US Army Shoot Unborn Baby in the Womb

[DarkStar]

Do not derail this tread again, by posting off topic, and bringing OBL into this. Back to the topic.

Recent posts moved to http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-terror/25233-christians-vs-muslims.html

 

[qsaark]

not every stone was unturned to keep them away from a muslim nation---muslims should have joined in eliminating al qaeda with tooth and nail from afghanistan, to keep the christian army from entering a muslim state----Bin Laden and Zawaheri---

Mastan Sahab, in past two or three posts of yours, you have tried to make me understand that the Afghanistan and now Pakistan could have been saved from the wrath of the US military if Taliban leaders had obeyed the demands of the US of handing over Osama and his aides to them. Your interpretation is based on the 'assumption' that:

A. Al-Qaeda or OBL and his aides were involved in the 9/11.
B. Americans invaded Afghanistan in search of OBL and Al-Qaeda operatives who were responsible for 9/11 attacks

First of all I do not agree with the assumption that OBL or Al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11 attacks because there is no proof. When the Americans asked Mullah Umar to hand over Osma, Omar agreed to comply with their demands if he was provided with evidence of Osama’s involvement. Americans did not provide him with any proof of OBL’s involvement at that time. There are some members who present OBL video confession as proof, but even if we accept that as proof, it was not until 2003 when the video was aired. So basically at the time when US demanded Omar to hand over OBL and his aides, there was no proof of their involvement. I do not know if Mullah Omar was a good Muslims or not, but he indeed was an honorable Pathan who refused to hand over his guest to Americans because American did not provide him with any proof.

Secondly, US plans of attacking Afghanistan pre-date the 9/11 incident. In March 15, 2001, Janes Defense published an article entitled "India joins anti-Taliban coalition" by Rahul Bedi. Than in June 26, 2001, an Indian Magazine Indiareacts published an article entitled “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime”. Than BBC reported “American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.” by George Arney. Than MSNBC reported “Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001”. In fact Pakistan was told about the Afghan invasion in July 2001. Mr. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Irrespective of Taliban's response to the American demands, the Americans were already determined to attack on Afghanistan.

In the light of the above, I do not find myself in agreement with you.

 

[Omar1984]

Mastan Sahab, in past two or three posts of yours, you have tried to make me understand that the Afghanistan and now Pakistan could have been saved from the wrath of the US military if Taliban leaders had obeyed the demands of the US of handing over Osama and his aides to them. Your interpretation is based on the 'assumption' that:

A. Al-Qaeda or OBL and his aides were involved in the 9/11.
B. Americans invaded Afghanistan in search of OBL and Al-Qaeda operatives who were responsible for 9/11 attacks

First of all I do not agree with the assumption that OBL or Al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11 attacks because there is no proof. When the Americans asked Mullah Umar to hand over Osma, Omar agreed to comply with their demands if he was provided with evidence of Osama’s involvement. Americans did not provide him with any proof of OBL’s involvement at that time. There are some members who present OBL video confession as proof, but even if we accept that as proof, it was not until 2003 when the video was aired. So basically at the time when US demanded Omar to hand over OBL and his aides, there was no proof of their involvement. I do not know if Mullah Omar was a good Muslims or not, but he indeed was an honorable Pathan who refused to hand over his guest to Americans because American did not provide him with any proof.

Secondly, US plans of attacking Afghanistan pre-date the 9/11 incident. In March 15, 2001, Janes Defense published an article entitled "India joins anti-Taliban coalition" by Rahul Bedi. Than in June 26, 2001, an Indian Magazine Indiareacts published an article entitled “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime”. Than BBC reported “American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.” by George Arney. Than MSNBC reported “Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001”. In fact Pakistan was told about the Afghan invasion in July 2001. Mr. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Irrespective of Taliban's response to the American demands, the Americans were already determined to attack on Afghanistan.

In the light of the above, I do not find myself in agreement with you.

Very informative post. I suggest all members on this form to view this post along with this thread
http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/25112-9-11-coincidences.html

 

[notsuperstitious]

Americans also surely have war plans drawn up for Iran, Cuba, China, Russia and all other countries not in their camp. infact most countries would have war plans drawn up for all possible scenarios. that does not mean all those scenarios are meant to happen. atleast some of the assertions above are seen in hindsight and now make 'sense' to the willing believers.

 

[Munir]

Mastan Sahab, in past two or three posts of yours, you have tried to make me understand that the Afghanistan and now Pakistan could have been saved from the wrath of the US military if Taliban leaders had obeyed the demands of the US of handing over Osama and his aides to them. Your interpretation is based on the 'assumption' that:

A. Al-Qaeda or OBL and his aides were involved in the 9/11.
B. Americans invaded Afghanistan in search of OBL and Al-Qaeda operatives who were responsible for 9/11 attacks

First of all I do not agree with the assumption that OBL or Al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11 attacks because there is no proof. When the Americans asked Mullah Umar to hand over Osma, Omar agreed to comply with their demands if he was provided with evidence of Osama’s involvement. Americans did not provide him with any proof of OBL’s involvement at that time. There are some members who present OBL video confession as proof, but even if we accept that as proof, it was not until 2003 when the video was aired. So basically at the time when US demanded Omar to hand over OBL and his aides, there was no proof of their involvement. I do not know if Mullah Omar was a good Muslims or not, but he indeed was an honorable Pathan who refused to hand over his guest to Americans because American did not provide him with any proof.

Secondly, US plans of attacking Afghanistan pre-date the 9/11 incident. In March 15, 2001, Janes Defense published an article entitled "India joins anti-Taliban coalition" by Rahul Bedi. Than in June 26, 2001, an Indian Magazine Indiareacts published an article entitled “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime”. Than BBC reported “American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.” by George Arney. Than MSNBC reported “Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001”. In fact Pakistan was told about the Afghan invasion in July 2001. Mr. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Irrespective of Taliban's response to the American demands, the Americans were already determined to attack on Afghanistan.

In the light of the above, I do not find myself in agreement with you.

I think you pretty much said it. Adding to that... If reliability is so important why did the US told cheap lies in the UN (Powell with his stupid pictures and that evidence) and how come they are so focussed in "forces of the willing" against Evil... All crap and cheap way to move beyond the real facts. The oil was very handy to have in control. Sadam (ex CIA like Karzai) was getting not friendly... So what do you do... Normally they put criminals in the Hague (Milosovich etc) but why was Sadam prosecuted in a brutal way in Irac? All this shows that the hidden agenda rules. If you still buy stories of rebuilding Afghanistan with armed soldiers then I feel sorry for you Mastah Khan...

 

[Omar1984]

Mastan Sahab, in past two or three posts of yours, you have tried to make me understand that the Afghanistan and now Pakistan could have been saved from the wrath of the US military if Taliban leaders had obeyed the demands of the US of handing over Osama and his aides to them. Your interpretation is based on the 'assumption' that:

A. Al-Qaeda or OBL and his aides were involved in the 9/11.
B. Americans invaded Afghanistan in search of OBL and Al-Qaeda operatives who were responsible for 9/11 attacks

First of all I do not agree with the assumption that OBL or Al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11 attacks because there is no proof. When the Americans asked Mullah Umar to hand over Osma, Omar agreed to comply with their demands if he was provided with evidence of Osama’s involvement. Americans did not provide him with any proof of OBL’s involvement at that time. There are some members who present OBL video confession as proof, but even if we accept that as proof, it was not until 2003 when the video was aired. So basically at the time when US demanded Omar to hand over OBL and his aides, there was no proof of their involvement. I do not know if Mullah Omar was a good Muslims or not, but he indeed was an honorable Pathan who refused to hand over his guest to Americans because American did not provide him with any proof.

Secondly, US plans of attacking Afghanistan pre-date the 9/11 incident. In March 15, 2001, Janes Defense published an article entitled "India joins anti-Taliban coalition" by Rahul Bedi. Than in June 26, 2001, an Indian Magazine Indiareacts published an article entitled “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime”. Than BBC reported “American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.” by George Arney. Than MSNBC reported “Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001”. In fact Pakistan was told about the Afghan invasion in July 2001. Mr. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Irrespective of Taliban's response to the American demands, the Americans were already determined to attack on Afghanistan.

In the light of the above, I do not find myself in agreement with you.

And the "Osama Bin Laden" in that confession tape was much darker skinned, with chubby cheeks, and a wider nose. He looked like a totally different man from the Osama Bin Laden from previous tapes.

 

[roadrunner]

You'd also need to define who Al Q is. OBL, right. Al Zawahiri, right. Some Uzbeks, alright. Who else?

If Al Q was a database of Mujahideen Soviet war vet fighters, one cannot chase all Afghanis former Mujahideens out of Afghanistan. Silly logic really.

 

[dabong1]

Americans also surely have war plans drawn up for Iran, Cuba, China, Russia and all other countries not in their camp. infact most countries would have war plans drawn up for all possible scenarios. that does not mean all those scenarios are meant to happen. atleast some of the assertions above are seen in hindsight and now make 'sense' to the willing believers.

The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982).

 

[dabong1]

The thing that people forget is that the american govt will prosecute soldiers and pass a harsh sentences to show the world that they will not tolerate war crimes but when you follow the cases through you find that a lot do not serve time or there heavy sentences are reduced.

The jury found Calley guilty of murdering 22 civilians at My Lai and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

After Calley had served three days in prison,President Nixon ordered that he be taken to Fort Benning, Georgia, to be held under house arrest. Sequestered in a comfortable apartment, Calley was allowed to have pets, entertain guests, and cook his own meals.
The legislatures of several states passed resolutions asking for clemency for Calley.
Calley’s life sentence was subsequently reduced to twenty years, then reduced again to ten years. In 1974 he was paroled after serving three years under house arrest.

Good old american justice.

 

[S-2]

"You'd also need to define who Al Q is. OBL, right. Al Zawahiri, right. Some Uzbeks, alright. Who else?"

Think tank? Why don't you google and find out that A.Q has a long association with Libyans (the suffix al-Libi strike a bell?),egyptians, chechans, Saudis, Iraqi, Yemenis and emirate types. All have worked closely with A.Q. and have associates now in the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, Baluchistan, or Chitral, my favorite, hiding along with the others where they are very safely accomodated.

This is a constantly shifting, amorphous group that will unquestionably require our presence in Afghanistan for at least a decade more if not beyond that. No easy task awaits us...

...neighbor.

Howdy!

Thanks.

 

[dabong1]

Murder of disabled man by US army

Eight servicemen were charged in connection with the death of a disabled man, Hashim Ibrahim Awad, on 26 April 2006 in the central Iraqi town of Hamdaniya.
The 52-year-old victim was taken from his house and shot, with a rifle and shovel left by his body to make it appear as if he were an insurgent planting a roadside bomb.

Cpl Pennington was sentenced to eight years in prison in February 2007. A murder charge was dropped and his sentence reduced from 14 years in exchange for him agreeing to testify against Sgt Hutchins, Cpl Magincalda and Cpl Thomas.
He was released in August following a clemency decision.

Pte Jodka received an 18-month prison sentence for his part in the killings. He served his sentence, with time off for good behaviour.

Cpl Jackson was jailed for 21 months after pleading guilty to reduced charges. He was released after serving nine months following a clemency decision in August.

L Cpl Jerry Shumate was found guilty of aggravated assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice. He was demoted and sentenced to 21 months in prison. He was released early following a clemency decision in August.

Petty Officer Bacos was sentenced to 10 years, but served only a year in exchange for his testimony, with time off for good behaviour

 

[dabong1]

Think tank? Why don't you google and find out that A.Q has a long association with Libyans (the suffix al-Libi strike a bell?
Thanks.

In fact, Qaddafi issued the first Interpol warrant for Osama bin Laden in 1998 for the killings of two German counterterrorism agents in Tripoli four years earlier.

 

[A1Kaid]

Mastan Sahab, in past two or three posts of yours, you have tried to make me understand that the Afghanistan and now Pakistan could have been saved from the wrath of the US military if Taliban leaders had obeyed the demands of the US of handing over Osama and his aides to them. Your interpretation is based on the 'assumption' that:

A. Al-Qaeda or OBL and his aides were involved in the 9/11.
B. Americans invaded Afghanistan in search of OBL and Al-Qaeda operatives who were responsible for 9/11 attacks

First of all I do not agree with the assumption that OBL or Al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11 attacks because there is no proof. When the Americans asked Mullah Umar to hand over Osma, Omar agreed to comply with their demands if he was provided with evidence of Osama’s involvement. Americans did not provide him with any proof of OBL’s involvement at that time. There are some members who present OBL video confession as proof, but even if we accept that as proof, it was not until 2003 when the video was aired. So basically at the time when US demanded Omar to hand over OBL and his aides, there was no proof of their involvement. I do not know if Mullah Omar was a good Muslims or not, but he indeed was an honorable Pathan who refused to hand over his guest to Americans because American did not provide him with any proof.

Secondly, US plans of attacking Afghanistan pre-date the 9/11 incident. In March 15, 2001, Janes Defense published an article entitled "India joins anti-Taliban coalition" by Rahul Bedi. Than in June 26, 2001, an Indian Magazine Indiareacts published an article entitled “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime”. Than BBC reported “American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.” by George Arney. Than MSNBC reported “Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001”. In fact Pakistan was told about the Afghan invasion in July 2001. Mr. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Irrespective of Taliban's response to the American demands, the Americans were already determined to attack on Afghanistan.

In the light of the above, I do not find myself in agreement with you.

Good point Qsaark

M.K is just beating the "old War Drum" I know his tone resembles the sounds of the 9/11 aftermath...

What M.K fails to understand the plan to go to war was prearranged before 9/11 by the Pentagon, some suggested US wanted to interfere in a gas pipeline that was being built in the region through China, and the US and it's oil companies wanted the US to interfere in that ordeal...

Again M.K. beating an "old war drum", his argument as you've pointed out is based on assumptions that UBL and his netwrok perpetrated 9/11 and handing over UBL and Zawahiri would have prevented the premeditated War...Even when UBL never claimed responsibility for 9/11, if you watched the full version of the 9/11 video he supposedly praised the hijackers...Now praising the hijackers, does not mean your responsible for 9/11, in the full video right form the beginning UBL declared he was not responsible for the attack and was not involved. However, can you guess why the full video was not played to the Americans and World? Because it debunks the claims of the US regime's...


EDIT:
Read this below, UBL's formal refusal of responsibility for 9/11 (short excerpt)

"In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said. "

Source: CNN.com - Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks - September 17, 2001

Whether UBL existed or not the Pentagon was formulating plans at least by August 2001 (in fact months before 9/11), to invade Afghanistan...So what does this tell you? (rhetorical question)


Excerpts #1 from the BBC

"Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. "

Source: BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | US 'planned attack on Taleban'

Excerpt #2 from the Guardian UK

"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington, which were allegedly masterminded by the Saudi-born fundamentalist, a Guardian investigation has established.

The threats of war unless the Taliban surrendered Osama bin Laden were passed to the regime in Afghanistan by the Pakistani government, senior diplomatic sources revealed yesterday. "

Source: Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY attack | World news | The Guardian

Visit the links below, trust me it's a real eye opener M.K.

The two links below are about plans to invade Afghanistan months before 9/11.

The Insider - Afghanistan war started months before 9/11

BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | US 'planned attack on Taleban'

Links below are about plans to invade Iraq soon after 9/11.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Mullah Omar was no honourable pathan---when honour needs to take the ride over the dead bodies of women, children, men and material----it is no honour in the noble sense---it is the PERVERTED sence of honour---what kind of pashtun honour is it when thousands get slaughtered to save the muderer OBL. What kind of honour is it when foreign armies land on muslim soil to look for someone who is not even a citizen of that nation.

Sudan---a muslim nation---a nation of good people---their islam is no inferior islam to pakistani islam---or the afghani islam---they kicked out OBL once his affiliations came through in african bombings---so regardless of you believe it or not that if OBL was the architect of 9/11 or not---actually his was just the blessing---KSM was the architect---no single individual---a foreigner at that---has any right to bring so much destruction to his host---it is beyond any values of morality and humanity---.

The only way I see this possible is for a person to LOVE HIS OWN AURA AND LIFE SO MUCH---and thinks himself so superior to anyone else---that kind of person maybe able to come close somewhat in doing some thing like that---even insanity has its limits before madness prevails.

Bottomline is that it does not make any difference---OBL is a harbingers of death---riding his black stallion on his ranch in afghanistan---he inadvertantly portrayed himseldf to be the fourth horseman---the flag carrier---the messenger of great death and destruction. So, does not make a difference if he is guilty or not----tell me how many of you will give refuge to a foreign fugitive of law---in you personal household---over the death of your little babies, youngchildren, little girls and boys, your sister, mothers, aunts, uncles, fathers, wives and husbands----knwoing very well that your quarters / compouns would be the target of 500 / 1000 pound bombs---Now go home and give this news to your family members and ask their opinion as well and see how want to die without a casue to savethe killer of 3000 innocent people----that will be the starting point of a new discussion.

U S has contingency plans of attacking every nation at different strike levels---they have plans of attacking their dearest and the closest of allies if ever the things go wrong---U S may have contingency plans for attacking their very own if they decide to raise arms against the state.

Contingency plans are just a function of preparedness--- U S has contingency plans for our nuclear weapons---they have plans to follow other plans as well---this is how the U S govt operates and functions.


I keep telling to pakistani colleagues---if you want to keep the americans away---don't step on the tigers tail---the repurcussions would be brutal, totally shocking, the results would be totally destructive.

 

[qsaark]

I keep telling to pakistani colleagues---if you want to keep the americans away---don't step on the tigers tail---the repurcussions would be brutal, totally shocking, the results would be totally destructive.

Let me give you a historical reference from the Tatar invasion (Tatars at that time were not any less than the USA of today) here:

The Tatars started breaking into the Muslim land towards the end of 656 Hijri. When the Khalifah, Abu Ahmad Al-Musta'sim Billah, began preparing his armies to block the invasion, his minister "Al-`Alkami" hoaxed him by convincing him to make peace with the invaders. Note that many scholars are advising the same.

When Al-Alqami deceived the lKhalifah and made him think that a peace agreement was finally reached with the Tatars, Al-Musta'sim departed along with his ministers and the scholars and leaders of Baghdad to meet the leader of the Tatars, who killed them all, and then occupied Baghdad and violated the honour of its Muslim occupants in a hideous manner.

The traitorous Al-`Alqami could not achieve his dream, however, because the Tatars, who knew that the person who betrays his leader wouldn't spare his enemy, killed him too. Note what happened to Zia and Saddam?

Following the takeover of Baghdad, Muslims encountered a large number of defeats, and many more cities were captured. The Tatars, after seizing all of Iraq, started the demolition of the land of Shaam (which represents Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and parts of Egypt and Iraq), seeking retaliation from its people because of their refusal to surrender.

With the downfall of Damascus, the Tatars headed towards Egypt and Morocco, the last stronghold of Muslims on the face of earth at that time, which, if seized, the whole Muslim Ummah would have collapsed.

After that, the leader of Tatars "Katabgha" sent, as usual, a letter full of threats to the Ameer of Egypt. Some of what he said was: "We have demolished the land, orphaned the children, tortured the people and slain them, made their honoured despised and their leader a captive. Do you think that you can escape from us? After a while you will know what's coming to you..." Please note the language here, does it resemble to "we'll send you back to the stone age"?

Despite the linguistic weakness of the Tatars' letters, it had a great influence on Muslims back then because of their weakness and low morals. Note the weakness and low morale of Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular.

Our Ameer Qutuz, who was raised according to the prophet's teachings, had a different reply to that of the other Muslim leaders: he killed the Tatarian delegation and left their corpses hanging in his capital, lifting his soldiers and people's spirit on the one hand, and putting down his enemy's and that of their spies and loyals on the other hand. His action was in accordance with the poetry:

The Sword speaks louder than books, Its sharp edge distinguishes gravity from child-play.

When Qutuz's reply reached the Tatars through their spies in Egypt, they realised that they were facing a different type of leader, with whom they have not dealt before.

Had they studied the history, they would have noticed that our victorious leader copied the example of Haroon Ar-Rashid and his reply to the Roman leader "Nakfoor", and that of "Al-Mu'tasim" to the governor of "Amouriyah", and they would have avoided clashing with him.

Preparing for the Battle

Qutuz did not forget that making such a critical reply will result in a severe and brutal war against him and his people, for which they must prepare.

So he started preparing his people with the weapon of belief and unity, prior to arming them with the weapons of steel. To achieve unity, he sent to the dispersed leaders and Ameers of Mamaleek, such as "Beebers Al-Bandakari" who was later known as "Beebers the superior", asking them to discard their marginal differences and unite to defeat their main enemy, the enemy of Islam.

Qutuz, knowing the important role scholars play and their influence on the masses, seeked their help and support, asking them to supplicate for victory, and to urge the people to stand for their religion, taking the scholars as his close counselors and advisers.

The most renowned scholar who contributed to this cause was the "Sultan of Scholars" Al-`Izz Bin Abdis-Salam. Qutuz seeked a fatwah (verdict) from Bin Abdis-Salam which would allow him to impose more taxes on the public in order to equip the Muslim army. The honest scholar of Islam made it clear that the governor can not impose new taxes, unless the governor's own wealth, and that of his leaders and close-by's, is all spent. Al-`Izz even forced the selling of the Mamaleek army leaders, because they were not legally set free from their slavery (the Mamaleek were mostly slaves who participated in the armies, and gained power gradually until they controlled the armies).

The needed money was obtained without forcing extra taxes on the people, who, witnessing the complete compliance and submission of their leader to the Laws of Allah as illustrated by the sincere scholars of Islam, woke up to the reality and were convinced with the legality of their leaders, and realised their duties in Jihad and sacrifice for Allah's Cause to stop the invaders from occupying their Muslim land.

The Battle's Process

Observing the saying of Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.) "the people who are attacked in the center of their land (i.e. are on the defensive) will be dishonoured", Qutuz ordered his army to start moving to confront the foe. He also sent an exploitative battalion under the leadership of Beebers towards Gazza in Palestine, which confronted parts of the Tatarian army at small scales and beat them, covering the movements of the main army under the leadership of Qutuz, which finally arrived near the Palestine coastline where the crusaders had some strongholds. Qutuz warned the crusaders and made it clear to them that he could smash them before he meets the Tatars, if they do not stay neutral in this war. Realising the authenticity of this threat and seeing the power of the Muslim army, the crusaders were forced to stay neutral, especially that their numbers and the weakness of their armies would not allow them to clash with the Muslims.

When the main Muslim army came close to the enemy, Qutuz, may Allah have mercy on him, selected the battle's field, in a valley surrounded by mountains, and he stabilised some of his soldiers on the mountains to protect the back of the army against any possible crusade, Tatarian or other treachery from within.

The Tatarian army finally reached the area in which it would face its deadly end. Fighting erupted and the balance drifted towards the Tatars; their army's right wing started overcoming the left wing of the Muslim army. When the Muslims started retreating, Qutuz climbed on a rock, throwing his helmet away, shouting "Wa Islamah.. Wa Islamah..", urging the army to keep firm and fight Allah's enemies. The frustrated leaders of the army looked towards that voice to see their leader's flushed face, hitting angrily with his sword, infiltrating between the Tatars' rows leaving behind dozens of dead corpses. Qutuz's courage stunned his leaders who promptly followed his footsteps, lifting the morality of the Muslim army.

Minutes later, the battle became in favour of the Muslims, until the Tatarian army was shattered, many of its soldiers being killed or captivated, and the defeated troops ran away, following the death of their leader and the captivation of his son. No one in the Tatarian army escaped death or capture, because those who ran away were slain by the people in Shaam.

When the glorious news reached Damascus city and its surroundings, the Muslims rejoiced and regained their honour and esteem, and began to attack the Tatars. They also attacked those who supported the Tatars, including some crusaders, Batini (`Alawi), Shi`a, and some deviated Sufis.

When the Tatars realised that their state in the Islamic East was fading, and that Muslims regained their power, they escaped towards their homeland, which eased Qutuz's efforts to liberate all of Shaam in a few weeks.

Qutuz rewarded the Muslim Ameers who helped achieve this victory, by returning to some of the Ayyoubi kings their states, and appointing some of his bravest chiefs as governors.

The reasons behind the victory

If we are to inspect what led to this great victory, we will find that these reasons did not -and will not- change since the first revelation, until the Day of Judgment.

The first condition is to have the right belief, and the legitimate and truthful scholars whom we refer to, who do not fear a ruler or a governor in defence of Allah's religion. This was represented by the "Sultan of Scholars" Al-Izz Bin Abdis-Salam, may Allah have mercy on him.

The second condition is to have a sincere leader who works to uplift the Word of Allah and to defend His religion solely for His Sake. This was represented by the "Victorious King" Qutuz, may Allah have mercy on him too.

The third and most important cause was the unity of Muslims under the one true banner of Tawheed, sharing the same concern and responsibility, disregarding the minor differences between them.

The Battle's Outcome

The direct outcome of this battle was the liberation of the Muslims from the Tatarian rule and their corrupt creed, lifting the spirit and esteem of Muslims, and spreading the correct pure creed which teaches Jihad and forbids laziness and surrender.

Before this battle, some narrations say that a Tatarian woman would pass by a group of Muslim men, she would command them to wait for her until she could find a knife to slay them, and they would follow her orders obediently, waiting for hours, and even days, until someone comes and slays them! However, after this victory, Muslims started hunting the vanquishing troops of Tatars slaying them wherever they could meet them.

Another major outcome was the establishment of a powerful Islamic state after it was about to vanish. This state stood for centuries defending Islam and Muslims against anyone's avidity and greed.

This battle also proves to Muslims the ever-lasting norm: no matter how weak and fragmented Muslims get, once they go back to the pure and straight Path of Allah's Prophet and his rightly guided successors, they will be victorious.

It also proves that, no matter how strong and superior the banner of disbelief and tyranny might become, it will be defeated one day.

Woh ek sajda jise tu garaaN samajhta hai
hazaaroN sajdoN se deta hai aadmi ko nijaat