Over the last two days there has been a story of sheer injustice going through my news feed by the hour- the brutal massacre of our brothers and sisters in Syria under a tyrannical and unjust regime. Like many of you, I, at first, was just reading and watching as friends updated the situation and death toll rise in their numbers, I felt helpless yet compelled to do something for Allāh said in the Qurʾān:

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allāh, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allāh; indeed, Allāh is Acquainted with what you do.” [Qurʾān 5:8]

Today He is calling us to stand up in prayer to seek justice and His Help for the oppressed in Syria.

My mind couldn't comprehend the grief and unimaginable horror the brothers and sisters are facing until I listened to the khuṭbah appeal of Sh Muhammad Al-Arifi here and as he shared the humiliating and nefarious attacks on our brothers and sisters in Syria my heart cried for the trial the Ummah is undergoing.

Yet the Prophet has told us that this Ummah is like a strong support structure and like one body, if one part aches then the whole Ummah should ache in agony of the Muslims who are being slaughtered and killed for nothing but their faith. Just before I began to write this article, a Syrian friend of mine shared what was an extremely difficult video to watch of a Syrian brother before his burial yesterday whilst his family cried over him.

My plea to you brothers and sisters is to take action and stand up for justice in Syria. Here's how we can take action:

1. Raise Awareness

The first step we can all take is to raise awareness about the situation in Syria. You can do this by sharing the most up to date and accurate news so people are informed about the situation and can take action. Secondly you can share the video reminders and stories to help the Ummah recognize the obligation on each of us to help those who are being oppressed. (you can post latest links in comments on this newspost and MuslimMatters will use them to update the post).

2. Write to Your Government

As Muslims who are concerned for the security and safety of those in Syria we should call on our MPs, Congressmen, governments and international organizations to put the tyrannical regime to an end because no human being should want for innocent civilians to die. Unfortunately, the UN has failed to remove this unjust regime and therefore by writing, calling and speaking to our MPs in a collective voice can we inshā'Allāh expect to be heard as we should speak out against injustice wherever we see it. If you are attending a demonstration or protest in you country remember you are representatives of Islam through your actions so please refrain from any violent behavior or aggressive actions. Let's remember that the attitude of a Muslim in times of hardship is that of patiently awaiting Allāh's Help.

3. Stand Up in Prayer  

Where possible join the congregation to pray and seek Allāh's Help for Victory. Pray 2 rakʿah nafl prayer seeking His Help and remember the brothers and sisters in your prayers in the day and night; be certain that Allāh will respond for He Hears the du'ā's of the oppressed and surely if there is no justice in this world, we will certainly see it in the Hereafter. As the Qur'anic verse warns us:

“And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allāh and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, 'Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?'” [Qurʾān 4:75]

4. Give in Charity

Another way in which you can take action is to support the charitable organizations providing aid and assistance in Syria, giving money and time or efforts to help these organizations is invaluable at these times. To donate you can visit Islamic Relief's Syria Appeal campaign here or any other transparent registered charity who are working in Syria.

5. Raise Your Hands in Du'ā'

Finally, the least of faith is in making du'ā' and truly, our brothers and sisters request that we raise our hands and seek Allāh to protect and grant victory to those who are suffering immensely today in these massacres. At every prayer, in times of rain and in your prostration please do not forget them for Allāh has promised to answer the  du'ā' of the oppressed (Bukhari).  You can find du'ā's for the oppressed here to read and share.

The traditional period of courtship is relative from culture to culture, family to family. After the initial introduction, some families grant the prospective groom and bride a chance to meet in private, under supervision; others allow them to get to know each other on the telephone, via text or email. Some families encourage the potential couple to go out in public, usually in a group setting.  People can be introduced through families, well-meaning community members, matchmaking services, on-line matrimonial sites, through imams, teachers and friends with the preplanned goal being marriage. Perhaps a better term for it should be arranged courtship.

Since couples in arranged marriages come together as a result of their extended family and community, they naturally think of their relationship as part of something bigger than just the two of them.  Many couples have extremely happy, arranged marriages. Half my siblings and friends are in varying degrees of arranged marriages. My cousin had a totally arranged marriage. She did not meet her husband until the day before she got married. They are one of the happiest couple I know, māshā'Allāh.  I chose not to go that route, I met my husband in college but my marriage included the consent of my parents and my husband's family.

Just like non-arranged marriages, not every arranged marriage or proposal works out for a variety of reasons. Nor are arranged marriages the only way a Muslim can get married.

The difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages

Forced marriage, on the other hand, occurs when a man or woman is coerced by the family to marry, using threats, emotional blackmail, fraud, and even bribes. Arranged against the person will, without consent or consent under duress. That is not a marriage in Islam; it is oppression and abuse. Marriage is Islam requires ijab and a qubul (proposal and acceptance). Forcing a woman to marry a man means that there was no qubul, this is the right of a woman, regardless of her age.  Without it the marriage is a sham, like living in zinā.

Some parents use the tactic of not speaking to a son/daughter for months at a time to convince them to get married to the person of the parent's choice. This is akin to cutting of the ties of the womb, which is a sin.  Other families threaten to disown the offspring if he or she does not accept the prospective spouse especially if it is a cousin from the homeland. In other places, the women are not given the right to even think that they can say no. They are brainwashed from a young age to obey their parents even if their hearts are screaming 'NEVER.' I have read through pages of testimonies of young women and men suffering through forced marriages.

Among the rights of our parents is that we obey them but this obedience is not blind, deaf and dumb. A nikāḥ is a spiritual contract and you can not have a contract when one of the parties or both of the parties have not committed their body and soul to the other for the sake of God. That is marriage in Islam.

Why do parents do force their offspring into an unwanted marriage?

They love you, take care of you, your mother carried you in her womb for months, nursed you, cried at your every pain. Your father worked days and nights to provide for you. Then why is it when it comes to the time when they should be your protectors and support you in the most important decision of your life, they are willing to submit you to abuse?

Many, many times it is culture. It is often family pressure: they have made promises or commitments to their relatives. Sometimes, their relatives are emotionally blackmailing them by threatening to cut off family ties. What parents often do not realize is in wanting to keep their kinships intact, they are destroying their own children.

Other reasons include a perverted notion of 'izzah “family honor”, ensuring land, property and wealth remain within the family, preventing relationships considered to be “unsuitable” for example outside a specific ethnic, racial group, helping relatives or caste/tribe members with residency and citizenship issues, controlling unwanted behavior and sexuality (including perceived or real promiscuity, or worries that their offspring is gay), and to provide a caretaker for a person with mental and/or physical disabilities.

They sometimes think that being parents gives them rights which are not given to them by God.

Islamic Rulings

Marriage without consent- In the Shāfi'i and Ḥanbali school of thought- the majority of scholars are of the view that if a woman is married off without her consent, then the marriage contract is invalid, because it is a forbidden contract which cannot be validated.

According to the Ḥanafi school of thought, the contract is dependent upon the woman's acceptance. If she gives her consent then it is valid, otherwise she may annul it. See al-Mughni, 7/364; Fath al-Bāri, 9/194

If the son or daughter likes someone else: Ibn Muflih al-Ḥanbali (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: The parents have no right to force their son to marry someone he does not want.

Shaykh Ibn Tayymiyyah said: Neither of the parents has the right to force their son to marry someone whom he does not want, and if he refuses, he is not sinning by disobeying them, because no one has the right to force him to eat food he finds off-putting when there is food that he wants to eat, and marriage is like that and more so. Food that one is forced to eat is unpleasant for a short while, but a forced marriage lasts for a long time, and it harms a person and he cannot leave it.  Al-Adāb al-Shar'iyyah (1/447)

Concerning a minor: According to Mufti E. Desai, since Islām does not allow a minor to conduct business or make financial decisions for himself or herself, a marital contract of a minor falls under the same premise. However Islām does not give a father the right to use his children's wealth without their permission, so how can he be allowed to decide, without the daughter's permission, how her body (which is more important than her wealth) is to be used, specially when she disagrees.

Concerning a young woman or a widow/divorcee: Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet said: “A previously married woman may not be married without her command, and a never married woman may not be married without her permission; and permission for her is to remain silent.” (Al-Bukhāri, Muslim, and others) The exegis of this Prophetic tradition is that if she does not speak up that means that she is giving consent.  A wali (close male relative) is a command-executor in the case of the previously married woman, and is permission-seeker in the case of a never-married woman.

Relevant Hadith:

Khansa' bint Khizam al-Ansāriyyah said “My father married me to his nephew, and I did not like this match, so I complained to the Messenger of Allāh. He said to me “accept what your father has arranged.” I said “I do not wish to accept what my father has arranged.” He said “then this marriage is invalid, go and marry whomever you wish.” (Fathul Bāri, Sharah Al Bukhāri 9/194, Ibn Mājah Kitabun Nikah 1/602). In another version, she went to the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) and he annulled the marriage. Narrated by al-Bukhāri, 4845.

And it was narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allāh be pleased with him) that a virgin came to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) and told him that her father had married her off against her objections. The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) gave her the choice. Narrated by Abu Dāwūd, 2096.

According to scholars you should also not fear your parents du'ā' against you or their being angry with you, because that is a sinful du'ā' which Allāh will not accept from them, inshā'Allāh, unless you are transgressing against them, and not giving them their other rights. Because it is permissible for you to marry without adhering to their wishes, you will not be sinning or doing wrong. (From Islamqa)

Another misconception is that the bride and groom are not allowed to see each other before the marriage and this is somehow Islamic. The man has permission to see her face before agreeing to marry as the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, “Go and look at her (the woman you are considering marrying) because this will help your time together to be strengthened. ” (Ahmad) If our eyes are the path to our heart- how can the One who made us, forbid us from looking at the person who will become the most intimate part of our lives.

Some advice for someone being forced to get married

If you are facing circumstances where you are getting married against your will then SPEAK up! You are not your parent's property.  Don't ruin your life or your future spouse's life- s/he may not even know that you do not want to get married and will have to suffer through a loveless marriage for the rest of his/her life. You don't marry someone for your parent's sake, for your family's sake, or for anyone's sake.

You should actively and patiently do the following:

1. Very politely show your parents/guardians the relevant ayahs in the Qurʾān and refer them to the Sunnah, ḥadīth, opinions of scholars that Islam does not accept a forced marriage and gives the person the choice in regards to nikāḥ .

2. Ask your circle of mature friends and family especially your religious ones to talk to your parents on a regular basis. Impress on them that THEY are NOT exempt from ḥisāb (accounting) for not obeying the Qurʾān in their pride. The Qurʾān forbids us from following in the footsteps of our parents/grandparents if they are in the wrong. They sometimes think that being parents gives them rights which are not given to them by God.

3. Talk to your local imam/ youth group leader to speak to your parents.

4. Most importantly pray to Allāh- humbly, in qiyām (night prayers) , asking HIM to guide your parents and to prevent a social and personal disaster.

5. Make istikhārah (prayer of counsel).

6. Seek out professional help. There are many organizations that can help you if you are being forced into a marriage.

Why are you refusing the match?

Analyze your reasons for refusing the match. Keep in mind marriage among families or friends of your family can work and so can marriages between two people raised in two different parts of the world. As long as there is mutual love and respect and a deep desire to keep the relationship focused around Allāh. In our community here in California, a young man recently married his cousin from India who is 4 years older than him. But it was his choice. He went to visit and liked her demeanor and personality.  He approached his parents and māshā'Allāh they are attending college together and just had their first baby.

If you honestly cannot stand the person or do not know enough about them to make a wise decision, or are not physically attracted to them, then let someone know.  Consider if you are spiritually on the same level as them? Are they better than someone you can find on your own?  Can you relate to them? Can you communicate with them? Do you share common goals and values? If the answers to all these questions are NO then please do NOT agree to the marriage.

However, do not reject the concept of marriage to a prospect introduced by your parents or your family just because you don't want an arranged marriage. S/he may turn out to be your soulmate.

This article was written anonymously and submitted through Salma Elkadi Abugideiri, a Licensed Professional Counselor.

In light of recent events highlighting domestic violence in our ummah, there is an unspoken casualty in the war of domestic violence. Abusive spouses may also be abusive parents. Furthermore, an abused spouse may in turn lash out and abuse the children from all the built up frustration and anger within the marriage. This is is how it was in my home.

The bad beginning

Although pictures speak a thousand words, our family photos never spoke the truth of what went on behind closed doors. Our house had been built with sturdy walls, but our home lacked a true and strong foundation of love. Both of my parents immigrated to the United States and, like most immigrants, brought along their cultural baggage and mindset. Although I will never know objectively how their marriage was in the beginning, according to my mother my father was verbally and physically abusive towards her. Growing up, I watched my parents fight with such passion and intensity that I am surprised, but thankful, that neither of them killed the other (although my mother did threaten my father with various sharp objects during some of their disputes). Nasty words were tossed back and forth like a tennis match, each one trying to beat the other at the vicious game. Sometimes my siblings and I would stand up for our mother, resulting in our father telling us to shut up and stay out of it, even retaliating against us.

My parents' disputes could and would start over anything and everything, although money and invalidating of feelings were two strong sparks. My mother believed divorce was not an option because she could not work and support all of us herself. My father did divorce my mother once in a fit of anger, but then asked for her back. He told me he loved my mother and would never want to divorce her as this would break our family apart. Despite the illusion that our family is together, it is broken.

This was the marriage upon which our family was built. Children were brought into this environment because, like many people, my parents never questioned their ability to be good role models nor pondered the responsibility that came with having kids. In fact, it's a rite of passage – school, marriage and then children  – and there is no question or deviation from this. As you might imagine, it was not a nurturing nor loving atmosphere to grow up in. Before we were old enough to understand or defend ourselves, we were thrown into the battlefield and became targets of violence and psychological warfare

Faces behind the masks

People are often shocked when they learn about a domestic violence case, when they discover a person's true nature and their hidden actions within the confines of their house. The truth is, looks can be deceiving and there is no way to distinguish someone who is abusive from one who is not by their outward appearance. Usually, the only ones who know the real faces behind the masks are those being abused and anyone the victims choose to tell.

There are no tell-tale signs of abusive parents, dysfunctional families or “victims” of abuse. My parents are practicing Muslims who frequent Islamic events and outwardly show their devotion to Islam. My father prays Jumuah and both Fajr and Isha in the masjid. My mother watches religious programs, wears hijab, goes to Umrah whenever she can and is well known and well loved in our community. Our family spends 'Īd together, goes out to dinner together and even laughs together. We visit other families and other families visit us. None of us children are anti-social deviants; we all have friends and are active participants in society. We are all highly educated, having all graduated from college and some of us graduate school.

While outwardly we all seemed “normal”, as is typical of dysfunctional families, each on of us children had our “adapted roles”.  Mine was that of the lost child, the one who stayed out of trouble and was mostly overlooked and ignored.  Unlike my siblings who rebelled in their own ways and at different times of their lives, I remained a “straight-edge” Muslim.  I never drank, smoked, did drugs, had friends of the opposite gender or premarital relationships.  I earned good grades, never hung out with “the wrong crowd and, even if I argued it, I never stayed out past my curfew. As hard as I tried to be good, I was never good enough.

My parents treated me differently based on their moods. My father's emotions vacillated between extreme highs (happiness, giddiness, etc) and extreme lows (seclusion, aggression, verbal abuse). He was never big on words of love or kindness, and the primary way he supported us was financially. He never really talked to us except to blame us for something or to insult us. When he was in a jovial mood, he would smile, sing and encouraged me to smile and be happy. To show how fluctuating his mood was, one time he hit me so hard and so many times with a slipper, it broke. Almost immediately after this, he joked that I would now have to buy him a new one. There were at least three times that his violence left marks on my face, leaving me to face the public with signs of his rage. If I was asked about what happened, I fabricated something about hurting myself. My mother scared me that from ever telling the truth, saying that the police would come arrest my father and take us away, creating a scandal in our family. I was also too ashamed to admit to anyone, even my closest friends, that my father physically abused me; I wanted to be a normal child with normal parents, not a victim to be pitied.

While my father was a raging bull, my mother was a wolf in sheep's clothing, hiding her abuse amidst kindness and affection. She was the “savior” against my father and had a very generous, sweet and giving demeanor when she was in a proper mood. I will not deny that she did many wonderful things for me and in fact, when she was nice, it was great to be with her. But, in a Jekyll/Hyde or Bruce Banner/Hulk fashion, when she unleashed her anger, it was explosive rage. Although she never hit me, I was a figurative punching bag on which she used insults, humiliation and expressions of anger instead of kicks and punches.

Despite “keeping my nose clean”, my mother still found reasons to unleash her anger at me.  One day, after spending time with a known and trusted friend, I came home to hear my mother telling my father how I was trying to be rebellious like my siblings. It was between 10:30 and 11:00 pm, a time which I had come home before without any repercussions and for someone in their late 20′s, was not an “unGodly time” to come home at.  When she heard me coming, she burst out of the front door without her hijab on, screaming at me that I was no longer her child, disowning me until the Day of Judgment and that she would put this in writing and send it to several shuyukh.  She also locked the door and told my father not to let me in. Even if I was out doing evil things, I didn't deserve that. No one does. Because this was my mother and because this behavior was common and accepted in our family and my parents' culture, I didn't see just how abnormal this was.  Actions like these were always excused with “She was mad because…” or “Well you shouldn't/should have done…”.  I felt too hurt, hated and even partly responsible for her actions to be able to see how abusive she was.  I felt that if if somehow, if I had been a better child, she wouldn't have done or said that.  I now see I could not control her behavior, only she could.

It was traumatic to see her behave in such a way and hurt to be the target of such horrible comments, and this is only one example of her pain-inducing words and actions. She teetered between kind and caring woman to a cruel and vicious woman. She would praise my siblings and I to her friends one minute and then say how she wished she would die so she wouldn't see our faces again, that death was better for her than life with us. I couldn't tell if she loved or hated me, if I was good or bad. I cannot explain to you the confusion or the pain that I went through, only that I am glad I finally see the truth for what it is.

Like other abusers, my parents wanted to exert their control over us. They yelled at me for being sad and for having individuality. Having autonomy was not allowed and success was simultaneously encouraged and deflated (sometimes by the same parent). My mother wanted us do to everything her way -  from how we looked, how we dressed, what majors we chose, who we married, even what we named our children – and criticized us incessantly when we didn't follow.    My father tried to “straighten us out” through physical and verbal assaults when we spoke up for ourselves or didn't do things exactly as he wanted.

Imams and shuyukh of Sunday school, Islamic lectures and Friday khutbahs told me constantly that parents deserved our utmost respect and unyielding obedience. And because they had heard the same lectures, my parents demanded this as well. It is a fact of life that children, more or less, emulate their parents' behavior.  Thus, through their actions, my parents taught me how to be defiant, angry, hateful, spiteful, resentful, disrespectful and aggressive, and simultaneously punished me for expressing these emotions and behaviors.  This created a tug of war in my head, between wishing that someone would say I had the right to be treated kindly and believing that I was being rightfully punished for being a bad child. No one ever spoke of children's rights or obligations of parents, so it was the latter that always won.

The ill effects of abuse

Growing up with abusive parents took a heavy and serious toll on me. From my childhood and even until now, the abuse has affected me in several facets of my life, mentally, physically and spiritually. I suffered from low self-esteem and had problems in my health and relationships, even with Allāh. The abuse has affected my family as well -  emotional problems, jealousy and spitefulness between siblings and emotionally incestuous relationships between parent and child developed – although they still choose to deny it.

Effects on…

…self-esteem and self-perception

In my ignorance and in response to the turmoil, I experienced extreme self-loathing and hated my life growing up. Parents are said to be a mirror of their children, and since my parents had plenty of negative things to say, I could only see myself as a terrible person. How could I love myself when my own parents, the people who brought me into this world and who were supposed to love me unconditionally, did not? Even if they told me they loved me (which they did not), they didn't know how to show me they loved me. I felt hated as my father chased me in order to physically punish me and pointed out all my faults. My mother told me often how I was just like my father, whom I knew she carried a great disdain for. She grouped us both along with one of my siblings in the “bad guys” category. I felt there was something truly wrong with me, that I was just an awful person who didn't deserve to be loved. I wanted to disappear from the world thinking that maybe, just maybe, if I was gone, someone would miss me and want me back…then I would finally feel loved and wanted. I felt like a burden on my family who would be better off without me. I hated being me which anyone reading this might understand how that could be. Only Allāh heard me as I apologized for being such a bad child.

…relationship with the family

I wanted Allāh to love me, I wanted to obey Him by being kind to and obeying my parents. Despite the fact that my father physically and verbally abused me, I still tried to be good to him. But, thanks in part to my mother's comments about him, at some point in my life, my innocent childish love for my father changed to hate. I despised every single thing about him – how he ate, how he walked, how he talked. I hated that he still asked for and expected hugs and kisses from me even after the mean things he said and did to me. My mother perpetuated this idea in the way she fought with him; it always looked like he was the aggressor and she the victim.

The well-known hadith that one's mother is more deserving of love and respect than one's father encouraged me to put all my energy into loving and obeying her as best I could. Because she was the one who comforted me after my father attacked me and defended me against him, standing up for me, she was the only source of comfort for me. Thus, I attached myself in an unhealthy manner to her and we became enmeshed; when she was happy I was happy and when she was mad or sad, I couldn't have a good time. I tried with all my power to make her happy and to make her pleased with me. It was because of this intense codependency that I have such a challenge in healing from her infliction; I gave her my all and she rejected, depreciated and destroyed it.

The dysfunction permeated beyond our parents' relationships with each other or with me. My siblings and I have an uneasy relationship with each other that is affected, one way or another, by one or both parents. For example, one sibling cut ties with the other because of issues the other had with our mother. Another still believes our father to be a good father and pushes me to do things such as wish him a happy birthday or take him out for Father's Day. One sibling and I butted heads because they labeled me the abuser, claiming my mother's harshness and nonacceptance of my good deeds was in response to my antagonism.

…relationship with Allāh

Because our relationship was borne out of blood and mentioned several times in the Quran, one of the favorite weapons that my mother used to validate her stance was religion. Similar to how abusive men misuse verses from the Quran, my mother misused the verses regarding treatment of parents, telling me how Allāh would punish me and that if she were to die displeased with me I would be damned to Hell for all eternity. I was told several times that I had no iman in my heart, that I only do things out of fear of Allāh's punishment and that if I were a true mu'min, I would not be so rude with my parents. When bad things would happen to me, she told me that Allāh was angry with me and punished me for what I had done. I believed it.

While we all doubt whether we are good enough in the sight of Allāh, whether our deeds will be accepted or whether we are sincere, my mother spiritually abused me so intensely that I doubted if Allāh even loved me. I thought “How could Allāh love someone like me, someone who was so insolent and hated by their parents?” I asked Allāh to forgive me for being such an insolent person and for being so bad to my parents. Today, I acknowledge that this was projection of her own feelings of herself, but the pain of hearing that come from my mother was extreme.

…relationship with the community

The shame and guilt I felt affected not only my relationship with myself and my Lord, but how I was with the community. For one, I felt as if I was wearing a scarlet letter “V” for being a victim of domestic violence. Although no one knew, I felt I was different and that no one would understand what I was going through. Other people had seemingly good relationships with their parents and had parents who were apparently loving and kind. I did not know for sure if this was true, but no one talked about it and neither did I. I felt isolated in my community. I didn't have anyone to talk to and didn't know if anyone cared or would even believe me about what was going on in my house if I told them. With my parents being such upstanding members of the community, it would be hard to convince someone that they were actually unkind and unfit parents.

Another issue was the hypocrisy I felt. I was an outwardly practicing Muslim who went to MSA meetings, and treated people with as much kindness as I could. People enjoyed my company and liked me. But as I looked into the mirror that was my parents' eyes, I believed this was only because no one, except my parents, knew the real me. In fact, my mother told me that I was so nice to the people outside my house while being so ill-mannered to those in my home. At the time, I didn't believe she would say something that wasn't true, especially something so hurtful. Like most children, I thought the best of her and the worst of myself and with the community loving her as well, I took her guilty verdict to heart.

…on marriage

As abused children grow older, they too may choose to marry and have children of their own. No one will deny that when you marry someone, you marry their family. When you marry their family, you also marry their problems and toxicity. When these issues are not addressed or acknowledged, they cannot be resolved. They seep into the core of the marriage, into the hearts of the individuals. It affects how they deal with each other and ultimately how they deal with their children. People joke about the “evil in-laws” and make the same comments about treating them with kindness, respect and humility. When the in-laws are abusive and have a skewed view of reality, it is no joke.

To avoid disclosing any identifiable details, I will not speak of my own or my siblings' marriages, but will instead refer to a couple that I know who live in an abusive home. The mother/mother-in-law behaves in a similar fashion to my mother, leading me to believe that she also has a mental illness. The husband (her son) believes that to be a good son, he must do anything and everything in his power to please his mother, even though nothing he ever does is good enough in her eyes. She, too, uses Islam's emphasis on serving parents as a means to get her way. She speaks nastily to both her son and daughter-in-law, both of whom feel the detrimental effects of living with an unstable and abusive person. Both are victims of abuse and do their utmost to please their perpetrator. For example, after a day of cleaning the house in hopes of pleasing her, she made a comment about how dirty the TV was, saying how she would never have kept her house in this shape.  Even though the wife recognizes the abusive behavior of her mother-in-law, she does not know what to do or how to act. Her husband believes his mother needs to be obeyed and feels powerless to say or do anything to stand up for himself or his family. There are young children in this marriage who will, unless something changes, grow up seeing their parents treated harshly and possibly be treated in a similar manner themselves.

By Makiko Segawa

SNA (Tokyo) — Readers of Japanese newspapers in recent months would have difficulty avoiding the term fuhyo higai, which means something like “damage caused by rumors.” This term is now deeply associated with the people of Fukushima Prefecture who have suffered a number of blows to their economic prosperity as an indirect result of the nuclear disaster. But could not the term fuhyo higai be applied with equal relevance to the condition of parts of the Muslim community of Japan?

The livelihoods of some Japan-based Muslims have been negatively impacted by the leak last October of the internal documents of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department which alleged that the Muslim community was a potential source of “homegrown terrorism” and even identified particular individuals as probable terrorists.

It is in response to this episode of fuhyo higai that fourteen Japan-based Muslims, including some of Japanese nationality, filed last Monday a lawsuit against the Tokyo metropolitan and national government, claiming that police anti-terrorism investigations were conducted in an illegitimate fashion that abused their human rights.

The plaintiffs are requesting a total 154 million yen―or 11 million yen each―in compensation.  The leaked documents contained very specific information about a number of Muslim individuals, including passport numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, names of their family members, and all sorts of other sensitive personal information.

The documents made clear that some of these individuals were secretly investigated at the request of the FBI, implying that US counter-terrorism policies had provided the motivation for the Japanese police to put some foreign residents and even Japanese citizens under surveillance.  Kazuyuki Azusawa, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, observes, “The police are at anytime capable of accessing personal banking accounts for investigations without judicial warrants.”

According to Azusawa, the police have identified and maintain a database on about 98% of the Muslims who reside in Japan, meaning that one’s religious identity alone is being used as a marker for deciding which people are potential terrorists in Japanese society.

For those individuals whose personal information was leaked last October, the “damage” of being fuhyo higai is more than theoretical.

Azusawa reveals that one Muslim was dismissed from the company he had worked for after the leaked documents declared him a terrorist suspect. Another man who owns a small business suffered a major drop in the number of his customers.

Moreover, Azusawa indicates that many of them are now unable to go back to their mother countries since they are afraid that intelligence agencies abroad may take seriously the allegations found in Japanese police documents.

Both the plaintiffs and their lawyers note that the Metropolitan Police Department has not apologized for any aspect of their investigations, nor the damage it may have done to innocent people.  The SNA contacted the Metropolitan Police Department for their comments on the case, but the spokesman said only that he could not discuss any matter that was under litigation.  Not all observers are dissatisfied with the police activities.

Kenjiro Kato, a military analyst, told the SNA: “I do not think police investigation was inhuman when compared to what goes on in Islamic countries where forced labor and torture are being conducted. Japan is one of the most comfortable states for Muslims to live in and there is little bias toward them.” Kato also revealed the interesting fact that a police acquaintance told him in 2005 that they were following Muslims from a certain Tokyo area mosque, not because they really believed there were terrorist suspects at the location, but only as a training exercise to brush up their professional skills in trailing people unnoticed.

Whatever the truth may be―that the police are seriously worried about terrorism, or whether they are merely cooperating with FBI requests, or whether they just want to slink around in the shadows and practice how to follow people―the damage they have done to some Muslim individuals appears to be real, and it raises questions about the police use of state power within Japanese society.

Makiko Segawa is a staff writer at the Shingetsu News Agency.

Shingetsu News Agency

Groups of young activists marched through the streets of Cairo, Alexandria and Ismailia. They were waving placards denouncing Hosni Mubarak and calling for the overthrow of the corrupt political system that had held them in virtual enslavement. They had been building to this point for many years now and had planned long and hard for this moment. Some of them had been arrested, some of them had been tortured and some had been killed – yet they continued to organise. Now, they were out on the streets and their goal was clear – Liberation (Tahrir) Square.

I watched them utilise the internet and social media to organise a revolution and wondered how come all I had managed to do was to waste time on the same sites.

A line of the dreaded secret police stood between the protesters and Tahrir Square. The protesters continued marching towards certain imprisonment and torture. The pace quickened. Within seconds, the protesters were running. They were not just confronting their worst nightmares, they were racing towards it. My mouth was held open in shock. Had they no fear? The crowd broke through the lines of the police like a raging flood breaks through a dam. I did not realise that fear had left them now and it would not be coming back.

I watched them fearless in standing up to the tyrants who prevented them from speaking the truth and wondered what my excuse was when no one was preventing me from standing up for the sake of Allāh.

I watched them stop and pray to Allāh in the midst of a barrage of stones and bullets and wondered why I was pleased with myself for worshipping Allāh in only the most limited sense of the word.

I watched them in awe as this battle between the bullets of the oppressors and the courage of the oppressed and wondered how long I could keep ignoring the plight of the Muslims across the world.

Inspired by the dedication of those who seek to live free or die trying, millions of Egyptians decided that they could no longer sit at home. The authorities blocked the internet and mobile phones, but still the people came realising that no power on Earth could stop an idea. The authorities spread reports of looting, but still the people came realising that they had nothing left to lose. The authorities talked of chaos and economic misery, but still they came willing to obtain freedom no matter how high the price they had to pay. They shot dead dozens, but still they came believing it was better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a jackal. A people had found their voice… and their dignity.

I watched them unite together from all backgrounds for a single cause and wondered what prevented me from uniting with all my brothers and sisters here and across the world.

After 18 days of struggle, after hundreds of deaths, after thousands of wounded – the tyrant finally fled. As the news was announced, a large portion of the crowd fell to their knees and thanked Allāh. They cried, they celebrated and they smiled.

I watched them jubilant in the streets of Egypt and I realised that Allāh only changes the situation of a people who change themselves. I understood that I must begin the change within myself, my family, my community and my Ummah. That evening, the revolution had come to my soul - and there is no turning back.

Sheikh Sami al-Majid:

“Justice is necessitated by nothing other than our shared humanity. We must be just towards all human beings, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender. Justice is the greatest means of ensuring human dignity and human rights. Justice is what people ask for and expect from each other, regardless of their affiliations, loyalties, affections, and prejudices.

“Justice is not something that exists only in the courtroom. It is not something only judges decide. It is the way, we as people should conduct ourselves with each other in the course of our daily lives. We should instill it in our children from the time they are small. It should be the first manner of conduct that our preachers and Islamic workers call people towards. All people should be embraced by it without exception. No one is above justice. No one is excluded from it and no one is exempted from it.”

Statement by 50 year old Sri Lankan maid Ariyawathie, after doctors removed 23 nails which had been hammered into her body while working as a maid in Riyadh:

“I had to work continuously since I had to do the chores of all the occupants and when I wanted to take rest due to tiredness, they inserted the nail in my body as a punishment,” she said. “I had to work from dawn to dusk. I hardly slept. They beat me and threatened to kill me and hide my body.” She added that she arranged her travel documents to return home on her own expense. “They were really devils with no mercy at all,” she said.

Due to the graphic nature of the horrible abuse in this case, this incident is receiving a good deal of media attention. The problem of abuse of domestic workers in many Muslim countries is nothing new, however. Let us hope that increased attention to these cases is a sign that change is beginning to come.

AlJazeera English’s story on this case of torture included the following:

Hussein Shobokshi, a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat, the pan-Arab daily, told Al Jazeera that this “kind of story triggers the talk and debate to improve labour laws in the country. It is an issue that has been discussed for quite some time now through the Sharia Council and Human Rights Commission. You will soon see the ministry of labour, the Shariah Council and the Human Rights Commission jointly activate important rules and regulations in order to prevent such incidents from occurring again and punishing people who are responsible for it. Nowadays, you hear the cases being brought to justice, you hear the issues being put out in the media. This is a novelty; it had not been the case in the past.”

To get a sense of the scope of the problem, here are recent reports from media sources and human rights organizations regarding these issues.

2008 Human Rights Watch Report “As If I Am Not Human: Abuses against Asian domestic workers in Saudi Arabia”

August 1, 2010 New York Times, “Immigrant Maids Flee Lives of Abuse in Kuwait” “Rosflor Armada, who is staying in the Philippines Embassy, said that last year during Ramadan, she cooked all day for the evening meal and was allowed to sleep only about two hours a night. “They said, ‘You will work. You will work.’” She said that she left after her employers demanded that she wash the windows at 3 a.m.”

December 2009 CNN, Spate of suicides by foreign maids in Lebanon sheds light on abuse. “The two leading causes of death for migrants is suicide [and] dying while trying to escape from employers,” said Nadim Houry, Senior Researcher for Human Rights Watch (HRW) in Lebanon.

April 2010 Human Rights Watch Report “Slow Reform: Protection of migrant domestic workers in Asia and the Middle East.” “The governments discussed in this report have begun to introduce initiatives to improve the treatment of domestic workers or to prevent and respond to abuse. But change has been slow and incremental, and many of the most critical reforms lag behind, such as including domestic workers in labor laws, divesting the employer of power over the domestic worker’s immigration status, and creating stronger oversight over recruitment processes.”

I do not desire to paint all Arab and Muslim employers with the same brush. I am sure that in many cases the domestic workers are treated as members of the family and are able to improve the situations of their families, no doubt this is why people continue to come seeking work.  The point is that this case is another example of something which is obviously a widespread systemic problem and must be addressed, in the interests of justice. Cases of injustice and oppression are not addressed by ignoring or downplaying them, but must be met with continued attention and demands that the governments involved meet their responsibilities to provide for justice and that all of us as individals examine the way we treat people, especially those over whom we hold power. Any true commitment to justice must be consistent regardless of who the oppressor is and who the victims are or where the oppression takes place. This is something clear in the teachings of Allāh and His messenger (sall Allaahu alayhe wa sallam) and it is a standard to which we as Muslims must hold ourselves.

Most of us are familiar with the famous Hilf al-Fudul, an alliance for justice that the Prophet (saw) entered into in Makkah before he (saw) received revelation.  That alliance, which was made by decent people who were outraged by the abuse of someone considered weak in the society, without tribal support to defend his rights, not only called for those who joined not to oppress others themselves, but gave them a personal responsibility to defend the rights of the oppressed who had no one else to  defend them, regardless of religion or tribe.  I encourage people to contact the Embassy of Saudi Arabia and express concern for the treatment of migrant domestic workers in Saudi Arabia and to demand justice for Ariyawathie and all those who have been abused and oppressed.

ACTION ALERT! Contact the Saudi Embassy

Contact information for the embassy is here.  I also encourage people to suggest any other actions that we can take regarding this issue in the comments section.

If the form doesn't work, pls email: info@saudiembassy.net

Click here to view the embedded video.

I've pasted two articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post. After that I have included a good article by Glenn Greenwald. I also added two videos from Olbermann on this issue.

News articles

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.

But the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, told a House hearing in February that such a step was possible. “We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said. “If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” He did not name Mr. Awlaki as a target.

The step taken against Mr. Awlaki, which occurred earlier this year, is a vivid illustration of his rise to prominence in the constellation of terrorist leaders. But his popularity as a cleric, whose lectures on Islamic scripture have a large following among English-speaking Muslims, means any action against him could rebound against the United States in the larger ideological campaign against Al Qaeda.

The possibility that Mr. Awlaki might be added to the target list was reported by The Los Angeles Times in January, and Reuters reported on Tuesday that he was approved for capture or killing.

“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone.”

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

At a panel discussion in Washington on Tuesday, Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California and chairwoman of a House subcommittee on homeland security, called Mr. Awlaki “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.”

Source: New York Times

Muslim cleric Aulaqi is 1st U.S. citizen on list of those CIA is allowed to kill

By Greg Miller
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
A Muslim cleric tied to the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner has become the first U.S. citizen added to a list of suspected terrorists the CIA is authorized to kill, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

Anwar al-Aulaqi, who resides in Yemen, was previously placed on a target list maintained by the U.S. military's Joint Special Operations Command and has survived at least one strike carried out by Yemeni forces with U.S. assistance against a gathering of suspected al-Qaeda operatives.

Because he is a U.S. citizen, adding Aulaqi to the CIA list required special approval from the White House, officials said. The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations.

“He's in everybody's sights,” said the U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the topic's sensitivity.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: “This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law.”

The decision to add Aulaqi to the CIA target list reflects the view among agency analysts that a man previously regarded mainly as a militant preacher has taken on an expanded role in al-Qaeda's Yemen-based offshoot.

“He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” said a second U.S. official. “He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him.” The official stressed that there are “careful procedures our government follows in these kinds of cases, but U.S. citizenship hardly gives you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens.”

Aulaqi corresponded by e-mail with Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 12 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood, Tex., last year. Aulaqi is not believed to have helped plan the attack, although he praised Hasan in an online posting for carrying it out.

Concern grew about the cleric's role after he was linked to the Nigerian accused of attempting to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day by detonating an explosive device he had smuggled in his underwear. Aulaqi acknowledged teaching and corresponding with the Nigerian but denied ordering the attack.

The CIA is known to have carried out at least one Predator strike in Yemen. A U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, was among six alleged al-Qaeda operatives killed in that 2002 operation but was not the target.

Source: Washington Post

Glenn Greenwald's Article

In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration's “presidential assassination program,” whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism.  At the time,The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile “hit lists” of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list.  The following week, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the “right” to carry out such assassinations.

Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield.  I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind.  I won't repeat those arguments — they're here and here — but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.

Just consider how the NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified:

The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. . . .

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say theybelieve that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said.  A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president. . . .

“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

No due process is accorded.  No charges or trials are necessary.  No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family).  None of that.

Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens — and a death penalty imposed — is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist.  He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers — cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted — to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist.  It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets(advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist ”involved in plots.”  These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth.  And the punishment is thus decreed:  this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done.  What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?

Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider — as theNYT reported — that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen).  Even more strikingly, Antonin Scalia, in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as “enemy combatants”; instead, they argued, the Constitution required that Americans be charged with crimes (such as treason) and be given a trial before being punished.  The full HamdiCourt held that at least some due process was required before Americans could be imprisoned as “enemy combatants.”  Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind.  Even GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra, when questioning Adm. Blair, recognized the severe dangers raised by this asserted power.

And what about all the progressives who screamed for years about the Bush administration's tyrannical treatment of Jose Padilla?  Bush merelyimprisoned Padilla for years without a trial.  If that's a vicious, tyrannical assault on the Constitution – and it was — what should they be saying about the Nobel Peace Prize winner's assassination of American citizens without any due process?

All of this underscores the principal point made in this excellent new article by Eli Lake, who compellingly and comprehensively documents what readers here well know:  that while Obama's “speeches and some of his administration’s policy rollouts have emphasized a break from the Bush era,” the reality is that the administration has retained and, in some cases, built upon the core Bush/Cheney approach to civil liberties and Terrorism.  As Al Gore asked in his superb 2006 speech protesting Bush's ”War on the Constitution”:

Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution?

If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?

If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?

Notice the power that was missing from Gore's indictment of Bush radicalism:  the power to kill American citizens.  Add that to the litany — as Obama has now done — and consider how much more compelling Gore's accusatory questions become.

UPDATE:  When Obama was seeking the Democratic nomination, the Constitutional Law Scholar answered a questionnaire about executive power distributed by The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, and this was one of his answers:

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

[Obama]:  No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely todetain U.S. citizens without charges.  Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges.  Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face?  As Spencer Ackerman documents today, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here.

UPDATE II:  If you're going to go into the comment section — or anywhere else — and argue that this is all justified because Awlaki is an Evil, Violent, Murdering Terrorist Trying to Kill Americans, you should say how you know that.  Generally, guilt is determined by having a trial where the evidence is presented and the accused has an opportunity to defend himself — not by putting blind authoritarian faith in the unchecked accusations of government leaders, even if it happens to be Barack Obama.  That's especially true given how many times accusations of Terrorism by the U.S. Government have proven to be false.

UPDATE III:  Congratulations, Barack Obama:  you're now to the Right of National Review on issues of executive power and due process, asKevin Williamson objects:  ”Surely there has to be some operational constraint on the executive when it comes to the killing of U.S. citizens. . . . Odious as Awlaki is, this seems to me to be setting an awful and reckless precedent. “  But Andy McCarthy — who is about the most crazed Far Right extremist on such matters as it gets, literally — is as pleased as can be with what Obama is doing (or, as Gawker puts it, “Obama Does Something Bloodthirsty Enough to Please the Psychos”).

UPDATE IV:  Keith Olbermann's coverage of this story was quite good tonight – see here.

Source: Salon.com

Olbermann Videos

More links

Some more good articles:

The 9/14 President
Barack Obama is operating with the war powers granted George W. Bush three days after the 9/11 attacks.
By Eli Lake

Assassinating Awlaki
By Kevin D. Williamson

Let’s Call Killing al-Awlaki What It Is — Murder
Kevin Jon Heller

By Shaykh Haitham Al-Haddad (Cross-posted from justiceforaafia.org)

It is well known that the War on Terror waged by the United States and its allies led to aggression and injustice against countries, organizations, groups and individuals. Perhaps the worst example of this brutality against individuals was that meted out to our Muslim sister in Islam, Aafia Siddiqui and her three small children.

Aafia is a hafidhah of the Qur’an, a devoted mother and practising Muslim, who dedicated her life to spreading the religion of God and assisting fellow Muslims. It is believed that she was abducted at the behest of American intelligence from Pakistan, her home country along with her children in 2003, the youngest of whom was just six months old at that time. Aafia Siddiqui and her lawyers maintain that she was held in secret US detention and tortured and abused in this time, along with her children – a claim that is corroborated by former prisoners at Bagram. After five years of denying knowledge of her whereabouts, the US claims that she allegedly emerged in Afghanistan. She was shot by US soldiers and then tried and convicted despite the absence of any physical evidence against her and the conflicting testimonies presented during the trial. She now faces life in prison. Only one of her children has been released, while the whereabouts of the two youngest remain unknown. From the time she was transferred to the US to date she has been subject to humiliating and degrading strip and cavity searches in prison and is now being denied jail visits and communication with the outside world, including her immediate family.

Allāh has enjoined upon the believers, in innumerable commandments, to support the believers who are being oppressed, irrespective of where they may be. Allāh says in the Qur’an:

“The believers, men and women, are auliya (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another; they enjoin good and forbid from evil; they establish prayers, and give the zakat, and obey Allāh and His Messenger. Allāh will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allāh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.”[1]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

“A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allāh will fulfil his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allāh will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection.”[2]

He (peace be upon him) also said:

“Whoever is present while a Muslim is humiliated before him, and is able to assist him [and yet does not], Allāh will humiliate him before all of creation on the Day of Judgment.” And in another narration, “No man forsakes a Muslim when his rights are being violated or his honour is being belittled except that Allāh will forsake him at a place in which he would love to have His help. And no man helps a Muslim at a time when his honour is being belittled or his rights violated except that Allāh will help him at a place in which he loves to have His help.”

When we merely hear the plight of our sister, we should feel restless and tormented as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “The similitude of believers in regard to mutual love and affection is that of one body; when any limb of it aches, the whole body aches, because of sleeplessness and fever.”

In spite of this, the Muslim ummah, whose followers surpass that of any other world religion, have shamefully failed in our duty to defend this Muslim woman.

Obligation to aid in the emancipation of Muslim captives

Allāh has admonished and reproached the believers for allowing the weak to remain under the clutches of the enemy and their torture. Allāh says:

“And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allāh, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help.””[3]

Explaining this verse, Imam Al-Qurtubi said, “Freeing the prisoners is obligatory on the Muslim, whether by war or wealth.” Imam Malik said, “It is obligatory on (Muslim) people to ransom the prisoners with all their wealth.” There is no difference of opinion among the scholars over this, since the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Free the prisoners.”[4] Our scholars say that ransoming prisoners is obligatory, even if not a single penny is left. Ibn Khuwaizimandad said, “This verse contains the obligations to free prisoners. There are reports from the Prophet (peace be upon him) to this effect: he freed prisoners and ordered them to be freed. This was practiced by Muslims throughout the ages and the scholars are unanimous about it. It is obligatory to free (Muslim) prisoners from the state’s treasury, and if the amount does not suffice, then it is obligatory upon all the Muslims to contribute. If one Muslim frees him, the others are absolved of this duty.”

An incident that shows the great concern for freeing Muslim captives is when the Caliph ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul Aziz (may Allāh be pleased with him) sent ‘Abdul Rahman bin ‘Amrah to free some Muslim captives. He said, “Give them whatever they ask for every Muslim! By Allāh, a Muslim is dearer to me than all the polytheists in my state! Indeed, you win any Muslim you pay the ransom for. Indeed you are buying Islam (by ensuring their release from prison and torture).”[5]

Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Freeing Muslim prisoners is one of the greatest obligations. Spending money from endowments (waqf) and other sources is one of the best deeds.”

Ibn Qudamah, may Allāh have mercy on him, said: “It is permissible for a Muslim to use his zakat to buy back a Muslim prisoner from the captivity of polytheists. This is because the emancipation of a Muslim captive is similar to emancipating someone from slavery, as well as it bringing glory to Islam. Spending zakah in this cause is like spending it to soften people’s hearts towards Islam, and since it is given to the prisoner to free himself from captivity it is like giving money to an indebted person for ridding himself of the debt.”

Our Obligation

Therefore, it is obligatory upon every single Muslim, wherever they reside, to work, directly or indirectly, towards the release of the Muslim captives irrespective of wherever they may be. Any Muslim with the capability to aid others yet fails to do so will be sinful. Everyone is responsible according to their ability; the greatest responsibility lies with those in authority, followed by the scholars, and so on – although the failure of those who bear greater responsibility to act does not absolve individuals of their own individual responsibilities.

If the captive is a Muslim woman, like our sister Aafia, the obligation becomes even greater, given the elevated status of women in Islam. The scholars of Islam are unanimous that a Muslim woman cannot be handed over to non-Muslims in any case. This Ummah has a glorious heritage of protecting Muslim women that we must endeavour to restore. Amongst the incidents narrated to this effect, is that of the honour of a believing woman attacked by members of the tribe of Quraydhah, and so, a believer fought to defend her until he was killed and an army was dispatched against the perpetrators.

As a nation, we have not fulfilled our obligation towards our sister, Aafia Siddiqui, as well as her children. We must exhaust every lawful means for her release and for the recovery of her children without fearing anyone but Allāh. This may include, but is not limited to, direct involvement with organisations that work for this cause, donating money for it, raising awareness and actively speaking about her plight, writing in support of her and her family, and pressuring those governments complicit in her ordeal to end this injustice.

The least that is enjoined upon us is to supplicate to Allāh for her as well other Muslim prisoners, as supplication is the weapon of a Muslim; it is incumbent upon every believer to supplicate for them as if we were supplicating on behalf of ourselves and our families.

“O Allāh, deliver our sister and her children from this humiliation and torture at the hands of those who do not believe in You.”

May Allāh ease the affairs of our sister Aafia and hasten her release from captivity. May He break free her shackles and the shackles of all of our oppressed prisoners. May Allāh give them the strength to deal with their ordeal.

May Allāh punish those who have oppressed our sister Aafia and continue to oppress her, may He defeat them and smite them, and may Allāh forgive us for being negligent towards our Muslim brothers and sisters.

May Allāh unite the hearts of the Muslims and grant us victory over our oppressors.

Notes:
[1] Surah Taubah 9:71
[2] Sahih Al-Bukhari
[3] Surah Al-Nisa’ 4:75
[4] Sahih Al-Bukhari
[5] Narrated by Sa’eed Bin Mansur in his Sunan

The article below has been reproduced with the author's permission, for which we are thankful:

DETROIT — It is a cold Sunday afternoon in February and ‘aṣr prayer is being held at Masjid Al-Haqq. Children run outside, playing in the snow, rambunctious and full of life while their mothers serve the last of the stragglers who have come for a hot meal at the weekly soup kitchen. The neighborhood is typical Detroit, replete with boarded-up houses, the streets quiet and vacant – save for an unassuming two-story red brick house at the corner of Clairmount and Holmur.

Inside the makeshift mosque, a dozen middle-aged African-American men have gathered. As the prayer concludes, a voice calls out, “Read a hadith, that's what the Imam used to do.” The prayer leader dutifully opens a book of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and starts reading.” There will come forth a people on the Day of Judgment, their faces shining like the sun.” He pauses for effect. “The poor, the immigrants, the disheveled ones.”

The man's words resonate with the audience. They begin to look at one another, as if by taking in their appearance they are acknowledging the precarious state of their community. And slowly they begin to nod. “That could be any one of us,” says one man. He thinks for a moment, before adding, “That could be all of us.”

Four months have passed since the death of Imam Luqman āmīn Abdullah. But among his community, his legacy lives on. The soup kitchen he initiated continues to serve the homeless and hungry by the dozens on a weekly basis. Among his followers, there is an odd sense of acceptance.

“Even after this tragedy,” says Abdul-Aleem, 55, “our doors are open to all.” “We know that Allāh is in control and justice will prevail.” There is an uncertain gleam in his eye, and he quickly turns away as I meet his gaze – for justice has too often been an elusive concept in this part of the hood.

The Homicide

(a schematic of the 21 gunshot wounds on Luqman Abdullah, from page 11 of the autopsy report)
The passage of time has seen an evolution in the narrative of what happened in that Dearborn warehouse in which Luqman Abdullah met his end. Initially, the US Attorney's office claimed that there had been an “exchange of gun fire” after Mr. Abdullah fired an initial shot – the term “exchange” presupposing that both sides were engaged in shooting.

Yet the Associated Press āmīn-abdullah-lea_n_337763.html" target="_hplink">quoted an FBI spokesperson as saying that the Imam “fired a weapon and was killed by gunfire from agents” – which indicates that Mr. Abdullah fired only one shot. Seizing on the confusion, the media offered widely divergent portrayals of the incident, the majority describing it as a “gun battle” or a “shootout”, with a minority left wondering if he might have been gunned down in cold blood.

In addition to the shooting angle, there was another twist – the dog. The FBI was quick to announce a memorial service for Freddy, the Belgian Malinois who “lost his life in the line of duty,” the day after the incident. While according to the FBI, Freddy “gave his life for his team,” the US Attorney's press release is more cautious in noting that “an FBI canine was also killed during the exchange.”

The common perception – although never officially confirmed – was that Mr. Abdullah fired at the dog thereby prompting agents to return fire at him. Sympathetic observers asked if the life of a dog was equal to the life of a human being. Further complicating public perception was the fact that the dog was airlifted to a hospital for emergency medical care while Mr. Abdullah's handcuffed corpse was transported by ambulance to the coroner's office.

Today there remain more questions than answers in the death of Luqman Abdullah. The autopsy report, kept under seal for three months at the request of the Dearborn Police Department, was finally released on Feb. 1. The report documents that Mr. Abdullah was shot 21 times, including multiple times in the genitals and at least once in the back. Numerous abrasions and lacerations were also found on his face, hands, and arms; his jaw was found to be fractured.

The discovery of Mr. Abdullah's additional injuries has sparked a new wave of criticism. In a recent interview, Omar Regan, a son of Mr. Abdullah, became emotional as he decried how his father has been inhumanely “mauled” by the dog. The Michigan Citizen quotes Wayne County Chief Medical Examiner Carl Schmidt as conceding that the injuries could have come from dog bites but he refuses to offer a conclusive determination.

Independent forensic pathologists whom we contacted were unable to comment on the matter without seeing pictures. Incidentally, Mr. Abdullah's family as well as watchdog organizations have encountered numerous obstacles in obtaining the release of the autopsy photographs – a bureaucratic struggle which is ongoing at the moment.

Prior to the release of the autopsy, it had been assumed that Mr. Abdullah shot the dog as it was on its way to attack him. If, however, one accepts the premise that the dog actually attacked Mr. Abdullah, would that not imply that he had been successfully subdued? Did he then shoot the dog at point-blank range while being attacked? Did the FBI agents shoot him 21 times – not while he was pointing a gun at them – but while he was wrestling with the dog?

Some have even questioned if Mr. Abdullah was the one who shot the dog. Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality told the local NBC affiliate that the FBI's irresponsible conduct was to blame for the death of the dog. Huel Perkins, news anchor at Fox 2 Detroit, went one step further. “With so many bullets flying,” he wondered, “they could have been ricocheting and FBI bullets might have killed that dog.”

The Investigation

(Masjid Al-Haqq, 4019 Clairmount Street, Detroit, MI)
Immediately after the killing, the FBI dispatched a Shooting Incident Review Team to conduct an internal investigation into the incident (as is standard whenever agents are involved in a shooting.) Meanwhile, the Dearborn Police Department launched a criminal investigation into the homicide. Chief Ronald Haddad recently told the Dearborn Press and Guide that his office would submit a final report to the Michigan Attorney General within weeks.

Demands for an independent investigation had been growing since November, having been echoed by Detroit Mayor David Bing, the Detroit Free Press, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In January, Congressman John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, lent his support to the effort calling on the Justice Department to conduct a “rigorous” and “transparent” investigation.

In addition, he asked the Civil Rights Division to review the use of confidential informants in houses of worship – a practice that played a critical role in the FBI's investigation of Mr. Abdullah. A spokesman for the Judiciary Committee said that, as of two weeks ago, no response had been received to the request. Meanwhile, the Civil Rights division has announced plans to conduct their own investigation into the shooting.

When the story first broke in late October, it was presented in the context of religiously motivated terrorism. As we have previously discussed, the bulk of the 45-page affidavit issued on Oct. 28 consists of a “background” section that implicates Mr. Abdullah and ten other defendants in a sensational plot to violently overthrow the government.

However, the actual crimes alleged are more commonplace: possession of firearms and body armor by a convicted felon, providing firearms to a convicted felon, tampering with motor vehicle identification numbers, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and conspiracy to sell or receive stolen goods. When we met last November, Omar Regan expressed frustration with the media's coverage. “They just want to say Muslims are terrorists,” he said.

Indeed, many have used the tenuous “Islamic terrorism” connection to attack the character of the late Mr. Abdullah, with some going so far as to implicate aspects of the Islamic faith by extension. The FBI affidavit set the stage for such behavior by referring to a “nationwide radical fundamentalist Sunni group” and by going to great lengths to emphasize Mr. Abdullah's religious beliefs. On Nov. 18, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies -a controversial neoconservative think-tank – published an article comparing Mr. Abdullah's followers to global “jihadi movements.” Other right-wing ideologues with dubious credentials have also used the case as evidence of the threat of “homegrown terrorism.”

The grand jury indictment (included below) issued on Nov. 10 presents a striking contrast with the earlier criminal complaint. The complaint is what the FBI presented to a federal magistrate judge; after a finding of probable cause, arrest warrants were then issued. The indictment is what the grand jury, upon weighing the evidence, actually accuses the defendants of, and what they will be tried for in court. The 11-page document makes no mention of Islam, or religion in general, nor does it discuss terrorism or hint at anything remotely violent, save for possession of firearms. Needless to say, Luqman Abdullah has been dropped from the list of defendants.

The indictment provides further evidence of the banal and artificial nature of the investigation. The “stolen goods” the defendants are alleged to have conspired to sell or receive consist of fur coats, laptops, iPhones, Burberry purses, and 40″ LCD televisions. The payments involved range in value from $300 to $1000. A plain reading of the document suggests that an FBI operative (an agent or a confidential informant) gave the defendants money that they then used to purchase goods (that they believed to be stolen) from another FBI operative which they then stored in an FBI-operated warehouse. On Oct. 28, as per the indictment, the defendants arrived at the FBI warehouse to take possession of FBI owned goods that the FBI had paid them to purchase, at which point the warehouse was raided by the FBI and they were arrested. One of them, Imam Luqman Abdullah, was killed.

The Judgment

Two days after the killing, Andrew Arena, special agent in charge of the Detroit division of the FBI, was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the agents “did what they had to do to protect themselves.” In those early days, the headlines in the news were “Radical Islam leader killed” and “Feds stand behind deadly Michigan raid.”

By February of this year, however, the headlines had changed to “Autopsy Shows Michigan Imam Shot 21 Times” and “Conyers Demands Rigorous Investigation of Imam Shooting.” The favorable turn in media coverage provides little consolation for Mr. Abdullah's family, however. “The media is interested in hype,” complains Mr. Regan. “They're using this to sell papers and for TV ratings.”

The growing mainstream consensus demanding an independent investigation has clearly been an unexpected and significant development in the case. Whereas once there were only a handful of voices willing to question the FBI's account, a veritable group has assembled to demand transparency and accountability – including the House Judiciary Committee, the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners, the Detroit Free Press, the Mayor of Detroit, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

When we met in November, Mr. Regan exclaimed at one point during our interview, “A man's been killed, and he hasn't been charged with a crime.” That statement stuck with me for many months. It conveys a certain raw emotion, eliciting an impassioned but entirely rational response of outrage at a fundamental injustice that seems to have been done. Luqman Abdullah is no longer here to defend himself against the charges that have been thrown at him by the government and the media – he never got his day in court. Is that not a miscarriage of justice?

Having some doubts about the legal and factual accuracy of the latter part of Mr. Regan's statement, I contacted experts for clarification. Many were doubtful of the extent to which the question even mattered – whether or not Mr. Abdullah had in fact been charged with a crime when he was killed.

Constitutional scholar and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh argued that the relevant question instead was whether the killing was justified given the exigencies of that situation. The killing of an innocent man by the police might be justified in self-defense. On the other hand, even if someone had been indicted, the use of deadly force absent proper justification would be inappropriate.

The question thus returns to the actual homicide (the term the medical examiner has used to describe the manner of death in the autopsy.) Were the FBI agents acting in fear for their lives? Or was the use of deadly force excessive given the threat they faced? A conclusive determination is impossible without all of the facts – facts that one hopes the investigation will uncover. Given the information that has been released thus far and the manner in which it has been received however, it would seem that the weight of public perception is against the FBI's account.

In all likelihood, the warehouse in which the shooting occurred was controlled by the FBI, as the text of the indictment strongly implies (paragraph 22, “Overt Acts”). If Mr. Abdullah was in fact attacked by the dog, as the abnormal injuries to his body seem to indicate, how could he have posed an imminent threat to the FBI agents – sufficient to justify 21 gunshots? Why were more than half of the shots below the waist–including two in the groin and one in the back? Why was no effort made to provide emergency medical attention to Mr. Abdullah?

The attempts to convict Mr. Abdullah in the court of public opinion have largely been based – not on his conduct in his final moments – but on the government's allegations of prior criminal behavior. The unspoken justification is not that he presented an imminent threat to the agents but that he was a dangerous person who needed to be “brought to justice.”

FBI Agent Andrew Arena, speaking with NBC affiliate WDIV-TV, concedes that “what transpired that day…was a tragic event.” He proceeds to affirm that they “wanted to make sure that no innocent people were harmed, that no agents were harmed, and no subjects were harmed.” His choice of words, however, unwittingly speaks to his presuppositions. Rather than use the term “bystanders”, he instead declares that Mr. Abdullah was not an innocent person whose harm should be avoided, but rather a threat to be neutralized.

“A man is dead and he hasn't been charged with a crime,” said Mr. Regan. A subtle but profound distinction must be made between “charged” and “convicted.” Even if Mr. Abdullah had been convicted of – intent to receive stolen goods among other crimes – a justification for his killing can only be derived from exigencies of that situation in the warehouse. After all, a class C felony carries a maximum sentence of twenty-five years in prison – not death.

But the fact remains that he wasn't convicted – of that crime or any other crimes. Save for a felony assault conviction in 1981 – when he would have been 24 years old – by all available accounts, Luqman Abdullah had lived as a “good neighbor“, in the words of the lieutenant at the local police precinct. He was known for his devotion to social justice and serving the needs of the poor and needy community in which he lived. He earned his living as a cabdriver and led prayers at his local religious center. Far from the FBI's portrayal of a violent thug, those who knew him point to his positive influence at eliminating crime and combating poverty in a neighborhood that government had all but forgotten.

The greatest injustice of Luqman Abdullah's killing stems from the perception that in those final moments, it was a handful of FBI agents who acted as judge, jury, and executioner. Their actions determined that Mr. Abdullah would die as guilty, if for no other reason than his inability to furthermore proclaim his innocence. The vital public debate about government-sponsored espionage in religious institutions and the prevalence of entrapment as a law enforcement tool in poor and underprivileged communities will continue. But we have lost an invaluable informant whose perspective can only be guessed at and never apprehended in full.

The FBI complaint is the only documentation in the public record of the criminal activities that allegedly occurred at the direction of Luqman Abdullah over the past two years. It presents only one side of the story – a side that can no longer be challenged. Some media organizations have disturbingly accepted that one side as the definitive account, thereby corrupting the notion of “innocent until proven guilty.” If the presumption of innocence applies up until the point of conviction, how much more applicable should it be if the accused had yet to be charged with a crime?

Among the legal scholars we contacted, a few were of the opinion that the criminal complaint presented to the magistrate judge was the functional equivalent of a charging document. They asserted that the question was really more of semantics than of law – what do we really mean when we say “charged with a crime”?

Others offered a more definite assessment. “He was not charged with a crime,” said Yale Professor and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Kate Stith. “So as not to mislead,” she continued, “I would say 'He had not been formally charged with a crime, though a warrant had been issued for his arrest.'”

Professor Eve Brensike Primus of the University of Michigan offered a constitutional rationale for a strict interpretation of “formal charges.” “The Fifth Amendment,” she argued, “ensures that a federal charge for a felony offense will not be brought without granting the accused the protection of the review and acceptance of the charge by the grand jury.”

Harvard Professor Carol Steiker agreed. “An indictment is the required formal charging document in federal court for all non-petty crimes (felonies),” she said. “In such cases, it would be most accurate to say that an individual killed prior to indictment was killed before he was formally charged with a crime.”

The Community

(Fatima, 3, Sumayya, 10, and Juma, 8 on a Sunday afternoon in February at the weekly Masjid Al-Haqq soup kitchen)
Twenty-one shots. Left to die while an FBI dog was transported by helicopter for medical treatment. Portrayed as a radical Muslim, a violent black man, a threat to the community. Killed before he could be charged with a crime.

Is this the face of justice in America, I ask myself. Not my America, I retort, not the America of Ann Arbor, Michigan with its ivory towers, nor the America of Brooklyn, New York where I grew up, the child of Pakistani immigrants, benefiting from the best public schools, taught to keep an open mind, to ask questions, to always think critically.

I look around at the deserted streets and the abandoned houses, my senses overwhelmed by the crushing poverty of inner-city Detroit – and I realize that I am no longer in my America. I keep walking, comfortable by now in this neighborhood, no longer anxious about my car being broken into. The death of Luqman Abdullah has given me a reason to leave my comforts and visit another world, to talk to its residents and to listen to their stories.

I see a young man, slightly younger than me, waiting for the bus on Dexter Ave. I ask him what has by now become my routine query. Yes, he answers, he knew Imam Luqman. “He used to give out food if someone was hungry,” he tells me. But Khari, 20, shocks me when he says, “I hope they lock them up in jail.” “They shot him 21 times.” I walk away in awe wondering if this, perhaps, is what they call the optimism of youth.

I walk back to Masjid Al-Haqq, enter from the backdoor, and climb the narrow, aging stairway that leads to the men's prayer room. The sweet smell of incense reaches me as I behold the sight of half a dozen children running around, their fathers relaxing and catching up on gossip. I spot Omar Regan and his brother Mujahid Carswell in the corner and I head in their direction. I am intercepted by a bold and charming 8-year old, Khalid, who wants a rematch in rock-paper- scissors (in which I had soundly defeated him earlier that afternoon). I pause for a quick game, letting him win, and walk away leaving him content with his victory.

I have not seen the brothers since November, and they are as impassioned as ever regarding their father's death. “It was worse than we thought,” says Mr. Regan, referring to the autopsy. “Nobody deserves this.” They are frustrated by the government's secrecy and failure to release relevant documentation. Where is the ballistics report, he asks. “Where is the proof that my father even fired a gun?” He wants to see the autopsy report of the dog and wonders why EMTs were not on scene during the take-down. “What if an officer had gotten hurt? Isn't that standard procedure?” Many of these same questions are increasingly being asked by other parties as well, most notably by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.

“People are rightly concerned when a religious leader becomes involved with an FBI informant and ends up dead in the street,” said Rep. Conyers in a press release. He went on to note that if the Department of Justice failed to investigate the incident in a “credible and transparent” manner, “it will be left to Congress to ensure that justice is done.” Such high-level involvement in a routine law enforcement operation indicates the killing of Imam Luqman Abdullah is anything but routine – it might even be exceptional.

Mr. Carswell is satisfied with the amount of national attention the case has received, but he is not surprised. “They thought no one would care. But they underestimated how much people loved this black man. He was a servant of the people.” 'They' for Mr. Carswell is the FBI, and he is unrelenting in his criticism. “Nobody's policing the FBI,” he complains. “Why did they call him armed and dangerous? Why did they call him a radical Sunni Muslim? If the charge is intent to receive stolen goods, why are you saying this?”

“It's a control thing,” he asserts. “They're bullies, they rule by fear.” He cites the FBI's attempts to influence media coverage of the case. Indeed, the Feb. 9 article “Metro security breach leaves many on edge” bizarrely notes that “The FBI's Detroit office refused to discuss the case with the Free Press on Monday, citing its unhappiness over a recent newspaper editorial.” (Numerous attempts to contact the FBI for comment were unsuccessful.) “People are afraid to ask questions, even the media is intimidated,” he says.

Despite the obstacles, Mr. Carswell depicts a reality in which even the FBI has been left isolated. “They're the only ones telling that story,” he says. “His family, people in the streets, strangers, even the police – they have nothing but good to say of him. The only ones with a different story are the FBI. It don't take no genius to figure out that somebody's lying.” Mr. Carswell looks me in the eye – “How is everybody telling the same lie?”

For the family, much of the government's case turns on the credibility of one informant, a topic on which the Detroit Free Press has reported extensively. Mr. Regan is skeptical. “Why is it his word against everyone else? Who is he? What are his credentials? What makes him reliable?” Mr. Regan even suggests that the informant might have “played” the FBI, selling them an exaggerated narrative of a dangerous conspiracy for his own personal gain. Such stories have become common in recent years; informants in similar cases have often been career criminals, at times drug addicts, seeking reduced prison sentences or financial compensation.

“It's inhumane,” says Mr. Regan, returning to the manner of the killing. “You don't have a reason to shoot someone 21 times. These are trained marksmen. Shooting below the waist. Twice in the private parts. By federal agents. Do they have families, children, and wives?”

I ask the brothers why they think the FBI agents shot and killed their father. Could it have been fear? Mr. Regan briefly entertains the notion. “Perhaps,” he says, “the informant hyped up the FBI. All lies. They went in thinking they were fighting for their country. And then they found out he wasn't it.” His eyes flare up. “Oops. 13 children. A wife. An entire community in mourning. Why can't they just say they were wrong?”

Mr. Carswell is less receptive to the suggestion that the agents were afraid for their lives and that's why they shot him 21 times. “This is what they do for a living. How are they so afraid? Are you new? Are you a rookie? Just wait in the car.” More than “afraid federal agents,” he responds, “what we hear about most often are rogue cops abusing their power.”

At the end of the day, Mr. Abdullah's family is anxious for answers. “They say: your father was a bad guy, that's why we killed him, that's why we shot him 21 times.” Mr. Regan's eyes glisten and his voice falters. “It's not fair; it feels like they targeted him because he's Muslim. Because he was Muslim, they can say he was a terrorist…But the most they could charge him with was receiving stolen goods.” “Tell the truth,” he says. “You're acting like cold-blooded killers. How can I believe that you're here to serve the community?”

While the family waits for the investigation to conclude, they pray for justice. As I leave, Mr. Regan's voice assumes a tone of certainty. “Eventually,” he tells me, “the truth will come out.” On my drive back to my America, I think of the man killed without having ever been charged with a crime and left for dead in a warehouse; of the house of worship infiltrated by federal agents funded by our tax dollars; of how little our government seems to be doing for the people of inner-city Detroit. I wonder what has become of my America – and I can only hope that Mr. Regan's confidence will not prove to have been in vain.

“Why do they hate us?” This simple, yet loaded five word question has literally outperformed the thousands of answers that have been put forth. This is because comprehensive responses are rarely as powerful as a simple question. Aafia Siddiqui’s case suffers from the very same dynamic; it is complex, it is detailed and it raises disturbing issues that reach far and wide.

Consider the following claims against the U.S. and allied/contracted forces:

1)      Abduction of a mother and her three children with the children used for extortion

2)      Long term captivity in secret prisons

3)      Rape, torture, mental and physical abuse

4)      Use of elaborate disorientation and false flag techniques

This laundry list is definitely sensational enough for a kneejerk rejection from the average American patriot. However, what are we to think when these very same allegations are listed in a recently declassified Department of Defense’s Inspector General’s report entitled Review of DoD-Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse[i]?

There are other serious questions surround this impending trial:

1. Why is she considered such a high profile suspect when the charges against her are not related to terrorism[ii]?
2. What caused the interest in Siddiqui in the first place?
3. How long has she been in custody?
4. Where have her children been all this time?
5. Who was responsible for them?
6. Did we outsource her and her children's detention and interrogation to other nations?

Despite all these issues, there is one central theme in Siddiqui’s ordeal. It holds true regardless of ones status as a supporter or detractor.  As an American, the one inescapable question is: how we, the U.S., treated and continue to treat her.

How Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was and will be treated matters

Why? The reasons are plentiful, but let us examine one of our more important relationships: Pakistan, a strategically vital U.S. ally. Pakistan is a nation that seems to continuously suffer from regime changes, political assassinations and other stability issues; these are conditions conducive to the widespread popular support that Aafia Siddiqui is receiving.

Siddiqui has been transformed from a “U.S. person of interest,” into a galvanizing symbol of the Pakistani people. Her growing status as a focal point of that nation’s pride and desire for true sovereignty is evident. The streets are regularly flooded with pro-Aafia rallies and demonstrations that on occasion number in the tens of thousands. Popular singers, poets and artists continue to release tributes to Siddiqui as their chosen symbol for all of Pakistan’s missing persons and other popular, pro-Pakistani sentiments. Siddiqui’s story serves as a common rallying point for both Pakistan’s secular and religious as well as for their conservatives and their liberals. Aafia Siddiqui’s case has even overcome bitter rivalries between Pakistan’s competing political movements.

Siddiqui’s status is growing in influence, even transcending Pakistani politics and reaching the broader Muslim world as new and persistent allegations of abuse surface against the U.S. These allegations, especially when women and children are involved, undermine our standing in the world and provoke very serious and avoidable diplomatic problems.

This report legitimizes the hard to accept claims put forth by Aafia Siddiqui’s supporters.

It can no longer be claimed that abusive ‘interrogation techniques’ and assaults on detainees have not been either approved or perpetrated by our servicemen and contractors. This is the second reason that U.S. treatment of Aafia Siddiqui is the central issue of this case; it is directly related to our values as Americans.

To illustrate the point, let us examine the claims made by Aafia Siddiqui’s supporters with the DoD report’s findings:

CLAIM 1: The abduction of a mother and her three children/ children used for extortion

• REPORT: The use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family:… - pg 36

CLAIM 2: Long term captivity in secret prisons

• REPORT: CIA detainees in Abu Ghraib, known locally as “Ghost Detainees,” were not accounted for in the detention system. With these detainees unidentified or unaccounted for, detention operations at large were impacted because personnel at the operations level were uncertain how to report or classify detainees. – pg 59
• REPORT: …DoD temporarily held detainees for the CIA – including the detainee known as “Triple-X” – without properly registering them and providing notification to the International Committee of the Red Cross. This practice of holding “ghost detainees” for the CIA was guided by oral, ad hoc agreements… - pg 78

CLAIM 3: Rape, torture, mental and physical abuse

• REPORT: At the extremes were the death of a detainee in OGA custody, an alleged rape committed by a US translator and observed by a female Soldier, and the alleged sexual assault of a female detainee. - pg 59

CLAIM 4: Use of elaborate disorientation and false flag techniques

• REPORT: …military personnel improperly interfered with FBI interrogators in the performance of their FBI duties. – pg 86
• REPORT: False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him. - pg 97
• REPORT: …our interviews with DoD personnel assigned to various detention facilities throughout Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated that they did not have a uniform understanding of what rules governed the involvement of OGAs in the interrogation of DoD detainees. That DoD interrogators improperly impersonated FBI agents and Department of State officers during the interrogation of detainees. – pg 86

How our nation treats its detainees will continue to become more and more significant during the progression of Aafia Siddiqui’s trial. It will be a reoccurring theme in all similar trials as well. Regardless of verdicts, our treatment of detainees if not addressed properly will continue to degrade our nation’s image and standing in the world. This fact cannot be tempered by our stance on the all important and most immediate question of when did the U.S. take custody of Aafia? There are enough claims of mistreatment for either scenario of when Siddiqui came under U.S. authority.

Supporters contend that Aafia was abducted and handed over to U.S. Authorities in April 2003. This claim is supported by an NBC News clip available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xwCHha5ITM . This claim is corroborated by Siddiqui’s family’s statements expressing their belief that she was dead from 2003 until her capture in Afghanistan.

While convenient, it should be noted that the NBC and other media reports of Aafia’s abduction in 2003 have been denied/contested[iii].

What is certain is that once captured in Afghanistan, Siddiqui has been shuffled between mental and maximum security facilities, both with documented histories of abuse especially toward Muslims[iv] [v] and women[vi] inmates.

Currently, despite the fact that she is held in solitary confinement, under video surveillance, Siddiqui under goes regular, forced, strip searches, when making any outside contact – effectively denying her reasonable access to her attorneys. It is also a matter of record that after Siddiqui was officially in U.S. custody, she was shot by U.S. personal in Ghazni, Afghanistan and that the medical care she needed was at best delayed and inadequate[vii].

For most American’s, there might just be too many allegations against the U.S. for us to sallow. This type of thinking will miss the lessons that are to be learned as information comes to light. Siddiqui’s case, how she was treated and what we will do about it going forward, will define, in part, our capability for leadership in the world. Most importantly, it will serve as a window for who we are or who we have become.

PLEASE NOTE: Aafia is due in court tomorrow, Nov. 3. Those who are able are encouraged to attend! Details here.

[ii] http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/September/08-nsd-765.html

[iii] http://therepublicofrumi.com/archives/aafia01.htm

[iv] http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/19/maddy/index.html

[v] http://cryptome.org/bop-abuse.htm

[vi] http://www.aclutx.org/article.php?aid=252

[vii] http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN11499491