Secular materialism will go on trial with Saddam Hussein

Since the beginning of the international debate on Iraq’s weapons program, which sought to determine how best to address the issue of weapons of mass destruction, followed by the US led coalition’s entry into Iraq, many Muslims have sought to understand exactly why Saddam Hussein was selected to be cast as the world’s number one enemy, when clearly there are other tyrants who are equally as brutal, and guilty of crimes against humanity and also genocide. The answer may come into focus very soon. Along with answers to questions related to Hussein, who killed and gassed and tortured his people, there will be other questions. Questions such as “why” the leaders of the Muslim world, except Iran, who did seek to publicize the treatment of the Kurds and the gassings and massacres of the Kurds and Shiite, never moved to stop Hussein’s reign of terror against the people of Iraq? While nationalists will be cursing the United States, and others outside the region during Hussein’s trial, no doubt blaming the US for the past, many Muslims will be asking why Muslim governments have failed over the years to act on behalf of Muslim and Arab people, while simultaneously filling their coffers with foreign aid money, and resisting democratic reforms that would make it near impossible for such crimes against humanity to take place.

For many Muslims, and others, the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and other issues relevant to the war, such as how it was initiated and other controversies surrounding the validity of intelligence that supported the invasion, pale in comparison to the suffering of the people. The Iraqi people had no way to express what was happening to them, since they had been cut off from the world by an economic sanctions policy that seemed more a part of Hussein’s plan to eliminate certain segments of Iraqi society, than it seemed suited to bring about a change in the dictator’s behavior. American citizens who sought to expose Iraqi suffering and to bring an end to sanctions were themselves criminalized and punished as anti-American, communists, etc. Interestingly, the people who suffered most from sanctions were not Hussein, or his loyalist and cronies, rather it was the people who were already being shut out and forced to the margins of Iraqi society, and denied access to even the limited resources that were available in Iraq. Sanctions of mass destruction killed many of the Iraqi people, as brutally and deliberately as did Saddam Hussein, yet even sanctions could not have been so efficient a killer, had the Muslim countries banded together and decided that the Iraqi people should not suffer and die.

When Saddam Hussein goes on trial, the West, and especially the Bush administration will be held up for scrutiny along with Hussein. Yet, it was not Bush or the Republicans who collaborated with the Muslim governments, and the United Nations to impose sanctions against the people of Iraq, while the dictator went on building palaces. It was not the Bush administration that went to the United Nations’ and bargained for the starvation, and slow death of the Iraqi people from curable diseases, as a result of being denied medicines, while the secular Muslim governments sat silently. It was not US conservatives, or Republicans who crafted the policy of death, called sanctions, for the Iraqi people that did not end until Hussein was removed from power, eliminating any justification for the continued economic oppression of the people. Political parties in the United States might attempt to politicize the suffering of the people, and the capture of Hussein for political gain. Yet, that might prove to be tricky since the U.S. administration that some would like to blame, came into power calling for a reassessment of the sanctions policy, put in place by the other. The argument between the two parties might be, “which was worse, the sanctions, or the war?” Most Muslims might answer saying the sanctions, and the ongoing suffering of the people, which did not end, or come to light in its entirety until the war began, and Hussein was removed from power. If we judge by the result, rather than the cause, we risk becoming part of that group of people who believe that any means justifies the end result, which many would argue is immoral and wrong thinking. Yet, it is possible that since we have become such a hard hearted and cowardly world of people, that God could not bring about relief for these people through human agency without appealing to our interests which was weapons of mass destruction, fear for our own safety, etc. The end result is that both interests have been served. The fear of weapons of mass destruction is removed, and the people have been freed from the burden of international sanctions, and the very real fear, and possibility that they might become victims of political and religious persecution and genocide.

As the pieces of this puzzle come together, the world might have an opportunity to see exactly to whose interest it is that the people of Iraq be culled like an overpopulated herd of beasts, same as women in some countries, the embargoed Bosnians, the Kosovars, the Algerians, Rwandans, the people now dying in Africa from AIDS, the Tibetans, and the Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, the South Africans under apartheid, the Chechens and countless others deemed weak or undesirable over the years due to their belief in God, or because they are uneducated, unskilled, wrong gender, or they espouse the wrong political view, or their skin is the wrong color, or they simply desire to be free. Maybe we will also come to better understand why certain leaders in the Middle East have been allowed to engage off and on for more than fifty years in low grade warfare, killing scores of their people, while one would not legitimize his people’s struggle by declaring independence, and the other would not compromise and make peace with the other to save his people’s lives. Have the secular materialists who have dominated global politics for more than a century adopted a policy of population control, which was first presented to the world by the sociopath Malthus, and later introduced into modern science, without a shred of actual scientific proof, by Charles Darwin through his survival of the fittest theory? While we are connecting dots, we might also consider that same sex marriage might also be appealing to population controllers, which might explain why it has found such supporters as the United Nations who first introduced the idea of a global redefinition of family, and restructuring of societies to accommodate same sex marriages through its 4th World Conference on Women, which was the culmination of various UN conferences convened to lay out the future policies and goals of global economy and politics for the 21st century. These conferences included the Cairo population control conference whose premise was hotly debated at the time, and opposed by most Muslim and Christian groups for its aggressive approach to population control, and its connection to the equally controversial sustainable development theory. Population control was presented as essential to the empowerment of women, which we later learned actually meant their economic exploitation. The document asserted that once women are freed from the limitations presented by conception, childbirth and care of children, and also care for elderly parents and extended families, they are able to perform in societies the same as men. This form of economic equality is desirable since the inclusion of women in the workplace increases the labor pool, brings down the cost of labor and allows businesses to make higher profits.

Many of the religious women who analyzed the working document for so-called the “empowerment” conference, which was the Draft Platform for Action, suggested that the document not only promoted aggressive population control, but it also sought to replace blood related families with loose associations of people who claim to hold common aims, and share homes, and receive the same support and recognition from governments as traditional marriages and families. Many of those same analysts suggested at the time that it would take the disintegration of the traditional family structure, and the elimination of social traditions and religions that dictate social roles for women, to create a female work force that could be mobile, unattached, unrestricted by doctrine or custom, and able to prevent conception, and use abortion to address contraceptive failures. They also agreed that the targeted areas for this grand social experiment would be the underdeveloped countries, since the people, now desperate for development would be willing to trade off religion, and custom for promises of international financial investment and economic development.

This new social structure, according to several activists who opposed the document, was also an attempt by the United Nations to open the door to same sex marriages, and the social acceptance of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle so that people would have alternate ways through which to fulfill sexual desire without the risk of procreation, and natural emotional bonding that results in strong family alliances that could compete with an individual’s dependence upon, and loyalty to the state, or their employer. They suggested that the success of sustainable development theory is dependent upon strict government control of procreation, and methods by which procreation occurs. According to the sustainable development theory, fewer numbers of people must exist. Its ideological premise is that the number of people living at any given time must be controlled if we are to preserve a depleting supply of essential natural resources, and preserve the environment. It also suggests an economic order wherein the poorer nations manufacture goods and sustain the standard of living for the richer countries, in exchange for some measure of improved lifestyle in their own regions. The document called for the accelerated implementation of the scheme, and recommended that Courts use their power and influence to impose these new standards and ideals upon populations who would be resistant to such drastic changes. If this is true, it might explain why our Courts are aggressively moving to radically secularize US society, and legalize same sex marriages. It might also explain some of the increased pressure being put upon Muslim countries to “liberate” women, and re-invent Islam.

The world will stand trial with Saddam Hussein, but particularly the Muslim world, since it was on the watch of the secular Muslim governments that nationalists hijacked Islam and state sponsored clerics perverted Muslim thinking and attempted to turn our religion into a racist, and anti-woman religion of hate and oppression. They were mostly silent as the state oversaw the oppression of women and the murder of pious Muslims, and others, Muslims and non-Muslims who have been routinely persecuted and murdered for their faith, and their desire to be free. It has also been the world’s materialist secular state sponsored religious leaders of the past, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and others who divided the house of Abraham with their racist renditions of monotheism that has wrongly pitted the various monotheist sects against one another, while also pitting women against men and men against women. Governments filled the churches, mosques and synagogues with extremist propagandists who promoted religious and racial supremacy and hatred, the abuse of women etc., hoping that by so doing they would alienate the people’s affection from religion, and ease the way to religious reforms that would accommodate the UN Nairobi Strategies which is the actual blueprint for the world’s reordering. They have succeed in not only alienating people from religion, and especially Islam, they have also made it almost impossible for sincere reformists to organize a restoration movement that is based upon the true criteria of truth and justice found in traditional Islam, since attempts to restore are being confused with efforts to re-invent, two very different projects. It is of the utmost importance that our intellectuals and Islamic clergy find ways to clearly distinguish efforts to restore Islam, from efforts to reinvent Islam.

The result of this preoccupation with self-destruction and hatred among the monotheists has been the unchallenged and unbridled assault by secular materialists against humanity, and the people of Iraq’s story will be one of many testaments to this fact. While monotheists argued and hated one another, and bickered over petty differences, collaborated with the enemies of God against one another, and sought, each one, to dominate the other, humanity has been hurt by tremendous evil, and is being threatened as never before. The duty of God’s servants is arguably to serve God’s cause, which is not the division of Abraham’s house, and the self-destruction of monotheism, but rather it might be the salvation of mankind, not through doctrine, but through Divine Acts and miracles of faith. Doctrine serves the believers, while it is the actions of the believer’s that serves mankind.

As preparation for Saddam Hussein’s trial proceeds and Saddam’s numerous accomplices seek to wash their hands of complicity, something else is taking shape. Destiny has set a date for the grand indictment of secular materialism and the abuse of power that characterizes its reign, and their grand scheme to reorder God’s earth to accommodate their greed. The people of the world will learn more about the 20th century ascension to power of the Godless, and the stench of death that has poisoned our world due to the mass graves, torture chambers, hunger, plagues, abortions, and other evils, which are the mark of their era of political and economic influence.