Iraq

By W. Mohammed  

The article on Iraq was written on 8/3/03 and has been amended continuously, last change 12/3/03.  To see the amended article please visit: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/think786/Iraq.htm/ 

The US & UK have given the following reasons for war:

1)            Iraq's link with terrorism

2)            Breaking UN resolutions

3)         Possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

4)         Regime change linked to humanitarian reasons.

6)         Full compliance to disarm.

7)         Pre-emptive strike to stop WMD falling into terrorist hands

 

In the present situation, combinations of the above reasons are being used. By constantly changing the main reason for war, the US & UK have demonstrated an inherent weakness in their argument. If their reasons were strong and convincing in the first place, there would be no need to change them frequently. All of the above arguments have flaws, which are briefly highlighted below:

 

1)         Iraq's link with terrorism = so far unproven, especially to Al Qaeda.

2)         Breaking UN resolutions = blatant hypocrisy and double standards were shown by the US & UK, with respect to countries such as Israel, therefore a specific and binding violation was needed, which was WMD.

3)         Possessing weapons of mass destruction = the problem with this was if you are going to attack a country because of this you need to prove it first. The most effective way of doing this was to send in weapons inspectors, which they did. So far, the weapons inspectors have not found anything significant, i.e. a so-called "smoking gun". This reason began to look weak.

4)         Regime change linked to humanitarian reasons = hypocrisy crept in due to the past relationship of Iraq with the US & UK. As stated by one MP "Saddam Hussein was a monster in the past and still is today, the only difference is in the past he was our monster". Humanitarian reasons have not been addressed elsewhere, such as in Palestine/Zimbabwe etc. Therefore a selective approach to human rights abuses was shown and did not go down well.

5)         Full compliance to disarm = surely this can only be determined by the actual weapons inspectors, and the UN.

6)         Pre-emptive strike to stop WMD falling into terrorist hands = possession of WMD has not been proven. The idea of killing innocent people now to maybe save innocent people dying later (from a WMD terrorist attack) does not sit well with morality.

 

The above has shown that the pro-war arguments are by no means convincing, however the anti-war stance also has flaws, which are highlighted below:

 

If Iraq is disarmed peacefully: Saddam Hussein & his regime will still be in power, therefore oppression, a dictatorship, human rights abuses, killings will continue to occur. Also, in the future, the exact same situation will arise, i.e. weapons inspectors will either have to stay in Iraq indefinitely or return because it is unlikely the regime in Iraq will stop trying to gain or build WMD. Also with the same regime in place, it will be harder to conclude total disarmament. Sanctions will still be in place, thus unnecessary deaths will occur. If they will accept a war with UN backing, civilian deaths will still occur.

 

Other Brief Points

The reconstruction effort in Afghanistan post operation Enduring Freedom has been unacceptable. Opium growing is on the increase, as is the violence & power struggle between warlords. Security outside of Kabul is poor. Infrastructure rebuilding has been slow. This does not set a good precedent as it damages the pro-war case.

 

Attacking Saddam Hussein & his regime is by no means an attack on Islam. Judging by their actions, they cannot be considered Muslims. Even if people think they are, then they must explain why the UN, led by the US & UK bombed Serbia (a Christian country) to protect Kosovo Albanians (who were mainly Muslim).

 

If the US & UK attack Iraq without a UN resolution, they will be hoping Saddam Hussein uses WMD, thus justifying their unilateral action. If it is a swift victory, low casualties, and the majority of the Iraqi people are happy, then the US & UK will come out of it looking very good.

It is very difficult to predict outcomes and knock-on effects of war (region, terrorism, death toll etc).

 

This crisis has worryingly demonstrated the poor quality of information gathered by the intelligence agencies of the US & UK. So far, they have not shown one piece of convincing evidence acceptable to other UN members.

 

If two situations are unjust, causing the deaths of many people (e.g. Israel & Iraq), is it not better resolving one issue than not resolving either? Even if double standards are shown?  Is some loss of life worth liberation of a nation? Do the ends justify the means? This situation has posed many difficult questions for everyone, including myself.

 

Conclusion

An important point to realise in this debate is that no solution is ideal, both sides have drawbacks to their arguments. Therefore, the best solution out of the possibilities must be chosen.

 

In my opinion, the weapons inspectors must be given time to do their job, preferably with a deadline given to Saddam & his regime to show full compliance. Whether full compliance is being shown or not should be left up to the weapons inspectors. If they report that they cannot disarm Saddam Hussein effectively, through peaceful means, then the UN should decide the next move. Which would most likely be military action.

Sometimes it can be a fine line between...

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

and...

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Neitzsche

 

March Against War

By L. North 

Around 6 million to 10 million people marched against war in Iraq on 15^th February 2003, in over 600 cities and town across the world.  This array of humanity was impressive, although, it didn’t have an impact on the Bush & Blair policies.   President Bush considered the marchers as irrelevant, Prime Minister Blair was slightly angry at the attitude taken by the marchers,  that they took democracy for granted, that they wouldn’t have not the right to march in Iraq and that they had largely ignored the human rights abuse carried out by the Iraqi regime.   

In London, the march exceeded the expectations of the organisers, well over a million and half people descended onto the streets of the capital, to make their voice heard.    There were smartly dressed housewives,  groups of students, war veterans, pagans, families,  peace activists, Buddhist monks, people from all walks of life and from all faiths.   Bewildered tourists stranded in the middle of the crowds stood in amazement, amidst a sea of placards, ranging from Not in My Name, Free Palestine, Blair don’t be a Twat, No Blood for Oil, Quakers for peace, Don’t attack Iraq to Stop this Bloody War.  You can draw your own conclusion the meaning and significance of some of these statements.  The fact that there was no “Free Iraq” placard to be widely seen among the crowds is indicative of the ambivalent attitudes and standards shown in Western and democratic societies.

 It wasn’t really a march, more like a mass shuffle past the landmarks of London, the London Eye, Parliament, 10 Downing Street, Trafalgar Square,  the Eros Statute, all the way to Hyde Park for the rally.

 Although the march started at midday, people were still streaming into Central London late into the afternoon.   The atmosphere was wonderful, friend ly and polite.

 

Why I am Al Muslim

By M. Quran

 For a rational human being to commit his time and resources to an ideology, reasons substantiating the fruitfulness of that endeavour must exist. I consider myself to be a rational individual in this sense and so my belief in Al-Quran and my conscious decision to submit myself fully to its teachings should have solid reasoning. By this belief and submission, Al-Quran calls me ‘Al-Muslim’ i.e. a person who practices the concepts of ‘Al-Islam’.

 Before we even ponder on whether to believe and submit, we must first understand what Al-Quran’s proposition is. The proposition is simple enough. Obey its instructions, the instructions of Allah Himself and we will have the best of this life and our existence after our deaths will be in everlasting bliss basking in the expression of Allah Himself. This proposition would be a divine equivalent of working for a number of years then enjoying the remuneration package for eternity. Certainly not a deal a thinking person would reject! The question is, how do we know that this proposition is true or to put it in another way: how do we authenticate the claim of the authorship of Al-Quran?

 A quick perusal of Al-Quran’s first chapter, containing 6 verses will tell us the summation of this system of Al-Islam. It begins with the remembrance of Allah by means of feeling his overwhelming divine presence. He, who expresses His might and His evolutinising qualities; qualities which are 2 sides of the same concept. He who holds the dominion during the age when the system is in place. We will serve Allah and Him alone through obeying His laws. We will seek His help in the development of our potential and the prevention of our decay. We will seek Allah’s help through guidance of the straight and ascending path. This path is full of benefits and pleasures for those who walk it.

 The central concept in Al-Quran is ‘Allah’, the Arabic expression for the unseen which we instinctively know and cry out to in times of mortal danger. Al-Quran contains an exceptional explanation of Allah, but not as simply an abstract theological concept, rather through explaining Allah’s relationship with mankind. This explanation, if seen in its true form, can suffice as proof of Al-Quran’s authenticity. In my opinion, no other text in the world explains the deity in a more powerful yet succinct way. As a person walks along the path of Al-Quran, he will find that its explanations regarding its author is accurate and he will develop a spiritually-moving relationship with Allah.

 Another thing the reader of Al-Quran will find is simplicity. The instructions given in Al-Quran are simple things to remember, yet are so profound that nothing else is needed walk the straight and ascending path. Al-Quran also shows an understanding of diversity in mankind and enjoins those who believe in it and submit to its ideology not to force another person to believe and submit. The values reflected in the instructions of Al-Quran will once again resonate with mankind’s deepest notions of what is ‘good’.

 Al-Quran contains stories of previous peoples who have accepted the message and prospered and peoples who have rejected the message and been destroyed. These stories aren’t history for history’s sake. There are no unnecessary embellishments. Rather these stories detail for us principles for our survival, stability, growth and ascendancy into the next stage of existence. These stories did not only happen before, but will happen again and again throughout humanity’s existence. Human beings are subjugating other human beings, as the Firaun in the stories of Al-Quran did in the past. Human beings are economically victimising other human beings as the people of Shuaib did in the past as well. The community of people in the world who call themselves ‘Muslims’ are behaving exactly as those who received Allah’s message before them, the Children of Israel.

 We only need to see our lives and the realities today in order to see that we are living inside the boundaries of Al-Quran and that escape from these boundaries are impossible.

An objection a reader of this article might raise would be the issue of interpretation. How would the reader know that I am not projecting my sentimentalities and thus explaining Al-Quran as how I would like it to be rather than how it actually is? My answer to that would be the internal system that Al-Quran sets for its interpretation prohibits me from doing so. A governing principle in the interpretation of the philosophy of Al-Quran is consistency. In fact, Al-Quran asserts that any philosophy which is from Allah will be fully consistent, internally and externally. Any interpretation which are wrong will be shown to be clearly so by analyzing other verses of Al-Quran.

 I would like to end my list of reasons by stating my understanding of what Al-Quran is NOT. The unfortunate situation as I see it is that people in the world who call themselves ‘muslims’ are not following the teachings of Al-Quran. Al-Quran isn’t a book which one gains ‘spiritual merits’ by its recitation. Its concepts are meant to be understood and followed. Sadly, the teachings of Al-Quran have been covered up by the veil of clergy and man-made teachings.

 In summation, I humbly ask you dear reader, to read Al-Quran for yourself and ponder over its message. You have as much right to its understanding and application as anyone else. Believing in Al-Quran and submitting to its teachings does not mean to surrender yourselves blindly to the ‘muslim’ clergy but to think for yourselves about the reality of the human condition. We all have but one life and so we should spend it wisely in order to be successful.

 

Rights & Issues

By L. North 

Some media commentators said that the marchers were “misguided”, “naïve” and “idiots”, referring to the millions that marched for peace on 15^th February.  Are we really aware of our actions however good intended?  Surely, people that value freedom, uphold free speech, liberty and democracy also welcome freedom for Iraqis from an oppressive regime.  Who is right here? The commentators or the marchers?  It is really a case of give and take, as much as we want peace, freedom from oppression is equally a noble ideal, but finding the right balance is difficult.

 There is a moral maze that needs to be unraveled, where the people want international law, the UN, the voice of masses to be successful. The scenario at present is one where there is a unilateral wish by the US to impose its own stamp as the world’s superpower in order to re assert its power base within the Middle East. It is not by chance that Iraq is also a lucrative market opportunity for the US. The US justification for action is that something horrific could take place sometime in the future if a regime change doesn’t take place soon.

A lot has been written and commented upon about the current situation, particularly the crisis in the Middle East and the war against terror being led by the US. As the clouds of war are looming, views are being polarised between the pro-war and anti-war camps.  We have been asked to stand firm against injustice in this world, to support a war against tyranny by the leaders of the US and the UK.  It is disconcerting to see how the events are unfolding, to witness the mistrust of politicians increase, to see the trust in the democratic system weaken and to find ourselves trapped and unable to take action to counter the US and UK policies imposed on us. Ordinary people depend on the authorities to manage their affairs on their behalf.  Some are upset or confused about the way that policies are carried out but feel unable to do anything about it.

 Echoes of this dilemma can be also seen in religion, by observing the partisan attitudes of various groups, each group equally vocal at dismissing others as “misguided” or “naïve”.  The views of others may be irreverent to the dominant group in religion, but it is done so to the exclusion of tolerance, open and critical analysis and also peace. 

 There are those who allow the clerics, scholars and leaders dictate their lives, yet they are uneasy about what is being done. Others are alienated when Islam is used for political ends. It does not have to be like this.  It is possible to overcome such situations if fanatical, narrow-minded and backward attitudes are confronted.   There must a medium for such Muslims to be able to discuss and re-define the rights and issues within Islam.

 

Our Freedom

By L. North

 The freedom to practice our faith in peace and in dignity is important to Muslims living in Western societies.   The acts of violence committed on Sept 11^th 2001 changed this significantly, Islam has come under intense scrutiny by governments.  

 In February, the security services in the UK raided a mosque in North London, as part of the ongoing “war against terror”.   Some Muslims expressed disgust at the raid on Finsbury Mosque, going as far as stating it was against Islam to do so.   So for those who disapproved of the anti-terrorism raid, is there also anger at the extremists who plot to kill and maim hundreds of civilians, including Muslims?

 Law abiding, peace-loving Muslims should be pleased at the attempts of the security services to protect the ordinary people, including Muslims.  However, this not means that liberty, human rights should be abused in the process.   A number of non-UK nationals are in jail, suspected of terrorist activities.  They have being held for an unspecified and potentially unlimited period since their arrests, made under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001. The arrests were highly publicised in the media, but subsequently, the detainees have been largely forgotten about as they languish in jail.

 It is difficult to be objective in these times, but how much erosion of human rights can be tolerated?  The issue of the detentions has left a sour taste within the Muslim community, which is being squeezed between the fanatics and the actions of the “war against terror”.  The Muslim community has the opportunity to bridge this gap by being more vocal in condemning terrorism as well as be able to challenge more forcefully the dogma espoused by fanatical groups & also accept criticism more readily.

 

Why I’m Not A Sunni

(Or For That Matter, A Shia)

By M. Quran

I started seriously studying and practicing Islam some 12 years ago. I am from a Sunni family with Sufi leanings. At the time, Sunnism seemed to be the most sophisticated religion at the time. Certainly, its arguments against Christianity helped solidify that opinion for me. However, about 7 years ago, I came across serious challenges towards the Sunni orthodoxy. These challenges helped me analyze and reexamine my position. I eventually gave up Sunnism and believe that I am closer to the system which Allah has given mankind, Islam.

 Why did I give up Sunnism? In one sentence, to get closer to the teachings of the Quran! In other words, I didn’t give up Sunnism to be ‘westernised’ nor ‘liberal’; on the contrary, I did it to follow the Islam brought by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

 This might come as a shock to most readers. How can Sunnism, the interpretation of Islam not be close to the Quran? Sunnism is followed by a billion or so people in the world!

 The picture painted by Sunni clergy is that Sunnism is a monolithic system, so clear and detailed that there is no question that it answers all problems of mankind. I cannot agree with this picture for the following reasons :

 1.       All Sunni clergy accept that the Quran represents the PRIMARY source of Sharia, Islamic law. In order to derive sharia laws from the Quran, one needs to know ‘an-nasakh wal-mansukh’ , the science which uses the progressive nature of Quranic revelation to abrogate some verses with others. From these abrogations, laws and principles are derived. There is one small problem : THERE IS NO AGREEMENT as to how many verses abrogate and are abrogated. We’re not talking about deciding between 5 verses and 6 verses; we’re talking about over fifteen opinions ranging from 5 verses to 250 verses!  How can these inconsistencies be from Prophet Muhammad? Clearly, claims of the divine nature of sharia are only that…claims.

 2.       There is no agreement between the 4 schools of sunni jurisprudence about the SOURCES of Islamic law, the sharia. The Maliki school emphasizes the Medina consensus, the Shafiee school emphasizes consensus in general. The Hanafite school accepts analogical deductions while the Hambalite school does not. Could Allah be responsible for these inconsistencies? It’s more likely that these schools of law are based on human opinion and therefore inconsistencies.

 3.       The sunni schools of law blatantly contradict the principles of the Quran itself. Stoning and the execution of apostates are clear examples of this. Despite the Quranic injunction to respect the privacy of individuals and to give them the freedom even to reject Islam, Sunni laws give their clergy the authority to barge into people’s houses and demand marriage licenses and the authority to ‘reform’ individuals who want to leave Islam.

 These are my reasons for rejecting Sunnism. The Quran is my guide in seeking the real Islam. I would gladly accept comments and criticisms.

 

Teachings

There are people who:

Believe that they practice their religion correctly;

Know that what they do goes against the teachings;

Do not care at all about religion;

Distort the teachings for their own selfish ends;

Don’t realise that certain practices are not religious but cultural, nevertheless, they still follow the practices.

Do all of the above!

 

The Intelligent Approach to Islam

By W. Mohammed

 I first of all recognised that within Islam today, different "versions" of Islam are being practiced. With varying beliefs on certain issues/practices, although the core beliefs may still be the same. For example, you may yourself know that sects (subsections) within Islam exist, such as Sunni, Shiite, Sufi, Wahhabi, Nation of Islam etc. After recognising this fact, all I did was simply ask myself "How do I know I am following the correct "version" of Islam? This question is so simple, yet how many Muslims have actually asked themselves this question? Have you?

 Investigation becomes vital. I found the following references from The Quran helpful regarding this topic:

 Sects condemned:

Those who divide themselves into sects do not belong with you. Their judgment rests with GOD, then He will inform them of everything they had done. (6:159)

 The majority of people on earth misguided/disbelievers:

If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess. (6:116)

This is the right religion, but most people do not know. (30:30)

Most of those who think they believe in God are actually idolaters:

So many proofs in the heavens and the earth are given to them, but they pass by them, heedlessly! The majority of those who believe in GOD do not do so without committing idol worship. (12:106)

 One definition of an idolater and its consequence:

Do not eat from that upon which the name of GOD has not been mentioned, for it is an abomination. The devils inspire their allies to argue with you; if you obey them, you will be idol worshipers. (6:121)

GOD does not forgive idolatry, but He forgives lesser offences for whomever He wills. Anyone who sets up idols beside GOD, has forged a horrendous offence. (4:48)

 Some of those who think they are guided/believers are not:

Some He guided, while others are committed to straying. They have taken the devils as their masters, instead of GOD, yet they believe that they are guided. (7:30)

On the day when we summon them all, we will ask the idol worshipers, "Where are the idols you set up?" Their disastrous response will be, "By GOD our Lord, we never were idol worshipers." Note how they lied to themselves, and how the idols they had invented have abandoned them. (6:22-24)

 Do not blindly follow the religion/teachings of your parents:

When they are told, "Follow what GOD has revealed herein," they say, "We follow only what we found our parents doing." What if their parents did not understand, and were not guided? (2:170)

They commit a gross sin, then say, "We found our parents doing this, and GOD has commanded us to do it." Say, "GOD never advocates sin. Are you saying about GOD what you do not know?" (7:28)

 You should seek knowledge:

And follow not of that which you have no knowledge, surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that. (17:36)

God will exalt those who believe among you, and those who have been granted knowledge to high ranks. (58:11)

And say: "My Lord increase me in knowledge." (20:114)

It is only those who have knowledge among His servants that truly fear God. (35:28)

Conclusion

It is clear from the above reference that God does not want us to divide ourselves into sects. For example, I no longer class myself as a Sunni Muslim, just simply as a Muslim.

 God also clearly points out that no-one truly knows who are the guided/believers apart from God alone. Maybe you, I or even the Imam in your local mosque may be misguided or an idolater. Knowing this, in combination with the references which stress upon the individual to seek knowledge, one should clearly research/ investigate/question/verify all information given to them, even if it is from a scholar of Islam! Being a scholar of Islam does not automatically mean you are one of the guided ones (as shown by the references), at most, it can only mean it is more likely you are one of the guided ones, that is all. Therefore verifying what you are taught/told is crucial. How could one verify what they are taught/told? To put it simply... research.

 This leads to the question: how one should go about researching Islam? Reading books/leaflets/literature on Islam by various authors can be helpful, but it must remain in your mind at all times that the information you are reading may be wrong, as it may have been written by those who think they are guided but are not (including this article). A simple question... what is the only book on earth which has no human author, therefore could not be written by one of those who think they are guided but are not? The answer I hope you thought of was The Quran. The Quran is the only book on earth which is the direct Word of God*, hence it would seem logical, to concentrate ones studies on such a book.

 Many people, using my own observation, seem to prefer to study books either written on The Quran, or about Islam, rather than referring to the Word of God itself. A common misconception is that studying The Quran itself would be a difficult task. From my own studies, I have found this is not the case. I always recommend learning from the source (The Quran). Like I always say: "Why ask a student when you can learn from The Teacher?".

I would like to finish off by recommending an approach to studying The Quran which in my opinion, is simple and logical. Even though I can read classical Arabic (which is the language The Quran is written in) I cannot understand it, so I cannot read the original Arabic Quran and base my studies on it. However, I can read the translations**, which are available in many languages throughout the world. The system I use is to read the English translations of The Quran, using several different translators, so I can compare verses. The simplest English translation I have found is by Rashad Khalifa (however, I must stress that this does not mean I agree with every part of his translation), all I am saying is that it is a useful starting point because of its simplicity. I also refer to translations by the following: Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, Shakir, Shabir Ahmed, Moshin Khan, J.M. Rodwell, N.J. Dawood, A.J. Arberry, Muhammad Sarwar, Sher Ali, T.B. Irving, E.H. Palmer and Muhamed Ahmed with his daughter Samira. Comparison of any translated verse using several of these translators is a must in any logical approach when studying The Quran. If you come across a discrepancy between the translations or something you'd like to clarify, you should compare as many translations as you can, and study the original Arabic. If it is still unclear, feel free to ask questions on this discussion board.

 *of course you are free to question this belief, as it even states in The Quran:

 There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient. (2:256)

 :but one should at least read The Quran before they decide to reject it. This would be the logical approach.

 **please note that any translation of The Quran cannot be equated to the original Arabic Quran, therefore cannot be regarded as the direct Word of God. All translations are simply an interpretation of what is being said in the original Quran by the translator.

Below is a list of links where these translations can be found:

Muhamed Ahmed with his daughter Samira: www.angelfire.com/realm2/qurantrans/

Shabir Ahmed: www.qaiu.org

Yusuf Ali, Pickthal & Shakir: www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran

Sher Ali:  www.alislam.org/quran/translation/index.html

A.J. Arberry: Partial translation available.

N.J. Dawood: Not available online, but is available to buy.

T.B. Irving: www.isgkc.org/translat.htm

Rashad Khalifa: www.submission.org/Q-T.html

Moshin Khan: www.equran.org/qrn/view/trans/mohsin/

J.M. Rodwell: //homepage.ntlworld.com/think786/JMRodwell_koran.pdf (right click & save target as) (pdf file)

E.H. Palmer:

 www.sacred-texts.com/isl/palm/index.htm

Muhammad Sarwar: www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/quran/quran-and-hadith/index.html

Search for specific words in The Quran: www.lrhazi.com/quran/index.php www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/

Translations of The Quran in other languages:  www.quran.org & www.quran-islam.org

 An extensive list of Quranic resources is available at

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/think786/Quran_study_tools.htm/

&

http://uk.geocities.com/quranicperspective

 "We made the Quran easy to learn. Do any of you wish to learn?" (54:17)

 

Insulting Islam

By L. North

Three Jordanians have received jail sentences for publishing an article in January in the al-Hilal newspaper about Muhammad's relationships with his wives, in particular his favourite wife, Aisha. 

They were found guilty of insulting Islam and damaging the prestige of the state as well as destabilising society, propagating perversity and circulating false rumours. The article "Aisha in the Prophet's Home" used excerpts from Islamic texts including Ahadith about the sex life of the Prophet Muhammad.

 It seems that the journalists found themselves in a paradoxical situation, at a time when the Jordanian authorities are making efforts to promote the country’s civil liberties to the outside world.  The authorities faced with rising Muslim fanaticism made an example of the journalists, in an effort to placate the outcry from Muslim clerics.  The journalists were deemed as apostates and renegades by clerics from Jordan's main religious party.   A clamp down on dissent has been taking place since the events of 11^TH September as the government fear a backlash for the pro US stance taken in the war against terror.

 Muslims clerics decried the journalists for distorting Islamic texts for their own ends, to boost sales of the newspaper.  It is an issue of who is allowed to comment on Islamic texts and the extent that the private life of the Prophet can be depicted. In countries with a Muslim majority, the subject is taboo; the sensitivity of the topic is great in most other countries. The case has failed to raise much international opposition because of the sensitivity of the issue involved.  These are difficult times when Muslims clerics are narrow minded and authoritarian instead of being tolerant and open-minded.  The outcome of the publication of this article shows the attitudes of the custodians of the faith, the Muslim clerics as censors, upholders of rigid dogma, literalists and exclusive interpreters of Islamic texts.

 The article cited information that is readily available in Islamic bookshops.  One quoted hadith is that the prophet had attained the sexual vigour of "forty men".  The only crime the journalists committed was to analyse Islamic texts in a manner contrary to the conservative views of Sunni clerics, and to do so at an awkward time for the Jordanian authorities.  

Z