make a needle; how are we going to be a threat to the world? So as I said in the beginning, the situation in Afghanistan is not our creation. The situation in Afghanistan reflects the world s image. If you don t like the image in the mirror, do not break the mirror; break your face.

Now, we are under sanctions. And the sanctions have caused a lot of problems, despite that we are going under so many problems, the 23 years of continuous war, the total destruction of our infrastructure, and the problem of refugees, and the problem of land mines in our agricultural

lands, all of a sudden the United Nations, with the provocation of Russia, is imposing sanctions on Afghanistan. And the sanctions have been approved; we are under sanctions. Several hundred children died a month ago, here it is (holds up pamphlet). Seven hundred children died because of malnutrition and the severe cold weather. Nobody even talked about that. Everybody knows about t! he statues. For us, we are surprised, that the world is destroying our future with economic sanctions, then they have no right to worry about our past. Everybody is saying that they are destroying their heritage they don t have any right to talk about that. They are destroying the future of our children with economic sanctions, how are they going to justify talking about our past? I know it s not rational and logical to blow the statues for, for retaliation of economic sanctions. But this is how it is. I called, after this announcements, I called my headquarters, and I found out, I was really confused, I asked them, why are they going to blow the statues, and I talked to the head of the council of scholars of people, who had actually decided this, he told me that UNESCO and NGO from Sweden, or from one of these Scandinavian countries Norway, Sweden, one of these they had actually come, with a project of rebuilding the face of these statues, which have worn by rain. So the council of people had told them to spend that money in saving the lives of these children, instead of spending that money to [restore these] statues. And these guys said that, No, this money is only for the statues. And the people were really pissed off. They said that, If you don t care about our children, we are going to blow those statues.

[Person from the Audience yells, Takbeer! ]

[Audience responds, Allahu Akbar! ]

I don t say that he s right or wrong, the decision is yours. Think of yourself. If you are in such a problem, what would you do? If your children are dying in front of your eyes, and you are under sanctions, and then the same people who have imposed sanctions and are coming and

building statues here? What will you do? So, I talked to my headquarters today, and they said that the statues have not been blown so far. But the people are so angry. They are really angry, they want to blow them. And there is Kofi Annan is going, you know Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of United Nations? He went to [--], to Pakistan, and he said he s going to meet our representative there. This man never bothered to enter, to talk about these children, he never bothered himself to talk about six million refugees, and he never talked about [the] poverty of Afghanistan. He only goes to that region because of these statues. And the OIC is also, they ve also sent a mission to go to Kabul and talk about those statues. So we re really confused. That the world is really caring about the statues, and then they don t care about human beings. I don t say we have to retaliate in blowing the statues; we have not done that. But if we were to destroy those statues! , we would have destroyed them three years before now, because we captured those areas those areas three years before now. We didn t want to blow them. And now the situation has come, and it s not our decision. This is the decision of the scholars and the people. And that is the decision has been approved by the Supreme Court. We cannot reject this decision. So these guys are there, the OIC and some, even I think some ministers from different countries are there to save the lives of these statutes. I think they will not be blown because of the concerns of these people. But it is really, really ridiculous. These people do no! t care about children, about people who are dying there, about the foreign interference that still exists, they only care about the statues. And I m sure they don t care about our heritage. They don t care about our heritage; they only care about their picnic site one time. Maybe they ll have a good picnic site there, seeing those statues. They don t care about our heritage, I m sure. If they were to care about our past, they wouldn t destroy our future. And I m sure these sanctions which are imposed on our government will never change us, because for us, our ideology is everything. To try to change our ideology with economic sanctions will never work. It may work i! n the United States, where the economy is everything, but for us, our ideology is everything. [--] And we believe that it is better to die for something than to live for nothing.

We are still open-minded. We are still, we have still opened our doors for negotiations, but our offices are closed everywhere our office was closed in New York a week ago. They are trying to shut our offices in other countries, trying to isolate us, and they don t know that isolation is

counter-productive. Because they don t have experts; the only experts they have are those people who speak English. They don t even speak the language. Those experts who are advising the sanctions, or the sanction committee have not even been to Afghanistan. And they are setting benchmarks for us to achieve.

I m prolonging this speech, I m sorry, because I have been repeating it everywhere, so I may have left some thing in it, and I will let you ask me questions.

[Applause from Audience]

***Important Note: What follows are some of the answers to some of the questions that were asked during the Question and Answer session. Most of the questions were not included due to the poor recording. Apologies for the inconvenience.***

[A questioner asks about the statement he heard on the radio from the Afghan former minister (Mutawakkil) confirming that the statues have been destroyed, and further adds, Does that mean the statues of Hindus and Sikhs will also be destroyed? He further asked that since the destruction of the statues was done in retaliation, Was it really saving the children? (it was asked in a provocative manner)]

Thank you very much and unfortunately again, the first question is the statues. So the statues as I told you, have not been destroyed so far. And I have contacted my headquarters there, and if they were destroyed, then people would not bother going there; as I told you Kofi Annan is there, OIC is there, and our foreign minister is there. And for us, as he [the questioner] said that Mutawakkil has said that [that the statues have been destroyed], I don t think he has said that they are destroyed. He said that [that the statues have not been destroyed]. And I don t reject this. They raised an edict which says these [the statues] should be! blown. And we are not against Buddhists; absolutely wrong. We are not against any religion. There are Hindus living in Afghanistan; there are different religions. There is one man who is a Jew living in Afghanistan.

[Audience laughs]

So we are not against any religion. And there is no Buddhist in Afghanistan, this I can say. In our religion, if anything, you can leave anything until it is not harmful to you. If these Buddhas were not harmful to us, so far. But now when the money is going to Buddhas reconstruction, and the children are dying next door, we think it's harmful now. Not we think, the people think. And I told you that this decision is taken by the council of scholars and the council of people. And has been approved by the Supreme Court. And the media is saying everywhere that it is an edict by our leadership. Have you ever seen our leadership on TV? Have you ever seen or heard him (Mullah Umar) on international radio? He has never been on radio, so it's absolutely wrong that we issued an edict. I do agree that there is an edict, but by the council of people and the scholars, and has been approved by the Supreme Court, but has not been implemented so far. Is it enough? You know, really, I am asked so much about these statues that I have a headache now. If I go back to Afghanistan, I will blow them.

[Audience laughs]

[Questioner asks about the infighting between Mujahideens now. He asks, in the past we knew that there was one common enemy (the Russians) and it was easy to support the Mujahideen but now it s the groups of Mujahideens fighting between each other. How do you explain this?]

They [the different Mujahideen groups] killed so many people, and there were so many problem[s]. And that s why we started our movement. It s all in these people. They didn't t fight for Shari ah, or they didn't fight for Afghanistan, they only fought for their future post in power. So we, as I told you that, we finished that. And only now, we have one opposition headed by Ahmed Shah Masood. And we don t have much problems with him. We had talks with his representative in Ashkabad in Ramadhaan this year, and I was there. So, we say that he failed in bringing about a constitution, a unified gove! rnment; he could not even unify the capitol, Kabul. So we did all these things. So we asked him, despite that he controls nothing, except 5% in the mountains, and we have said we are still open-minded. We agree that he should have a post, because he has fought the Russians. And in `98, we agreed on a joint government; actually, I was also there, so we agreed in giving them three ministries and accepting their judicial system merging with our judicial system, and giving them three or four district or provincial governors or something like that. And they agreed on that. Our, on our part, we asked them to give us their weapons, because the problem in Afghanistan is not political differences. The problem in Afghanis! tan is the weapons. Everybody has had weapons, and now if they are fighting us, it is not because of our very much ideological differences; it s because of weapons. There were a lot of weapons before, and you know, the Afghans will know that so many times they tried to have one government and then after a week or so, they fought, because all of them got different defense ministries, and they would fight. So now we have said that the problems in Afghanistan is not the political problem; it is the arms which exist. We are, we will accept them to be in our government if he accepts to give his arms to the Ministers of Defense. We have no problem however.

[A questioner asked, As Salaamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuh. Brother, Afghanistan is now supposed to be a Muslim country, Insha Allah. And these statues are just like the statues in Makkah, when Rasoolillah (saws) came to Makkah, and it was the very first thing that he did was to destroy the statues. What is taking us so long? Why aren't they destroyed already? [Audience laughs, some say Takbeer]

So, I don t know what to say. We don t have any Buddhists as I told you; we have to look at the problems of the Muslim minorities in some countries. So we do not want to create problems for them, that' s why we are still waiting, and we hope that we will resolve this problem.

[ A written question read, What is your opinion about killing the Iranian officers in Heraat in 1998? ]

So, there is this story about seven nine, nine Iranians, one of them was a journalist, and the rest of them were called diplomats. It happened in `98 when we were capturing a city in the north of Afghanistan called Mazar-e-Shareef when we were, we announced before our campaign in

liberating that city, we announced that all diplomats of organizations, including the UN, the diplomatic missions, and NGOs to evacuate because of the possible fighting that may happen in the city too. So, all of them evacuated, the United Nations, the NGOs, and even those people who

actually bombed them, they also evacuated, so the only people who remained there was some seven, or eight, night Iranians, who were actually not diplomats, who were actually military advisors to their puppets in Afghanistan. So, and we didn t kill them in di! plomatic mission; they

were killed on their way to Bamiyan; Bamiyan is another city in central Afghanistan, so they were and we didn t want to kill them; they just died because of the shelling that happened. And we issued an edict, and we declared that we were sorry for what happened. And now the Iranian

government has also sent their mission, and when I was coming there, three of their villages were in Afghanistan; they reopened their consulate here and I think they have re-thought their policies now and maybe they will have a new chapter of friendship with us and I hope it will happen.

[Question asked about how people, especially Muslims, need to be educated about the situation in Afghanistan. He went on further to ask about whether or not he would be under a physical threat if he were to shave his beard and walk into Afghanistan, or if a sister would be under a physical threat if a sister were to wear Hijab according to the Islamic standards, not wearing Burqah.]

You say that all the Muslims, or all the people, must be educated on the situation in Afghanistan. And now I am thinking that first they must be de-educated to try to understand what we are saying. There are not [--], they are really trying how to approach, and you are right, and I agree

that you must have Public Relations, in teaching people, or at least, letting them know what we say. But as I told you that we have other priorities. Our priority is to save the children. Our priority is to de-mine our country. Our priority is to reunify our country. Our priority is to stop the foreign! interference. Our priority is to fight the [--] that is already operating in our country. So for us to talk about Public Relations, it is important, but it cannot what would you do if you were in this status? And it is not easy to do Public Relations. You have to spend a lot of money. I will tell you a story of CNN. CNN was in Afghanistan interviewing bin Laden, in `98. You have to be careful in listening to this. I was there, and they asked bin Laden as to what was the thinking about the killing of civilians in Iraq. After three hours of formal conversation, and the camera was rolling. He said, that if all American citizens and if all British citizens are willing, or supporting, to kill all Iraqi civ! ilians, then all American citizens and all British citizens deserve the same thing or to be killed. CNN cut everything. Three-hour conversation was not there, only thing they put was and it was not complete the only clause that they said was, the independent clause of what he said, they said that, all American and British citizens must be killed. This is what came on the air. But he didn t mean this. And I know that all Americans do not support the killing [of] civilians there. Not even a quarter of that. That was impossible. But now what they taught their people was that bin Laden is saying that all American civilians must be killed. That is the story of media, and the media here is very irresponsible. They are commercialized, and they'll do anything for selling advertisements.

He [the questioner] talked about the beard and the veil. First of all, for all non-Afghans, this rule does not apply. So there are many non-Afghans who are working there; there are actually Americans who are working there in the UN, there are many people from different parts of the world. And they do whatever [--], they don t care. And we don t have a law for them. But Afghanistan is a country that has gone through 23 years of war, and there is still war, and the military is mixed with the people. Then you must have some sort of strict law, in order to insure

security and peace in Afghanistan. So, maybe it is ridiculous for you that we ask people to grow beards, but this is what, it is in Afghanistan, and the Afghans do leave beard, whether or not you tell them. And it s something natural, and it s something [--]. And regarding the veil, or the Burqas, or the Islamic dress code, that is something that exists in Afghanistan for centuries. And it does exist in Iran, it does exist in Saudi Arabia, it exists in many Islamic countries. It has nothing to do only with Afghanistan. And it does even exist here. So you can t force people not to have Burqas, and we do have that constitution that at this time, women should cover up. For us because our priority is that they should be safe.

[Questioner asks about what Afghans living in the US can do for Afghanistan. She also gives a brief account of her experience in Afghanistan, when she traveled there recently, and gave proof that schools existed there, and that the situation there is much better, more peaceful than it was six years ago. She traveled alone, all over the country.]

Thank you very much. I m very happy that at least I found a proof!

[Audience laughs]

I m thankful to you [for] what you say, and I really appreciate the emotions you have for your country. I myself, I m 24, and serving my country. I could play football now, and I could even play here, and I could stay in the United States, but I don't do any of those things I serve my country. So I agree that whatever, all those things that exist in Afghanistan, maybe there are many things that we don t want, but they do exist. So we are not a sponsor for that. They did exist for two decade[s]. So the best thing to do for Afghanistan is to have an association of Afghans to raise funds, and the best thing I would say [is to] educate people. Instead of criticism, they can come there! and open a school. They can open a school for girls, for boys. But that would be the best thing. Unfortunately some of our Afghans are sitting in their air-conditioning rooms here, play their TV s, and when they have nothing to do, then they criticize us because we can t make Europe for them. We can do it, we have a lot of problems, but the first thing they should do is to stop harming us. They have to come and help us, in all the sectors. We do need all the Afghans from here. If they really criticize our policies, they should come there and criticize our policies, not from here. So the best thing for ! you is for you people to raise funds, do NOT give it to us, one of you should come there, help the people.

[Questioner: Do you respect our right to tell you that if you didn t believe in PR, you wouldn t be here right now. [--] Actually I d like to ask you, does your version of Islam preach hate? I don t know, I m asking you; do you believe in the religion of hate? Because I was very disgusted when that lady got up and asked you why don t you blow those idols, because that boy right there (points to a boy in the audience) laughed. MSA Representative interrupts, Please ask your question. Questioner, I m asking you, are you preaching hate? MSA Representative, Is that your question? Questioner, That is the question. He continues to argue.]

Enough? I don t know what to say but you only expressed your emotions. Islam means Peace. First you have to understand. And a peaceful religion will never preach for Hate. And we do not preach for Hate. And you said that if we didn t believe in Public Relations, I wouldn t be here. It s

my first time here, and I ve waited for an American Visa for a long time, and I m not used to doing these things. I brought a letter from my leadership that I explained before that I will be submitting to the leader of the administration here, and hoping that they will re-think their policies. So I do believe that, I say that we must believe in Public Relations because they are very important. But I say that Public Relations needs a lot resources, and at this time we have resources for the [--] for the plight of our people.

[Questioner: I actually agree with you about the western media; they are very biased [--], but looking at people like him (the young boy who laughed) at such a young age [--]. ]

[Small dispute in the Audience]

[Father of young boy: He is my son, ok, and you have come here to accuse him..[--]. MSA Representatives calm both parties and rest of Audience, and apologizes to audience.]

[Questioner asks about women being required to have a male escort whenever they go out. She also questions whether or not if she were to go into Afghanistan wearing what she was now (a jilbab and hijab) would she be under any physical threat.]

You [the questioner] said, told me about whether a woman was allowed to go without a male escort. I m here, and my wife is shopping in Kandahar now. So they don t have to be escorted, this is absolutely wrong. Yes, they were, in those cities that we captured first, because that was for their safety. Now, they don t have to. And I don t have any problem with whatever you wear, and women do wear the same thing that you do wear, and they don t have any problems. And I say that those cities, which are close to the frontline and there is military operations going on close, there are thousands of military soldiers of ours, we do ask women to avoid the social areas. Now you re not understanding what I mean, but some of our friends here do understand. In a country that is in a war, the military is mixed with the people, and there are certain

limitations. So I can t go beyond that, and I say that women does not have to be escorted. I m here now and my wife is shopping maybe in Kandahar.

[Questioner asks What is Afghanistan s priority in regards to establishing an Islamic state for all Muslims, not just for Afghans? ]

He'd like to destroy us.

[Audience laughs]

We have our first headache in Afghanistan, and that s a big headache. We have a full-time job there. If we were worked 24 hours a day, we will hardly ever be able to re-construct an [--] Islamic system in our own country. And we have no intention of going beyond our borders, and

neither we can. So, all these people who exist in other countries, or their policies, they have nothing to do with us. We are only concerned about Afghanistan. And please do not try to make assumptions. Ask me questions. I was asked in... I was in Bay Area just yesterday, a journalist asked me, Why do you hate women? And I told him, Why do you beat your wife? And he said, I don t beat my wife. I said, I don t hate women.

[Audience laughs]

So you have to ask me questions. You just make assumptions. You just make an assumption. Like he said, you explain for one hour, for five minutes saying the same thing again and again, you ve made an assumption. You didn t ask me whether a woman must be escorted or not

this is an easy question. But if you say, Why are you doing this , Why are you doing... We re not doing it. The question is, here, you don t have to make assumptions.

[Questioner: My country (Iran) is suffering from drug-trafficking from Afghanistan; you said that you [--] drugs from your area, but how can you explain this contradiction? You have said that you cannot even make a needle, what does it mean..? ]

I would like to answer this question first and then I will not forget. I said Afghanistan produced 75% of all worlds Opium, 75% of all worlds. And we eradicated it last year. And this was announced not only by United Nations, who rejects this? All of them know it was announced by Iranian government [--]. I don t say it was we eradicated five years ago [it was] this year. United Nations announced ...

[Questioner: You mean 2001? So that s two months ago?? But our country is still suffering from that?! He continues to argue]

Please, please try to hear what I m saying.

[Questioner continues to talk and argue, MSA representatives try to calm him down.]

[Questioner goes on, I know, but this is the question I wanted to ask ...]

My brother, listen to me. You say that your country is still suffering from Opium from Afghanistan. I do not say that we eradicated it five years ago. This year, the United Nations Drug Control Program, announced that there was 0% Opium cultivation; Iran, too, admitted that. So if you don t know that, your problem. New York Times announced this; it was in a New York Times editoral. So if you don t know this, then it s your problem. I do admit that there are still some piles of Opium that exists from the years before the last cultivation that may [have been sent] to

your country. But we will admit, that we have, and I told you that, there are missions for us, across Afghanistan, to Iran, to our country, and they are trying to eradicate the already existing Opium; it was not produced this year; it was produced the year before last.

[Questioner asks whether or not they have asked for a loan from the World Bank or IMF]

Not yet. We have not asked IMF neither the World Bank to help us. But if they do help us, we will no reject it. So we are not asking because we are not being recognized so we can t ask them for loans.

[Questioner : is a Political Scientist and is asking whether or not Bureaucrats and Technocrats are needed in Afghanistan because, according to him, the Taliban are not smart enough, suitable to be governing Afghanistan.]

We never say that we are perfect. The question is, Who could do more than we do? These seven parties? The Communists? Or the King? Who did this? The things that we have done? Who could do more than that? It s very easy to say, to criticize from here, Do this, do this, do that.. But it s very difficult to do that. You said that the Taliban are not Bureaucrats and Technocrats, and we re not going to change that. I m sorry to say, you know what the old king of Afghanistan, he was 88 years old, and he spent seven years living in Rome, he had bought an island there, and now this man wants to come back to Afghanistan and head the government. The old, rotten knucklehead.

[Audience laughs]

So, we were very surprised as to what did he do in 43 years of his government? He didn t do anything. He only knew how to decorate his palace. I m sorry to say this. And now the same man, after 43 years Sorry, 27 years, is willing to go back and govern; he cannot even take a

flight back to Afghanistan. He s too weak. So how s he going to? So we do need professionals. We don t say that we are perfect. And I repeat it again, we cannot come here, and ask everybody to come help us. We have asked so many times. Anybody willing to help their country, come and

help. And many people come and ask me, Well, how do we go? ..How did you come here?!

[Audience laughs]

And yeah, go there if women can go there, what is the problem? But if you ask us to give you the government, then that s difficult. So I agree with you that we need Technocrats, but we don t need politicians.

[END OF SESSION]

Taken from http://ourislamonline.tripod.com/id278.htm