11160 Veirs Mill Rd., Ste. L -15, PMB 298
Silver Spring, MD. 20902

In the Name of ALLAH, Most Beneficent, Most Merciful


A Special Report and Analysis from a Muslim-American Perspective


On September 11, 2001, an unthinkable tragedy occurred in the United States of America, when attacks were launched against two towering symbols of American power and prestige. The World Trade Center in New York City (symbolizing America's economic might), and the US Pentagon, located on the perimeter of Washington, DC (symbolizing America's military supremacy) were the apparent objects of suicide attacks in the early morning hours of an otherwise typical workday for many American citizens. In the wake of these attacks, America's entire opinion shaping apparatus (i.e., print and broadcast media, government officials, talking heads from a variety of political think tanks, etc.) have been beating the drums of war. But war against whom?

As in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, before the dust even began to settle from these horrific attacks, Muslims and Arabs were once again the leading suspects in America's xenophobic pursuit of terrorists from abroad. Over this past weekend two Muslim brothers and I decided to take a ride to New York State, so that we could gage first hand a sense of the climate that envelopes much of the country at the present time. Our first stop was upstate New York (in the area of the Catskill mountains); a place where we felt we would be able to capture the pulse of "middle America." We spent the night at one of the Bruderhof communities, and from there traveled to a small Islamic Center in Troy, New York, the following morning.

Before we left the Washington area for New York State, I spoke with a good friend at the Bruderhof by telephone (Ian Winter), and he provided me with a bit of foresight on how the climate was up there in the mountain area communities.  It was his perspective on the nation as a whole, however, that I found to be most insightful. Ian said, "America [at present] is like a gigantic boulder teetering on the edge," the boulder, as we all know, can fall either way. But more on this later.

During our travels over the past few days we've heard about attacks made on individual Muslims; attacks made on a number of mosques and centers; Muslim women locking themselves up in their homes out of fear; and Muslim youth who were afraid to venture out to their public schools. We've heard of mosques which have temporarily suspended their congregational salat (prayers); and a couple of mosques in the Washington area that even canceled the obligatory juma prayer service on the Friday following the tragedy - "for security reasons."

We have witnessed Muslim and Arab Americans brandishing the American flag as if it were a talisman to ward off evil; and we have also witnessed American citizens on the street, on television and radio (including former and current public officials, and various media personalities) making some of the most bigoted, and insensitive statements imaginable. Completely absent is the realization that among the dead and missing in New York are a significant number of Muslims; and further, that Muslim and Arab Americans nationwide share the grief over this horrific and senseless tragedy.

Islam's position on "Terrorism"

In the wake of this tragedy we are once again reminded of America's capacity for an arrogant and unjust misuse of power, via the opportunistic practice of scapegoating. With the collapse of the former Soviet Union, and America's emergence as the self-described sole remaining "superpower" at the helm of a "New World Order," Islam and Muslims have become the new bogeyman on the block. During the 1980s the focus was on Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Libyan leader Muamar Qadhafi; for most of the 90s it was Saddam Hussein; and at the present time the "flavor of the month" (or, villain of the age) is Osama bin Laden.  Consequently, I am reminded of the comment made by a European diplomat following the furor over the August 1998 bombings of the US Embassies in East Africa: "If Osama bin Laden did not exist, America would have to create him." 

The people behind such destructive policy are well aware of the fact that terrorism (as the term is universally understood and agreed upon) is a gross violation of the foundation tenets of the religion (or deen) of Islam! Many centuries before the West embarked upon a movement toward the crafting of "international law," and "rules of engagement" during warfare, Islam had codified for its adherents the following principles:

"Fight in the Cause of Allah, those who fight against you; but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors." ( The Noble Qur'an, Surah 2:190)

"And fight against them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in ALLAH (G'D); but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." (Surah 2: 193)

The admonition to avoid transgressing the "limits," in the aforementioned ayah (verse) from the Qur'an, was given further explanation and elaboration by the Last Messenger of G'D, and seal of the prophethood,  Mohamed ibn Abdullah (may peace and blessings be upon him). In one of his many sayings (hadith) on this particular issue, he reportedly cautioned his followers who were about to enter battle, with the following words:

"Set out for jihad in the name of ALLAH, and for the sake of ALLAH. Do not lay hands on the old verging on death, on women, children or babes. Do not steal anything from the booty and collect all that falls to your lot in the battlefield, and do good; for ALLAH loves the virtuous and the pious." (Sahih Muslim, Vol 3)

And then we have the words of a Rashidun Caliph (one of the first four successors of the Prophet), Abu Bakr Siddiq (May Allah be pleased with him) who instructed a departing Muslim army with the following words:

"Stop - O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire - especially those which are fruitful. Do not slay any of the enemy's flock, except for food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone."

And finally, we have the words of yet another Rashidun Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, delivered at a time when the Muslim State was experiencing rapid growth and expansion. In a letter to one of his military commanders (Sa'd b. Abu Waqqas), the caliph reportedly said:

"Always search your minds and hearts, and stress upon your men the need for perfect integrity and sincerity in the cause of ALLAH. There should be no material end before them in laying down their lives, but they should deem it a means whereby they can please their Lord and entitle themselves to His favor. Such a spirit of selflessness should be inculcated in the minds of those who unfortunately lack it. Be firm in the thick of battle, as Allah helps man according to the perseverance that he shows in the cause of his faith; and he will be rewarded in accordance with the spirit of sacrifice which he displays for the sake of his Lord. Be careful that those who have been entrusted to your care [as captives of war] receive no harm at your hands, and are never deprived of any of their legitimate rights." (ibid)

Can there be found anywhere in this modern age a code of military ethics more noble and compassionate than this? When we look at the behavior of present day militaries on the battlefield (including America's own!), more often than not we see an oft- repeated manifestation of the counsel given by the Papal Legate during the Albigensian War (to quiet the scruples of a too conscientious general), "Kill all, God will know his own!"

During times of crises in America like the one we are experiencing at present, the problem is three fold: (1) while the intelligencia in America (generally speaking) are well aware of the ethics of warfare demanded by Islam, the everyday citizenry of this country are not; (2) the American government (in concert with sinister influences operating from behind the scenes) require an enemy to help create a climate of fear, and to justify an ever expanding military industrial complex; (3) Muslims and their respective organizations in America (generally speaking) - and other aware people of good will - have been much too silent on these deeply challenging issues, for far too long.

The Role of Corporate Media

On Sunday, January 21, 1996, a front page caption in the "Week In Review" section  of the New York Times, read in big, bold letters, "The Red Menace Is Gone. But Here's Islam." The caption was imposed over a large image of menacing looking eyes, under which was the sub-caption: "Fear of a global spread of Islamic revolution began with the coming to power of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran in the 1970s. Here, a detail of a poster portraying the Iranian cleric."  Again, the "detail" of the alleged poster that the New York Times chose to portray was the menacing looking eyes of Imam Khomeini. What is the significance of this?

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissenger wrote a revealing op-ed piece in the Monday, September 22, 1997, edition of the Washington Post, in which he observed in the opening paragraph:

"Every American foreign policy setback, from Indochina to Somalia, has resulted from the failure to define objectives, to choose means appropriate to these objectives, and to create a public opinion prepared to pay the necessary price over the requisite period of time."

The mechanics of creating such public opinion rests largely on the shoulders of mainstream media; and shamefully both print and broadcast media have been more than willing to serve this nefarious end, in violation of its stated mandate in a "free and democratic society."

A week has passed (at the time of this writing) since the September 11th attacks, and despite the continued absence of hard evidence, the front page of the Tuesday, September 18, 2001, editions of the Washington Post and Washington Times quotes President Bush as stating he wants Osama bin Laden, "Dead or Alive," as his administration continues to prepare for war. One would think that America's media - an institution that is supposed to serve as check on the excesses of government in a democratic society - would question and challenge such a stance. But America's media has long ago ceased to serve as such a check and balance; and for such an abrogation of duty, America's citizens are forced to pay the price.

On the wall of the National Press Club in Washington, DC, is a large mural that showcases The Journalist's Creed, authored by the late Walter Williams - widely considered to be America's Dean of Journalism. The opening paragraph reads: "I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lessor service than the public service is betrayal of this trust."             

The final paragraph of the journalist's creed sums up the author's perspective of what constitutes a journalism that is truly in the public's interest, and worthy of public support:

"I believe that the journalism which succeeds best - and best deserves success - fears God and honors man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power; constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid; is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance, and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today's world."

If only such principles were the operating standard in the present day media apparatus, America - and this global village we call earth - would be a far better, and safer world than what it is.

Osama bin Laden, and Justice American style

Starting in earnest with the Reagan-Bush administration, continuing through the Bush-Quayle and Clinton-Gore administrations, and now culminating with a declaration of war in the Bush-Cheney administration, the ground has been carefully prepared for what we are, unfortunately, seeing today. This is much bigger than Osama bin Laden; for those conducting this conspiracy, he is no more than a means to an end.

Beyond the need, however, for an enemy of convenience, there is another factor that causes Islam, and its sons and daughters, to be a target. It has to do with the challenge that Islam presents to the "New World Order." As former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark said to a Washington area audience a few years ago: "Islam is the best chance the poor of the planet have for any hope of decency in their lives; for any hope for dignity in their lives. It is the one revolutionary force that cares about humanity!"

While there have been a number of serious accusations made against Osama bin Laden since his ascension as the new poster boy for international terrorism, to date, with all of America's highly sophisticated intelligence gathering capability, there has yet to be any evidence presented to support these allegations. It appears that bin Laden's real crime revolves around his willingness to voice (on a public stage) some of the things that millions of other Muslims around the world feel. It can also be noted that the sanctions against bin Laden and the nation of Afghanistan underscore the contradictions in American "justice."

Not too long ago, a former Nixon Administration official by the name of G. Gordon Liddy made such inflammatory remarks on his nationally syndicated radio talk show, that it prompted both law enforcement agencies and high level government officials to react in strong condemnation; and yet Liddy received no sanction - he didn't even have his talk show canceled! And what was his offence?

At the height of a highly emotional backlash among pockets of middle America (specifically among the growing number of militia movements) - over the government's mishandling of the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents - Liddy counseled those who might in the future find themselves in a violent confrontation with federal agents to "aim at their heads," because of the protective body armor that these "Gestapo-like storm troopers" routinely wear. And again, while he was strongly criticized for these intemperate remarks, there was no significant public sanction for G. Gordon Liddy. If anything, his ratings went up as a result of him "having the guts" (in the words of one supporter) to voice how a significant number of his listeners felt.

When one juxtaposes remarks of this nature in the public domain, coming from American citizens on one side (G. Gordon Liddy was not alone in voicing such sentiment), with the legitimate criticism of US foreign policy (combined with rhetorical threats) mouthed by such foreign nationals as Osama Bin Laden, on the other side - and then take note of the grossly disparate treatment that each side receives, one is able to note with absolute clarity the oppressive double standard reflected in justice American style. But there is another important issue.

In 1986, in the aftermath of America's criminal violation of international law, with the bombing of Libya, the Reagan Administration got itself briefly into hot water when it was discovered that the pretext upon which it had ordered the bombing of Libya was in fact based upon a lie. In the wake of the fallout, an administration official by the name of Bernard Kalb resigned from his government position with the following words: "I am dissenting from the reported disinformation program. I am concerned about the impact of such a program on the credibility of the US."

When [then] Secretary of State George Shultz was questioned by the media on the administration's disinformation campaign (a nice way of describing a "campaign" of officially sanctioned lies and deceits aimed in large part at the American people), his verbatim response was as follows:

"I know of no decision to have people go out and tell lies to the media. I think, however, that if there were ways in which we could make Qadhafi nervous, why shouldn't we? That's not deceiving you, but just using your predictable tendencies to report things that we try to keep secret." Then he said, "I don't believe in telling lies myself. I would call your attention, however, to a quote from Winston Churchill:  'In time of war, the truth is so precious it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies.' "

A wise man once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Is this a case of history repeating itself? After the discotecque in West Germany was bombed, killing a number of US servicemen, and others, the US insisted that it had evidence tying Libyan Leader Muamar Qadhafi to the operation. When the Reagan Administration was preparing its attack on Libya and requested the use of allied airspace, US allies made one reasonable request; show us the evidence. The evidence was never provided, and America had to end up taking a longer route to carry out its nefarious raid. When the dust settled, an estimated 100 Libyan citizens were killed, including Qadhafi's own infant daughter.

In 1998, after the terrorist bombing of the US Embassies in East Africa, the US government placed responsibility for the carnage at the feet of Osama bin Laden. The Taliban government made one reasonable request; show us the evidence. The evidence was never produced. Instead, at a time when the presidential administration of William Jefferson Clinton was in a state of political crisis, two nations were the recipients of US bombing raids; Afghanistan and Sudan.

The Clinton Administration (and its multi-layered assembly of experts and advisors) insisted to the bitter end that the pharmaceutical plant that was targeted in Sudan was not only partially owned by bin Laden, but also produced chemical agents intended for warfare. Both allegations proved to be A Lie!  And now we are expected to take another administration's word, on a matter that is even more grave, on face value?

Could there be an Israeli Connection?

A caller to the Diane Ream Show (National Public Radio) on Thursday, September 20, 2001, raised an interesting point that is worthy of exploration. The show was on civil liberties concerns raised by the legislation recently introduced in Congress, in the wake of the national trauma resulting from the September 11th attack. This is what the caller from Pennsylvania had to say:

"Kojo Nnamdi's program yesterday had a man, James___ on who wrote the book Body of Secrets, specialist on the NSA. He discovered, from Pentagon Paper documents just recently revealed, that our own government - the Nixon-Eisenhower Administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff - had definite plans to perpetrate terrorist bombings against Americans, to kill Americans, and falsely blame it on Cuba as a pretext to incite opinion and hysteria, to justify an invasion. It was only called off at the last minute by Robert McNamara, not on principle, but because they thought they might be found out, and be caught, and it would cause a terrible backlash against the government.

"So I think we've got as much to fear from sinister elements within our own government; we've seen the practice of the FBI and the CIA, and COINTELPRO, and Operation Chaos, in framing up and disrupting political groups because they were political. Even using agent-provocateurs to incite violence, as a pretext..."

One of the guests on the show, Professor David Cole (Georgetown Law Center), in response to the caller, noted the following:

"I think the caller makes an important point; the need to look at our history, and particularly, the history of the FBI's abuse of its powers. That's why we have to be very careful about the power that it's given. It was the 1980s when the FBI used its counter-terrorism investigative powers to launch a nationwide investigation of CISPIS - a domestic solidarity group - which ultimately gathered information on over 1000 groups, including an order of Catholic nuns in Cincinnati, the  ACLU and Amnesty International. There was never a single criminal charge presented or put forth. In the last decade the FBI has monitored, and engaged, essentially, in political spying on Arab and Muslim groups that have engaged in no criminal activity whatsoever,  but have simply been supporters of Palestinian self-determination. That kind of activity does intrude on all of our political freedoms in a very serious way; and we have to figure out a way to monitor that, to stop that, and we have to think about that when we propose giving them [even more] broad powers. You can't just say, trust us."

The caller raised a number of important issues, but the one that I would like to examine more closely for this writing is the one that has to do with issue of "agent-provocateurs," and a possible Israeli connection to the tragedy.  A couple of days ago I was handed a copy of web communiqué generated by, entitled "Israeli Mossad Links To World Trade Center Attack." The communiqué reads as follows:

"A US military intelligence source revealed details of an internal intelligence memo that points to the Israeli Mossad intelligence service having links to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The intelligence source, who requested his name be withheld, confirmed the US intelligence memo, circulated four weeks ago, described information that pointed to the threat of a covert Israeli operation on US soil to turn mass public opinion against Palestinian Arabs via an apparent terrorist attack on US interests that would give Israel a green light to implement a large scale military onslaught against the Palestinian Arab population.

"The 11 September attack has been described by experts as being too sophisticated for a lone terrorist group to execute. This attack required a high level of military precision and the resources of an advanced intelligence agency. In addition, the attackers would have needed to be extremely familiar with both Air Force One flight operations, civil airline flight paths, and aerial assault tactics on sensitive US cities like Washington, stated David Stern, an expert on Israeli intelligence operations." (The source given for this report is: Stern-Intel)

If, indeed, Israel is involved, it won't be the first time. Israel has a long history of deadly covert operations against Western targets - such as the bombing of the King David Hotel, which took the lives of a number of British officers (in that operation the attempt was to make it appear that Arabs were responsible); the murder of a Scandinavian UN envoy; and the brutal, and totally unwarranted assault on the USS Liberty, in which a significant number of US soldiers lost there lives!  Aside from Israeli history, two things give more than a measure credence to this possibility: (1) there has been almost universal condemnation of the attack from the Muslim world; (2) Only Israel and their domestic agents have benefited from this unspeakable tragedy. 

Having said this, it is equally important to note that if, after all of the facts are in, it is discovered that persons identified as Muslims were indeed involved, the fact that covert Israeli handlers (if this is in fact the case) were able to manipulate them into committing such a heinous atrocity, will not absolve them from the gravity of what they have done. And their judgment will ultimately rest with ALLAH (Almighty G'd).

Chickens Coming Home to Roost?

In the propaganda war which appears to be serving as a prelude to an actual armed conflict, images of Palestinians in the "occupied territories" of Occupied Palestine, celebrating the September 11th tragedy are repeatedly shown. In addition to this, unethical media outlets are also deliberately disseminating false reports that Muslim Americans in certain communities celebrated the misfortune to hit America. (I know this to be the case in Paterson, NJ and upstate New York;  and I strongly suspect that this has also occurred in other communities as well.)

The reports out of Occupied Palestine are credible. The initial reaction in the territories (especially in the Israeli made refugee camps) was one of jubilation. The question is why? And why was there a similar reaction in some other parts of the Muslim world? The answer is simple, and two-fold: Israel and the Arrogance of Power.

 The first President of the United States, General George Washington, gave the following cautionary note in his farewell address to the Union:

“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils, because it leads to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others; which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concession, both by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

It gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens [who devote themselves to the favorite nation] the facility to betray or sacrifice the interest of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”

At times of challenge and controversy in America political leaders often have a penchant for quoting (or referencing)  historical tradition; but this is one quote that is assiduously avoided like the plague, and for obvious reasons. "Favorite Nation Status" is something that America  has conferred on some of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in modern history - and simply because it was deemed to be in America's interest. At the top of the list is the Apartheid State of Israel! America's blind support of Israel (and its oppressive, multi-faceted policy of ethnic cleansing) has indeed produced "a variety of evils" that we have yet to fully come to terms with.

There is also the cold, calculated, and sometimes brutal way in which America carries out what it considers to be its "national interest."  Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright declaring on national television that the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi children resulting from a decade long genocidal embargo was "worth the price."

Then we have the role that America played in the eight year Iran-Iraq war; and the downing of the Iranian Airbus (Flight 655) on July 3, 1988, by the USS Vincennes, which killed 290 civilians. (Though it was called a tragic "mistake," the Navy would go on to award special commendation medals to two of its top officers - Capt. Will Rogers III and Lt. Cmdr. Scott E. Lustig - a short time later.)  We also have the oppressive sanctions on Cuba, contrasted with the material and diplomatic support provided Russia in its brutal and unjust war against Chechnya.

In his eye-opening book entitled, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, award winning journalist and Washington Post executive, Bob Woodward, documents a six year pattern of state-sponsored terrorism (1981-1987), orchestrated by agents of our government against people around the world! You heard it right, state-sponsored terrorism! This was the period when the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was under the directorship of William J. Casey, during the Reagan Administration (and with many operations, administration officials knew and approved of blatant violations of US and international law).

One such operation targeting a Muslim leader (Sheikh Fadlallah) in the Middle East is described in detail on page 397:

"On March 8, 1985, a car packed with explosives was driven into a Beirut suburb about fifty yards from Fadlallah's high-rise residence. The car exploded, killing eighty people and wounding two hundred, leaving devastation, fires and collapsed buildings. Anyone who had happened to be in the immediate neighborhood was killed, hurt or terrorized, but Fadlallah escaped without injury. His followers strung a huge "MADE IN USA" banner in front of the building that had been blown out."

As an American citizen I wish I could say that this was a twisted and unfortunate aberration, and not the norm; but this book documents case after case, after case, during the tenure of just one CIA director. And then we have others like John Stockwell, a former CIA bureau chief posted in Africa (if my memory serves me correct, Angola), who had horrific stories to tell, after resigning and going public years ago, about the crimes against humanity committed by the US during the so-called "Cold War." And again I repeat, this not an aberration of some rogue out of control elements within the US government; indications are that this is, and has been, state policy.

Professor Noam Chomsky, in his thought-provoking book entitled, Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs (pg. 20), makes reference to a secret 1995 study of the Strategic Command (which is responsible for the strategic nuclear arsenal), entitled, "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence."  The following excerpt says it all:

"The study advocates that the US exploit its nuclear arsenal to portray itself as 'irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked. That should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries, in particular, the rogue states...." And further, "The report resurrects Nixon's 'madman theory'; our enemies should recognize that we are crazed and unpredictable, with extraordinary destructive force at our command, so they will bend to our will in fear. The concept was apparently divised in Israel in the 1950s by the governing Labor Party, whose leaders 'preached in favor of acts of madness,' Prime Minister Moshe Sharett records in his diary, warning that 'we will go crazy' ("nishtagea") if crossed..."

While it does indeed appear to be deliberate policy on the part of the United States government, such policy does not come without consequence. When the bad karma that we put out as a nation inevitably finds its way back to our own front door, for many people around the world the initial reaction will be, "a case of the chickens coming home to roost."

Will the Real America Please Stand Up!

The late Senator J. William Fulbright, who holds the distinction of having chaired the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee longer than any other person in US Congressional history, wrote an illuminating book entitled, The Arrogance of Power.  In it, Fulbright observed:

“There are two Americas. One is the America of Lincoln and Adlai Stevenson, the other is the America of Teddy Roosevelt and the modern superpatriots. One is generous and humane, the other narrowly egotistical; one is self critical, the other is self righteous; one is sensible, the other is romantic; one is good humored, the other solemn; one is inquiring, the other pontificating; one is moderate, the other filled with passionate intensity; one is judicious, and the other arrogant in the use of great power.”

Let us engage in a bit of objective reflection for a moment. Of the two Americas described above, which have we seen the most of in your and my lifetime - America the Beautiful, or the America that is not so beautiful? I don't know about you, but I grew up at the beginning of each school day, pledging "allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America." And while this indoctrination was so deeply ingrained that I can still remember the words to this very day, I have yet to see a land of "liberty and justice for all."  Consequently, I'm often reminded of the words of one of America's Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson) who wrote: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that G'd is just; His justice cannot sleep forever."

El-Hajj Mauri' Saalakhan

(c) copyright 2001, All Rights Reserved