*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
{ Sila lawat Laman Hizbi-Net - http://www.hizbi.net }
{ Hantarkan mesej anda ke: [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
{ Iklan barangan? Hantarkan ke [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
PAS : KE ARAH PEMERINTAHAN ISLAM YANG ADIL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Taliban and the Detained Christian Fundamentalists
Quotable Quotes
This new section presents an analysis of some of the
comments made by the western media, the international
community and the Taliban themselves about the issue
of the so-called 'aid' workers of the Christian
'charity' Shelter Now. The workers, which included
German, US and Australian nationals, were arrested
earlier this month trying to convert a Muslim Afghan
family to Christianity.
"We have been following this group for a long time and
finally on Friday afternoon we were able to capture
the two women red-handed as they showed the film to an
Afghan family." [Taliban Deputy Religious Police
Minister Muhammad Salim Haqqani, 06 August 2001]
What aid work were these two women doing whilst
showing Christian films in the local language to an
Afghan Muslim family?
"We have our concerns too. A fair one is that these
people strongly insulted our religion and traditions
and the concern shown by foreigners is not justified."
[Muhammad Haqqani, 07 August 2001]
When one goes as a guest to another country, one
respects the religions and traditions of the host
country, even though one may not agree with them.
"Obviously this is a major concern for us that
humanitarian workers are being arrested. There is a
pattern that has clearly been coming out in the past
few months of increasing difficulties for foreign aid
workers." [UN country coordinator's office spokeswoman
Ms Letizia Rossano, 06 August 2001]
If 'humanitarian workers' break the law in any
country, they will be arrested. Why is it a matter of
concern that they are arrested in Afghanistan? Have
these foreign 'aid' workers contributed in any way for
the 'difficulties' faced by them? If one breaks the
law in a foreign country, is one not creating
'difficulties' for oneself?
"The message was the United States would not take
lightly any harm that would come to an American
citizen," a State Department source told CNN. [07
August 2001]
Even if that American citizen was found with evidence
breaking the law of another country? Do American
citizens enjoy universal diplomatic immunity around
the World? Surely, if the United States was really
concerned about 'harm' coming to American citizens, it
would have retaliated against Israel when it launched
a combined air and sea attack on the American warship,
the USS Liberty, during the Six Day War of 1967,
killing 34 American 'citizens' - (www.ussliberty.com)?
The United States does not recognize the ruling
Taliban militia, but continues unofficial contact with
the regime. [CNN, 07 August 2001]
Then why is the United States so concerned about the
Taliban obeying or disobeying 'International Law'?
Ulrich Delius, an Asian expert at the Society of
Threatened Persons, a human rights group based in
Goettingen, Germany said the Taliban were threatening
all aid to the war-torn country.
"With the attack on domestic and international helpers
the Taliban are endangering the delivery of urgently
needed aid deliveries from abroad and cold bloodedly
putting their citizens lives at risk. Aid
organizations could now withdraw altogether from
Afghanistan over concern about their workers." he
said. [08 August 2001]
Crystal-clear proof that all aid that the West is
providing to Afghanistan is purely for political and
propaganda purposes and has nothing to do with
humanitarian concerns. A threat to withdraw aid from
Afghanistan if the Taliban do not allow Christian
fundamentalists to openly preach Christianity in
Afghanistan.
"It's incumbent upon the Taliban to treat these people
safely and fairly and to let us see after their
welfare," he said. [U.S. State Department spokesman
Richard Boucher, 07 August 2001]
An arrogant statement from an arrogant spokesman of an
arrogant regime. According to which ignorant law is it
'incumbent' on the Taliban to listen to orders from
the biggest enemy to Islam and Muslims in the World
today?
"Our message to other aid agencies is to respect
Afghanistan's culture and religion, which are
precious," said Haqqani, who displayed Bibles and a
Christian video allegedly used to try to convert an
Afghan Muslim family. [Muhammad Haqqani, 07 August
2001]
Despite overwhelming evidence, why is the blame being
put on the Taliban? Could it be something to do with a
deeper American-Zionist media plot against Islam and
Muslims? Or is it pure coincidence?
"There is a death sentence for treachery to one's
country and accepting Islam is a commitment and a pact
with God. Why shouldn't conversion be treated as
treachery and be punishable by death," said Maulana
Fazlur Rahman, leader of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam, a
pro-Taliban religious political party. [09 August
2001]
Rightly so, which is why the FBI was initially seeking
the death penalty for Richard Hanssen, the former FBI
Agent, recently discovered selling U.S. secrets to
Russia. Is that not barbaric? Attempting to execute a
man just for selling some secrets?
Esteban Witzemann, Shelter Now program director in the
northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar, denied his
group was involved in proselytizing and said other
Shelter Now staff, fearing more arrests, had fled
Afghanistan.
"There might be some (material) for private use ...
but what they are accused of, that they are
distributing hundreds of Bibles and Christian
literature and they are trying to persuade people to
leave Islam and become Christians, all this is
nonsense and not true," he said. [09 August 2001]
There is nothing wrong with non-Muslims citizens in an
Islamic State possessing religious material for
private use, but...
Searches of Shelter Now offices turned up thousands of
Christian computer disks and Bibles translated into
the main Dari language of Afghanistan, police said,
although the aid group claims the material was for
personal use. [AP, 12 August 2001]
"If they had a version of the bible in their own
language that could have been justifiable, but now
several versions have been found in local languages
along with CDs, videos, computers and timetables for
radio programs which are undeniable evidence and
absolutely prove it." [Mullah Wakil Ahmad Mutawakkil,
15 August 2001]
Was the original bible in the Dari language and so the
accused staff were trying to learn Christianity in its
original (Dari) language, and hence the claim of
'personal use'. Does Mr Witzemann really expect any
intelligent individual to accept his claims?
The Taliban's Voice of Shariat Radio, quoted by a
Pakistan-based Afghan news service, said Georg
Taubmann of the German-based Shelter Now International
aid agency had "requested pardon for the workers of
his organization" during interrogation. [AP, 10 August
2001]
If Mr Taubmann has truckloads of Christian material in
the Dari language for his own personal use and he was
not guilty of anything, then why did he ask for
'pardon'? Why did he not offer the case to go to court
so he could prove his innocence?
"We have undeniable evidence and reason that suggests
the CDs and bibles... in local languages were not for
personal use. The investigation will prove as to
whether an individual was involved or if it was a
wider conspiracy." [Wakil Ahmad Mutawakkil, Foreign
Minister of Taliban, 12 August 2001]
Mutawakkil said the UN's World Food Program (WFP) was
also to be probed. Shelter Now assists the WFP in
distributing food to Afghan refugees in Pakistan.
"The WFP should prepare itself for serious dialogue.
It should reply to why its budget was used for a long
time for non-ideal work," he said. [12 August 2001]
Mawlawi Mohammad Wali, the Taleban's religious police
minister, said the group would not be pardoned, but be
dealt with according to Islamic Sharia law.
"Pardons would have been possible if they were unaware
of our laws, regulations and the decrees," he said.
[Taliban Religious Police Minister, Mullah Muhammad
Wali, 14 August 2001]
It is a well-established legal principle in countries
around the World that ignorance of the law is no
excuse for breaking it. Here, Mullah Wali even
suggested that had they been ignorant of the law, they
might have been pardoned, as further proof that the
arrested workers are being dealt with fairly.
Protocol chief Abdul Ghafoor Afghani said the
diplomats inquired about the welfare of the two
Americans, two Australians and four Germans, who have
not been seen since their arrest between August 3 and
5.
"We gave a full guarantee of their health as we have
all along. We also showed them written confessions
that these detainees had shown (Christian audio-visual
material) to an Afghan family. They also wrote that
they were not aware it would create this many
problems." [14 August 2001]
In some ways, the arrested workers are showing more
humility than the arrogant international community, by
asking for pardon and apologising.
"It is a great victory for Muslims around the world
that these things have been discovered." [Taliban
Religious Police Minister, Mullah Muhammad Wali, 14
August 2001]
Rightly so, and it is also an answer to naive,
apologetic Muslims, who never thought that Christian
countries supply aid to Muslim countries under a
pretext of preaching Christianity with the bible in
one hand and food in the other. One only has to look
at how many Bosnian and Kosovan orphans were sent to
churches around Western Europe over the two recent
wars.
International norms allow for consular access by a
representative from a detainee's country within 24
hours, but some diplomats say the Taliban, who are
recognized by just three countries as a legitimate
regime, have failed to grasp this. [AP, 15 August
2001]
What 'international norms' is a government which does
not officially exist, expected to follow? According to
the United Nations, there is no such regime as the
Taliban, so why is the international community so
concerned about the Taliban not following
'international norms'. This 'norm' is routinely
flaunted by most countries of the World, including the
United States, Russia and Israel, who only grant
consular access when they feel like it. Why then is
the Taliban criticised for something that is regularly
carried out by 'modern', 'developed' nations of the
World?
"Thousands of poor Afghans rely on aid agencies to
supply them with food" read the caption next to a CNN
photo showing many open hands under a piece of bread.
[CNN, 16 August 2001]
What CNN failed to mention that the reasons Afghans
rely on outsiders to supply them with food is because
the United States/Nations has placed sanctions on
Afghanistan for their failure to bow down to American
pressure.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned
Afghanistan's Taleban authorities that they are
breaking international law by not allowing legal or
consular access to eight foreign aid workers arrested
for allegedly promoting Christianity. Mr Annan said
the affair could have "severe consequences" for
humanitarian aid for the country, which is suffering
the effects of drought and civil war.
"The secretary-general appeals to the Taleban for a
speedy solution in line with international norms and
obligations," a UN statement said. [BBC, 18 August
2001]
And which 'international law' does Mr Annan mean? The
one that punishes entire nations as long as they are
Muslim (Afghanistan, Iraq but not Israel)? Why do the
Taliban have to follow this ignorant, arrogant,
Zionist, international law? Did the Taliban sign any
papers or treaties indicating their acceptance of this
law? Officially, the Taliban do not even exist.
Therefore, if anyone breaks international law in
Afghanistan, the blame should go on Ahmad Shah
Masood's government, the only government in the World
that has embassies and a UN seat but does not have an
street address.
The US diplomat, David Donahue, described the
Taliban's stance in refusing access to the detainees
as "unacceptable". He said he did not accept the
Taliban claims "that this is a serious crime so
extraordinary restrictions can be put on" the aid
workers. We believe that consular access applies to
any detainees anywhere in the world - the Taliban
disagree with that." [BBC 18 August 2001]
In a 'free' World, one is free to express one's
acceptance or rejection of any law. Therefore, Mr
Donahue is fully within his rights to criticise
Taliban's refusal to grant consular access and the
Taliban are fully within their rights to refuse
consular access. Just because one does not agree with
the law of a certain country or considers it barbaric,
inhumane or ancient, it does not mean that one should
break it. Laws recently introduced in Britain can
imprison a Muslim wearing a t-shirt that identifies
him as a supporter of Hamas. One may think that this
law is absurd and ridiculous, but one charged with
this 'crime' cannot defend himself saying that he
thought that this law was ridiculous and so he broke
it. Likewise, disagreement with a law is not a green
light for one to break it, according to 'international
norms'.
A senior U.S. official Friday warned the Taliban of
further harm to already tattered relations.
"Obviously when a nation doesn't give consular access
etc, of course you can have an effect (on relations),"
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told
reporters in Sydney. [17 August 2001]
The World cannot cause any more harm to the Muslims of
Afghanistans; they can only cause them good.
Therefore, Mr Armitage's words carry no relevance.
The Taliban are under U.N. Security Council sanctions
for refusing to expel Saudi-born dissident Osama bin
Laden for trial in the United States on terrorism
charges. [Reuters, 17 August 2001]
Osama bin Laden is accused of blowing up the American
embassies in the 1998 East Africa bombings, which
killed 12 Americans. If the Muslims of Afghanistan are
under sanctions for failure to hand him over, should
not Israel also be under sanctions for failing to hand
over the Israeli Government officials who were
responsible for the murder of 34 American soldiers in
the terrorist bombing of the USS Liberty in 1967?
Annan's spokesman said "the Secretary General appeals
to the Taliban for a speedy solution in line with
international norms and obligations."
Denying access and legal representation to the accused
"gives a signal that could have severe consequences on
critical humanitarian assistance at a time when
Afghans are suffering the combined effects of war,
extreme poverty, massive displacement and severe
drought," he added.
Spokesman Manoel De Almeida de Silva said the
statement was not a veiled threat to halt humanitarian
aid. [AP 18 August 2001]
The above statements speak for themselves. No further
comment is necessary.
"The serious problem with this is that it is a denial
of international practice. When a foreign national is
detained, they should get access to their national
consular representative." [Australian Diplomat,
Alistair Adams, 20 August 2001]
Mr Adams is rightfully entitled to his own opinion as
the Taliban are entitled to theirs.
In Australia, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said
he was ''deeply concerned'' after the welfare of the
arrested Australians, Diana Thomas and Peter Bunch.
"This recent action by the Taliban...is of concern to
governments and aid organizations around the world,"
he told parliament. [20 August 2001]
It is certainly a cause of concern to governments
around the World because: (i) it is further proof that
the Taliban is the only Muslim regime in the World
that has so far refused to humiliate itself and bow
down to the laws of the Ignorant; and (ii) the Taliban
have succeeded in exposing an international plot to
convert Muslims to Christianity, using aid
organisations and thus this has sent alarm bells
ringing throughout the Muslim world, where Christian
aid organisations operate.
"We return to Islamabad to continue our efforts to
obtain consular access and to work for the speedy
release of our citizens," American diplomat David
Donahue said, reading a statement from the three
countriesgovernments just before their departure.
[Associated Press, 21 August 2001]
With this statement, Mr Donahue reveals the true
purpose of his mission, which has nothing to do with
consular access: that the aid workers should be
released whether or not they are guilty of this crime
according to Shariah.
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( Melanggan ? To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] pada body : SUBSCRIBE HIZB)
( Berhenti ? To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] pada body: UNSUBSCRIBE HIZB)
( Segala pendapat yang dikemukakan tidak menggambarkan )
( pandangan rasmi & bukan tanggungjawab HIZBI-Net )
( Bermasalah? Sila hubungi [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pengirim: =?iso-8859-1?q?hadi=20hadad?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
