Dear Leaders,

It was in late August or early September, of 1990, relatively soon after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, that I had one of the most unique experiences of my life. I had been praying as I walked near my Seattle home. Beseeching the Merciful to prevent the outbreak of killing between the U.S. and Iraq was the emphasis of my petitions. Without any indication that it would happen, a voice deep inside me clearly said, “The American administration planned for Iraq to invade Kuwait.”

I did not write down the statement at that moment so the precise words may have been slightly different. For instance, “wanted” may have been in the sentence instead of “planned”, but the message itself was unmistakable in its meaning. Even the remote possibility that anyone in the U.S. leadership would have hoped for Iraq to invade Kuwait had not previously entered my mind. The words so startled me that I stopped walking and exclaimed out loud, “Where did that come from?”

Soon after receiving the words, I concluded that ALLAH must have been their source. As time passed, I became even more convinced that the words were a type of revelation. They seemed to be what is mentioned in the New Testament as a word or knowledge. Many Christians believe that such revelations are infrequently given to believers along with the responsibility to use their messages wisely for the benefit of others. After receiving the words, pieces of evidence from various news reports consistently appeared to confirm their accuracy.

Throughout my life my natural inclination has been to trust the truthfulness of American leaders. If this message had not alerted me to apparent deception by our administration, I am embarrassed that I would have been swept along by the American administration’s propaganda barrage. Repeatedly, they have told us that President Hussein’s surprise invasion of Kuwait and his refusal to withdraw made him the only one responsible for the Persian Gulf War. This reasoning makes all of the horrible killing and destruction in the war and the massacre of Kurds after the war the total responsibility of Saddam Hussein with no U.S. culpability involved. Yet, there is much evidence that the U.S. exploited both the tiny nation of Kuwait and even the nation of Iraq. We used them to provide ourselves with a dramatic excuse to crush Iraq’s infrastructure and destroy her war making capabilities, without first exhausting the peaceful potential of third party mediation, pressure and persuasion.

When the inner words were first spoken to me I was already involved in writing about Islam, Christianity, and the Persian Gulf War. In June of 1990, you may have received a paper from me discussing recent Israeli injustice and also the Messiah’s victory over the evil purposes of certain Israeli leaders two thousand years ago. My prayer is that those papers, combined with the enclosed hypothetical interview with the highly honored Prophet of Islam, and the poem, The President’s Plan, will reveal truth from ALLAH.

Sincerely, Tom Griffith

Post Office Box 31345

Seattle, Washington 98103

    U.S.A.

Many comparisons have been made between the Prophet Isa/Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad. One of the comparisons concerns the two prophets’ respective choices regarding whether to establish an earthly rule. The Injil/Gospel records that the Messiah turned his back on an opportunity to be made king. Instead, he allowed himself to be persecuted and finally executed. The Prophet of Islam also experienced severe persecution. However, he eventually had opportunity to escape from Mecca to Medina. After establishing a power base there, he and the faithful returned to Mecca, from where a powerful and influential earthly rule was established.

By means of a free flowing hypothetical interview with the Prophet Muhammad by a biased Westerner, we will examine some perspectives of Islam toward Christianity and Christianity toward Islam. Since true religion cannot and should not be separated from international policy decisions, we will also examine potential root causes of the horrible Persian Gulf War.

There will be sincere individuals who feel strongly that no person has a right to state what he thinks the Prophet’s thoughts would be about either religion or about the recent Middle Eastern conflict. Especially might they be critical of a Westerner for presuming to suggest what the Prophet may think. However, Muslims often have shared their perspectives and views of the Prophet Jesus. Similarly, it is difficult for a thinking person to refrain from pondering how the Prophet Muhammad might regard important issues affecting the lives of present day human beings. Significantly, it is only the Prophet Muhammad who has totally demonstrated to the Islamic world the ability to uncover the deceptions of man and bring out the real issues. Therefore, I request the forgiveness of any in the Islamic community who may be offended by my attempt to ponder the perspective of the Prophet on current concerns of theology, war, and justice. It is in an attitude of respect and reverence that I present my own views of what the Prophet would think through an imaginary interview of the highly respected founder of Islam by an American. Of course I cannot presume to know how the Prophet would answer on either religious issues of on the tragic Persian Gulf conflict. But my hope and prayer is that if truth is spoken, it will be as if the Prophet spoke it.

______________________________________

________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

The Interview

W:    People have made countless comparisons between you and the Messiah Isa. In their comparisons, Christians often characterize you negatively. They say that Isa was willing to sacrifice himself, but that you fled persecution in order to establish an earthly rule.

Pr:    Such comparisons are foolish. Do they think the Messiah and I are youthful athletes in competition? ALLAH’S will is different for each Prophet. It is His will that some die and that some live. It is His will whether a prophet himself builds on earth or whether he leaves others to build.

W:    You said that it is ALLAH’S will that some prophets die. The majority of Muslims believe that the Qur’an teaches that the Messiah was not crucified and therefore did not die. Are you saying that he did die?

Pr:    Of course the messiah did not die. The Qur’an and the Injil clearly teach that he is now alive with ALLAH. ALLAH took him up. All statements in the Qur’an or in any book cannot say all things. The Qur’an makes it abundantly clear that the Jews were totally unsuccessful in their futile efforts to permanently end the life of the Messiah. Would the Merciful allow the merciless to kill His Messiah, Isa, and son of Mary? ALLAH forbid. It is ALLAH himself who gives and takes life. It is His will that He took the Messiah to Himself. The Jews did not crucify of kill him. Was his life taken from him for the time ordained by ALLAH? Read other verses in the Qur;an. Read your own Scriptures to which the Qur;an instructs us to turn when there is any question. Do you think we do not read the Injil? Do you truly think we cannot understand the meaning of Zabur/Psalms 22 or the Prophet Isaiah 53 which vividly predict the Messiah’s death?

        What do you expect Muslims to believe about Isa’s death? How many western Christians even care how difficult they themselves have made it for Muslims to understand why ALLAH sent His Messiah? How many have ever considered the multitudes of slaughtered Muslims, the innocent victims of Christian atrocities during the savage crusades? How many are concerned that western Christianity supports Israel in its calloused and cruel victimization of Palestinians? How many western Christians are concerned that western exploitation and manipulation in the Middle East culminated in a cruel, savage gulf war that much of the western media has made to appear clean and neat?

W:    But Sir, are you not missing the point? You bring up irrelevant issues and seem unwilling to focus on whether the Messiah truly died.

Pr:    It is you western Christians who have missed the point. You do not understand your own theology. The Messiah did not die to rise again so that Westerners can boast about the correctness of their theology. His purpose was and still is to free people to use their energy to struggle against the forces of injustice and oppression. Instead, many Christians support oppression and arrogantly boast about the correctness of their theological views and about the supremacy of their military and economic might.

W:    Because we have such different perspectives regarding religion and justice, we will now return to concrete theological issues. Why do you Muslims deny the truth of the Trinity?

Pr:    What Trinity?

W:    The Trinity that Christians believes in as the best way to describe GOD.

Pr:    Did Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Ishmael, or any of the other prophets teach that GOD is Trinity?

W:    No, but…

Pr:    Is Trinity mentioned in the Bible?

W:    No, but…

Pr:    Then why should we believe in the Trinity if the Bible does not teach it and the prophets did not mention it?

W:    Christian scholars have helped Christians understand GOD by demonstration to us that we comprehend Him best when we think about Him systematically as a Trinity.

Pr:    I cannot believe what my ears are hearing. You are telling me that people can serve GOD better if they don’t understand Him to be One GOD but instead understand Him to be a system. It sounds as though you Westerners think GOD is an insect to be dissected rather than being the Almighty to whom we are to submit ourselves.

W:    Once again, you have taken something that we hold dear and have turned it inside out. You make it sound as though our theologians needlessly complicate GOD and that we have divided Him into separate parts.

Pr:    You begin to understand what I am saying. You have turned theology into a production line. The theories you produce about GOD have become more important to you than the Almighty Himself.

W:    Oh no. You are wrong. It is the Spirit of GOD, the third person of our Trinity who leads scholars to study GOD in a systematic way.

Pr:    So you want us to be sensitive to that dimension of your GOD who you say leads persons to study and systemize Him. It seems that it would be more important for the Spirit to lead people to seek justice, aid refugees, struggle against imperialism, expose exploitation, liberate the oppressed, and share the good news.

W:    You are not trying to understand. These scholars have dedicated themselves to study. It would be a poor use of the money GOD has provided for their education if they entangle themselves with such a basic task as seeking justice for others. They must study so that they can tell others what to believe. Also the Spirit of GOD leads other specialists to seek justice, assist refugees, liberate the oppressed, expose exploitation, fight against imperialism and to share the good news.

Pr:    It is indeed strange that the Spirit leads so many to study and so few to seek justice. Why do they need to tell others what to believe? Did not the Messiah teach us what to believe? Are not his teachings recorded for all of us to read?

W:    Yes, he did teach others what to believe and what to do. But most people prefer that someone else tell them what he meant.

Pr:    Are you telling me that what others say about the teachings of the Messiah is more important than what he himself taught?

W:    Allow me to change our subject. You teach that Jesus is only a messenger. Is this true?

Pr:    No, it is not true that I teach that Jesus is only a messenger or only a prophet. But it is true that the Qur’an states that he is only a messenger or only a prophet.

W:    But if the Qur’an states that he is only a messenger, how can you teach differently?

Pr:    Do you not remember me telling you that even with ALLAH every short statement cannot contain all truth? Perhaps an example will help you understand this principle. Suppose you ask me, “Prophet, where are the faithful gathered for prayer?”

        I tell you, “Go north and you will find them.”

        The next day you find me, but now I am in a different location than when we spoke the previous day. You again ask, “Prophet, where can I find the faithful gathered for prayer?”

        When I answer, “Go to the south and you will find them,” am I now contradicting the statement I made before? No! Both statements are true. I must say something different because the two circumstances are different.

W:    Are you saying that the Qur’an teaches that the Messiah is more than a messenger?

Pr:    Do not the Scriptures preceding the Qur’an teach that he is more than a messenger and more than a prophet? Does not the Qur’an teach that the earlier Scriptures be consulted when there is a question? Do not your own Scriptures teach different things in different places when the circumstances differ? For example, do not most Scriptures teach that faith saves? But does not the writer James clearly teach that it is a person’s works which save him? When you ask if Jesus is only a messenger or is only a prophet, the circumstances of your question are of vital importance.

W:    Are you saying that there are circumstances when Isa is more than a messenger or more than a prophet? Does the Qur’an actually teach that?

Pr:    There are circumstances when the Messiah is not more than a messenger or prophet. But when you ask such a question do you realize the confusing ideas that many Christians were attempting to spread at the time the Qur’an was revealed? They tried to teach us that since Jesus was the only GOD, that when he died there was no GOD because GOD was dead. This is nonsense. Others wanted us to believe that GOD had intercourse with Mary to make her pregnant with Jesus. This is shameful. It is absolutely certain that when Jesus died, GOD lived. It is also certain that a sexual union between GOD and Mary did not produce the baby Jesus. He was only a messenger and only a prophet.

W:    Are you now saying that he is only a messenger or prophet?

Pr:    Are you asking a prophet to become a systematic theologian? GOD forbid. GOD called me to be a prophet and a messenger. Read the Scriptures before the Qur’an. Read other statements written about Jesus in the Qur’an. Is the Messiah only a messenger? Is he who is faultless only a messenger? Is he who has remained alive in the holy presence of the Almighty for almost two thousands years only a prophet? Is he who comes to judge with his angles rank on rank and who the Qur’an calls Lord, only a messenger or prophet? Is he whom ALLAH has ordained to be illustrious in this world and in the hereafter only a messenger? Is the one whose followers ALLAH has destined to be above those who disbelieve only a messenger or prophet? Don’t ask me if he is only a messenger. Read in the Family of Imran. There, Imran speaks of those for whom there will be ho help in this world or in the hereafter because of their disbelief in the Messiah. Ask those of whom Imran speaks who chose to be beyond his help because they refused to believe in Jesus. Read all of the verses in the Qur’an about him and then decided if, in all circumstances, he is indeed only a messenger or only a prophet.

W:    You said that the Messiah would come to judge. Does the Qur’an teach this?

Pr:    Of course. But there are many who will not accept this reality. By the West’s own arrogance and negativism it has created a regretful barrier. It has made it extremely difficult for Muslims to accept teachings in the Qur’an which clearly demonstrates the authority ALLAH has given his Messiah. Many Muslims will deny that when the Qur’an states, “Your Lord will come with angels rank on rank” that it is definitely referring to the Messiah. Even when you reveal to them that the brother of the Messiah, Jude, made an almost identical statement in the Injil, they will somehow find an excuse not to believe the truth about Jesus coming to judge. Nevertheless, when Jude wrote, “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of holy ones to judge everyone…” the continuity and agreement between the statements in the two different Holy Books is undeniable. Yet, the arrogance and overbearing ways of the West have made it extremely difficult for Muslims to accept any concepts which they think will give the appearance of agreement with what they view as western dominated Christian teacher. Therefore, it is almost impossible for Muslims to accept the reality that both the Qur’an and the Bible agree that Jesus will come to judge.

W:    But what difference does it make that the two scriptures are similar? You Muslims all believe that the Qur’an teaches that the Scriptures preceding the Qur’an have been changed and are therefore totally unreliable.

Pr:    Your lectures to me about what we believe and about what the Qur’an teaches are insulting. Of course the Qur’an does not teach that the Scriptures previous to the Qur’an have been rendered unreliable. But you are totally uninformed not to appreciate how strongly the western anti-Arab and anti-Muslim mentality has affected Arabs. Can you blame us for resisting the authority of the Messiah and the message of the Injil? Have you not observed the arrogance, lack of love, absence of understanding, and quickness to exploit which Westerners display toward Arabs, Muslims, and Islam? These negative western attitudes have forced Middle Eastern Muslims to distance themselves from Christian teaching. We search the Qur’an for any verse we can find that will provide a potential excuse for us to keep ourselves separate from the religion of those who have so blatantly exploited us. There have been a few servants of the Messiah who have sacrificially served the Muslim people. Especially have many Christian medical workers met some of the health needs of Middle Easterners. But the majority of western Christians have had arrogant attitudes toward Muslims.

W:    Sir, do you totally reject the concept that ALLAH is tri-dimensional in His unity?

Pr:    If your terminology is a cover-up for the word Trinity, of course we reject it. You must understand that when we initially objected to the term Trinity, we were objecting to a family Trinity of GOD being the father and husband, Mary being the wife of GOD and mother of their son, Jesus. This is a shameful concept. You command us to understand that GOD is a Trinity. But GOD has not given you the right to command us what to believe. You must understand that though you think we believe that GOD is flat like a piece of paper that is not our belief. We know that ALLAH has never been without His Eternal Word. We first think of His Word as the Qur’an. You first think of His Word as the Messiah. Though the Qur’an calls the Messiah “WORD”, this is not the way Muslims first think of him. In addition to ALLAH never being without His Word, we also know that ALLAH has always possessed His Eternal Will. We do not usually think of the Spirit as ALLAH’S Eternal Will, but we consider it no accident that the Injil teaches that ALLAH’S Will is carried out by His Spirit. All things are possible with ALLAH. He is able to do all things.

        We are certain about ALLAH’S Past. We are certain about ALLAH’S Present. We are certain about ALLAH’S Future. Though ALLAH is eternal and cannot truly be spoken of as past, present, or future, because of man’s weakness He allows us to use these terms. In the eternal past, ALLAH has always possessed both His Eternal Will and His Eternal Word. In the eternal present ALLAH possesses both His Eternal Will and His Eternal Word. In the future ALLAH will never be without His Eternal Will and His Eternal Word.

W:    So you are nearer to thinking of ALLAH as tri-dimensional than either Muslims or Christians are willing to acknowledge.

Pr:    ALLAH leads us. His Will is our nourishment. Whether we are near this or not near that is not important. Whether we are submitted to ALLAH is vitally important. Whether we do His Will is what truly matters. But you are thinking like a typical Westerner. You must understand that Muslims have no need to try to please western seminary professors, western authors, or western public speakers. Our desire is not to please man but to please ALLAH.

        I will now ask you a question. Why do you Christians in the west always support Israel?

W:    It is not true that we always support Israel. We always support righteousness and we know that the Israelis are always righteous. They suffered horribly from the cruel efforts to annihilate them by the madman Hitler. Any groups who have suffered as the Jews have suffered are always compassionate to others. Therefore, we feel strongly that we need to support Israel’s policies as Israelis struggle against terrorism and the hostility of the Arab nations who have vowed to destroy them.

Pr:    Are you certain that the Israelis always treat the Palestinians with justice?

W:    Of course Israelis are humans and make mistakes, but their government policies are always just.

Pr:    I assure you that ALLAH knows all the variables that are connected with the arrogant and inhumane treatment of Palestinians by Israelis. I acknowledge that there have been circumstances when both the P.L.O. and certain Arab nations have made threatening statements toward Israel. I also realize that there have been terrorist attacks sponsored by groups related to the P.L.O. that may have been supported by certain Arab nations. However, the reality is that the majority of Israeli leadership has systematically and consistently attempted to antagonize the people and leadership of both the P.L.O. and the Arab nations. They do this so that it will be almost impossible for Arabs to have positive attitudes towards Israel, which must be the foundation for peaceful relations.

W:    You cannot convince me that Israel is not taking every constructive diplomatic initiative that it possibly can in order to develop peaceful relations with both the P.L.O. and all the surrounding Arab nations. Why would they possibly desire to antagonize Arab leaders when the Arab nations outnumber them so overwhelmingly?

Pr:    You are indeed naïve. There are numerous reasons why Israel strongly resists establishing peaceful relations with both the P.L.O. and the Arab nations. Five of the more obvious reasons are:

    1.         The Israeli leaders consider themselves superior to their Arab neighbors. They appear to believe that if they treat their neighbors with civility that would demonstrate weakness on their part and would indicate that Arabs and Jews are equal. They choose not to deal justly with those whom they consider inferior to themselves. As an example, a recent Prime Minister of Israel has publicly referred to the Palestinians as grasshoppers to be crushed. A nation will never deal evenhandedly with a people they consider inferior to themselves.

            2.        The Israelis think that they must attempt to constantly antagonize and incite the Arab nations so that these nations will respond toward Israel with antagonistic statements and possibly even hostile actions. This enables Israeli leaders to point to the multitudes of Arabs surrounding them and loudly proclaim to the world and especially to the U.S. that these insanely hostile nations may at any moment invade or bomb Israel. In the next breath they exclaim how the U.S. has the responsibility to give Israel billions of dollars for military and economic aid.

            3.         If Israel were to totally settle its differences with its Arab neighbors, this would eliminate Israel’s opportunity to expand its territory. Many Israeli leaders are convinced that they should again possess all territory that was theirs in King David’s time.

            4.        As long as there is no concrete peace settlement, Israel was not lost the potential to push out a much greater percentage of the people they despise, the Palestinians. The more Palestinians are driven out, the more Israel can use the occupied territories for the settlement of incoming Jewish settlers, especially those from the U.S.S.R. As the Israelis replace the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza with Jews and simultaneously enlarge their own territory, they feel they will be more able to stand against their Arab neighbors in the future.

            5.         Because Israel has convinced itself that its Arab neighbors can never be trusted, it will not agree to a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza unless international pressure forces it to do so. In fact, Israel is searching for every opportunity to expand even beyond both the land awarded it by a U.N. mandate and the land they hope and plan to take over from the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. For many Israeli leaders, justice does not have priority. Many have convinced themselves that they must increase their land even beyond the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights in order to meet their long range strategic and security needs.

W:    Like so many Arabs, you seem totally unappreciative of all the wonderful assistance the U.S. has given to the Arab nations. Instead, you remain critical of U.S. aid to Israel.

Pr:    By wonderful assistance, are you speaking of the money you formerly stole from us when for many years you paid us very deflated prices for our oil? Or are you speaking of the way you armed Iran under the Shah so that thousands of tons of weapons of destruction fell into the hands of the Ayatollah Khomeini? Or, is what you call your “wonderful assistance” the way you participated in arming Saddam Hussein with his military might so Iraq could fight against all the weapons that you had earlier provided to Iran? Or you’re your assistance is arming Iran in order to be a first line of defense against your former enemy who is now your ally and who may soon again be your enemy, the U.S.S.R? Or have you helped Arabs by your greedy technological firms earning hundreds of millions of dollars by selling technology to Iraq to help them develop advanced weapons systems? In fact, it is these immoral firms that enabled Iraq to develop a nuclear arms and chemical potential to possibly use against not only Israel but also against her Arab brothers. If Saddam Hussein had not received your aid to become a miniature military superpower, it would have been unnecessary for you to encourage Iraq to invade Kuwait so that you could destroy Iraq’s military and nuclear potential.

        Or, is a favor you have done for Arabs your building of Israel into a military force to help the Arabs unite themselves in order to counteract the military fortress you have built Israel into? Or should we thank you for the destabilization you have brought to our region by constantly imposing your solutions on us so that hundreds of thousands of third world fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers have lost their families’ only means of support which was employment in the gulf states to have had their Middle Eastern business financially ruined by your unwelcome assistance? Or, should we praise you for constantly helping Israel to avoid any U.N. resolution that might promote justice for the Palestinians? Or, are you asking that we praise you for what you callously call collateral damage when hundreds of innocent civilians were slaughtered by your bombs because you would not allow the Arabs to negotiate a peaceful solution to the Gulf crisis? Or, should we thank you for encouraging the Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein and then have the U.S. stand by quietly while Iraq slaughtered thousands of Kurds, including women and children?

        Do you truly expect us to praise you for creating the military problems that you now claim to be solving by your mass destruction and the terror that you inflict with your godless massive military might? Five decades ago you used Pearl Harbor to manipulate public opinion to support your entering into the Second World War which was all fought on foreign shores. Now you have used Kuwait to rally U.S. and U.N. support for your massive military actions in the Mid-East. Instead of solving problems, you are creating even greater destabilization, countless refugees, and more massive suffering than you have created in the past.

        It does not take a scholar to realize that the U.S. contributed significantly to creating in Iraq a military monster with state of the art technology which included seven million land mines. Your military experts on CNN referred to Iraq as the fourth greatest military force in the world. In your minds, Iraq had to be ruthlessly crushed militarily. Is it difficult to understand that the U.S. needed a dramatic emotional rallying point in order to gain American, world, and United Nations’ support for you to unleash your massive destruction against the military, technological, industrial, and communications infrastructure of Iraq? In 1941, you used Pearl Harbor to shift public opinion away from America’s fierce anti-war stance. Your leaders reasoned that economic realities made it imperative that you enter World War II. You decided that your participation would significantly expand your sphere of influence and open to you world markets. You concluded that these markets were vitally needed to purchase and consume your multiple products from your tremendous mass production potential. This expansion would also open up more opportunities for you to cheaply purchase raw materials needed for your mass production lines.

        Your leaders have falsely called Pearl Harbor a surprise attack. It was not a surprise to the American leaders at that time because your State Department had solved the secret Japanese code over a year before the attack occurred. But, it was a total surprise to your servicemen victims of that horrible day. Sacrificed were over two thousand American men and women, eight battleships, and multiple planes to make it appear to be a ruthless surprise attack. Significantly, you had arranged for your aircraft carriers to be in other places when the attack occurred. Instead of a surprise, it was a blatant sacrifice of American blood in order to deeply stir the patriotic emotions of the American public. Before the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor, 85% of Americans were against U.S. involvement in the “foreign” war. After what your government falsely labeled as a “surprise attack,” the opinion of the American people dramatically shifted so that 90% strongly supported your involvement in the war.

        Fifty years later you needed another Pearl Harbor to rally public opinion to support what your leaders wanted to accomplish. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was your Middle Eastern Pearl Harbor. Kuwait was the pretense you needed in order to guarantee your own oil supply and to ensure the world of the economic stability that U.S. economic stability is dependent upon. This time the defenseless people of Kuwait were sacrificed so that you could lure the ambitious and greedy Saddam Hussein into your baited trap. This was your approach to solve the regrettable set of complex problems that your own nearsighted foreign policy decisions had previously created in the Middle East. When will you American leaders be willing to consider Middle Eastern nations’ true needs and not only meet your own needs? There are times when your sophisticated leaders cannot se beyond the end of their noses. They promise stability but their actions ensure that instability and suffering will be the result.

        The hard reality is that in the Persian Gulf War, you were fighting against your own bad Middle Eastern policy decisions. Or, stating it another way, you were not fighting against the Iraqis. You were fighting against yourselves and your own bad decisions. The words of one of your own comic characters are appropriate for you to quote for yourselves:

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”

        Oh, how your leaders owe it to themselves, to your people, and to the world to confess their grievous sin of attempting to replace the ALMIGHTY with themselves. Your leaders should weep and throw dust upon their heads as they plead with the people of the Middle East for forgiveness for the massive suffering and destruction you have brought to us. May the ALMIGHTY forgive you for you do not understand what you are doing and have done.

        Another crime which you committed when you tried to replace ALLAH with yourselves, is that you convinced Americans and most of the Western world that the Middle East should be thankful for your saving Kuwait from Iraq. The truth that ALLAH is totally aware of is that Kuwait would have not needed “saving” if you had not manipulated circumstances in order to insure that the Gulf War occurred.    

W:    It shocks me to hear your harsh statements toward the generous and helpful U.S. government. You have put into a negative light all the wonderful efforts of our enlightened leaders to aid the unappreciative and helpless people of the Middle East. Your comments and ideas are both un-American and unpatriotic.

Pr:    Do you truly think every person in the world is wrong if they do not have an American point of view? Have you forgotten that I am a Middle Easterner and not a biased, uninformed American? I attempt to be faithful to ALLAH and not to be influenced by any government’s propaganda.

W:    How can you possibly suggest that the U.S. is responsible for the war with Iraq? You must understand that every reasonable effort was made to persuade Iraq to leave Kuwait so that the war could have been avoided.

Pr:    Once Saddam Hussein was allowed or manipulated to invade Kuwait, it was too late for the West to influence him to withdraw form that nation. If he had been warned of the terrible consequences of his occupation of Kuwait before his invasion, do you think he would have invaded? He would not have.

W:    We had no way of knowing that he would invade. We could not have warned him of the terrible consequences facing Iraq.

Pr:    Are you saying your Central Intelligence Agency had no knowledge of the impending invasion of Kuwait? Of course they did. Why did the U.S. Embassy staff in Iraq plan their own desert escape route weeks before the invasion occurred? Why did the British press say that they were surprised that Iraq’s invasion did not occur in early July but instead was delayed until early August?

W:    But don’t you realize that president Hussein gave his word to Egypt’s President Hosni Murbarrak and to Saudi Arabia’s King Fahad that there would be no invasion? They were told that Iraq wished only to intimidate Kuwait. If the fact that there would be an invasion had not been denied, Iraqi President Hussein would have been warned of the conflagration which would soon face him. That warning would have prevented him form invading. So it is Hussein’s own lies and his refusal to leave Kuwait which have caused the great punishment to the nation of Iraq.

Pr:    Excuse me, but it is absolutely ridiculous that the West would make a great issue of Saddam Hussein using deception regarding his invasion plans. He may be 100% guilty for invading defenseless Kuwait even though he was manipulated to do so. Yet, it is obvious that in his mind he did have historical grievances to settle and his own sever economic problems to solve. He also was convinced that his own war with Iran had been a tremendous favor to both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. If Saddam Hussein had not diverted Ayatollah Khomeini’s brand of militant Islamic Fundamentalism into a costly and prolonged war with Iraq, revolutionaries committed to Khomeini’s type of Islam most certainly would have gained control of the leadership of Iran. So the money paid by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to help to finance Iraq’s costly war with Iran was not just a favor paid to Iraq. The money was given by those nations to Iraq in exchange for the blood spilled by Iraq’s Muslim boys and men in Saddam Hussein’s army as they drained away Iran’s resources in that dreadful war. In a very real way, the families of Iraq gave the lives of their beloved sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands to protect the reigning dynasties in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Even more significantly, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who gave their lives in their leader’s war with Iran were also preventing Persian Gulf oil from falling under the control of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Thus, the boys and men of Iraq sacrificed their precious lives to preserve the steady flow of oil to the west, just as America’s coalition forces were more recently required to do.

        Since in Saddam Hussein’s mind he was justified in invading Kuwait, he did as every military leader does before he plans a major military move. He used as much deception as he possible could. Despite his deception, there is absolutely no chance that the entire U.S. intelligence community believed President Hussein when he said he would not invade Kuwait. He had already moved massive amounts of troops and weapons to Kuwait’s border before the eyes of the world’s press and military leaders. If the U.S. had truly desired to prevent Iraq from invading, you would have warned him in the clearest possible terms of the terrible consequences facing his nation if he did invade. If, indeed, you had been serious about preventing the invasion, it was absolutely imperative that you would have warned him of those consequences before the invasion occurred.

        Your calculated decision to wait until after the invasion to warn him instead of before the invasion made a strategic difference. There is no doubt that the U.S. administration was well aware of that difference. It is ludicrous for the world to believe that a sophisticated U.S. administration was not well aware of that difference. It is ludicrous for the world to believe that sophisticated U.S. officials were deceived by Iraq’s denial of invasion plans. President Saddam Hussein may have succeeded in deceiving his Muslim brothers, President Mubarrak and King Fahad. But he did not deceive the U.S. and Israel. These two nations chose to appear to be deceived. What was the reason for their convincing deception? They wished to deceive Iraq into taking their bait – Kuwait.

W:    That just isn’t the way of either the United States or Israel. Neither of these nations would ever deceive anyone. That is not our way. Our President always tells the truth about everything and so does the Prime Minister of Israel.

Pr:    Why can’t you understand that the U.S. would not have chosen to believe Saddam Hussein unless it had been in your own strategic interests to do so? You chose to believe him when he said that he would not invade to ensure that he would invade. Considering the past actions and deceptions of Saddam Hussein, do you honestly think your leaders believed him when he denied that he had invasion plans? Keep in mind that when he made his denial, thousands of his Iraq troops with massive weapons had already surrounded Kuwait. Don’t deny reality. The U.S. not only made it as easy as you could for Iraq to invade, but you also put pressure on him so that he would.

        For example, prior to the invasion, you took various steps to create additional financial problems for Iraq. This was done so that Iraq would be under more pressure to solve their economic distress that had been created by their long war with Iran. So they were manipulated to invade one of the richest, yet most unpopular monarchies in the Middle East. You did not give Iraq mixed signals about the invasion as U.S. government spokesmen and the press had stated. You gave them a green light. Without the green light given by the U.S., there would have been no invasion and occupation; you would have had no excuse to destroy Iraq’s considerable war making capabilities and future nuclear potential.

W:    You are totally wrong. The U.S. discouraged Iraq from invading Kuwait in every way that we possibly could.

Pr:    Will you deny that the U.S. and Israel undoubtedly had high-level strategic discussions on the most effective ways to deal with what was the Iraqi present and future military threat? Will you not acknowledge that together they considered different potential scenarios and the most likely consequences of each scenario? Since Iraq had well known designs on parts of Kuwait, are you unwilling to acknowledge that the most obvious scenario would be a secret plan to manipulate Iraq to invade Kuwait? This would provide the U.S. and its allies the needed justification in the eyes of the world not only to destroy Iraq’s considerable war making potential but also hopefully to kill or to overthrow its leader – Saddam Hussein.

        Additionally, if the U.S. Administration was against Iraq invading Kuwait, since Iraq’s intentions were so obvious, why did not the Administration send numerous cables or telegrams to Saddam Hussein warning him of what would happen to Iraq if they did invade? But there is absolutely no paper trail documenting such warnings.

W:    If these ridiculous things you are suggesting have substance and are true, why oh why--? Your outrages allegations have made me so upset that I can hardly talk. If what you say is true, why have not senators or people in congress or the press or someone exposed our deceit? If we manipulated the Gulf War to happen, our manipulation caused great suffering and our administration should be held responsible for that manipulation that caused so much suffering.

Pr:    My dear Western friend, your administration is not in the business of being held responsible. With its mighty economic base linked to a giant military – industrial complex, backed by a patriotic congress and ill informed voters, your nation is in the business of holding others accountable but not to holding yourself responsible. Do you actually think you would hold responsible your whole pentagon which guides your mighty military industrial complex? Don’t you realize that according to the Christian Science Monitor your huge military industrial complex spends as much as the combined total that the next fifteen nations spend?

W:    Wow!     

Pr:    Now I will tell you only seven of the many reasons there was no public exposure of your covert manipulations of Iraq to invade Kuwait.

  1.    With your tremendous dependence on Gulf oil, it is much more convenient for your congress and media to live in denial about your crime. They consciously realize that if they expose this deception it could cause major problems for the U.S. oil supply and for the U.S. economy. So, they don’t want to uncover any facts that would force them to expose this major international crime. So, it is much more convenient to pretend that no crime was committed.

  2.    No person of stature in the U.S. wants to put Arab leaders in the position of public offending the U.S. by making a difficult to prove accusation against them. Because that could jeopardize the fragile hold on power of some of the gulf monarchies and they are dependent on U.S. support to help them remain in power.

  3.    No responsible person wants to be labeled as believing in a conspiracy theory unless there is strong tangible evidence proving the theory to be true.

  4.    It was reasoned by many U.S. leaders that it is irrelevant whether the U.S. used tiny Kuwait as helpless bait for well-armed Iraq. This deception is considered insignificant in relation to Iraq’s growing stronger, potentially developing nuclear weapons and more chemical and biological weapons as well as being a major threat to its oil producing Arab neighbors.

  5.    A strong Iraq is also a major threat to the friend of the U.S.; Israel.

  6.    The very security of the world economy is linked to the free flow of oil and it would be a serious strategic error to allow a strong Iraq to hold the world economy hostage.

  7.    Powerful leaders in the U.S. and possibly some outside the U.S. were convinced that any diplomatic settlement with Iraq would cause more problems that it would solve. If Iraq were to withdraw before there was a war to cripple Iraq, it could leave that nation strong enough to create considerable future problems.

  In summary, when the U.S. decided to replace ALLAH with itself, it concluded that there had to be a Gulf War to make everything better.

W:    Do you think they were right?

Pr:  From the perspective of a nation with lots of money, much power, tons of weapons and considerable arrogance, they considered themselves right. But I am convinced that ALLAH considered them to be very wrong. When powerful men lie to themselves and to others and try to pretend that they are ALLAH, they create many more problems than they solve.

Over eleven years later and you still have the same problems with Iraq that you had before. Except now a full invasion of Iraq is being considered. If that happens, it will be a great offense to the Muslim world and the U.S. will never again be trusted by the Muslim world. You will become isolated and inevitably loose your power and your economic influence will rapidly decline.

W:    So, what do you think is now the answer?

Pr:    I am personally convinced that long, prayerful, relaxed, friendly, realistic dialogue between men who know that ALLAH holds them responsible for the preciousness and sanctity of life is the answer. In other words, intelligent, GOD fearing, broad based diplomacy is what is needed. But men who are convinced that technology and a giant military industrial complex is the answer to the world’s problems are causing their own nation to race towards destruction and the ALMIGHTY’S Judgment.   

W:    But you are very unrealistic. People just aren’t able to be reasonable.

Pr:    If they are not able to be reasonable, then they had better fall on their faces and plead with ALLAH to make them able to be reasonable and find answers that do not rely on massive military destruction. Or, are you suggesting that thousands of dead bodies, streets filled with blood, women and children weeping and screaming and houses turned into rubbish are preferable to leaders humbling themselves before ALLAH and each other and together searching for solutions.

W:    Well, when you put it that way, I suppose you are right. But I still cannot believe that there were not voices protesting the Gulf War before it occurred.

Pr:    There were! Former President Jimmy Carter, as later reported in the prestigious American Foreign Affairs Journal followed his conscious and wrote personal letters to members of the American facilitated coalition revealing to them that from his perspective there had not been good faith diplomacy or sufficient good faith conversations with Iraq to get them to withdraw. The publication that revealed this came out after the conclusion of the war, however. Also, the decision by the U.S. Congress was not nearly unanimous the Gulf War should occur.

Also, I know a totally unknown American whose conscious compelled him to write a long poem exposing what he thought were the reasons the American leadership manipulated the Gulf War to occur. Then he sent the poem to hundreds of congressmen, school administrators, mayors and law schools etc throughout the U.S. He was trying to help significant Americans become accountable for knowing what your nation had done. He also sent several hundred copies to Arab and Muslim people throughout the Middle East, and many of the copies to the Middle East were an Arabic translation. But, the sad reality is that he did his writing and mailing after the Gulf War.

W:    What kind of response did he receive?

Pr:    Many congressmen acknowledged receiving the poems but made absolutely no comment about our nation’s actions. But I will tell you about three quite positive responses he received. One was a post card from a mayor of a large mid- western city. He called the poem brilliant and said that it had opened his own eyes to what had happened regarding the Gulf War.

Another was a reply from a well know representative from Texas by the name of Henry Gonzalez. He did not comment on the poem but instead included his own newsletter to his supporters blasting the United States manipulation of the press coverage during the Gulf War. He stated that never in the history of the United States had the U.S. government manipulated the media to the degree that they did during the Gulf War. The government got their message out even though their message had only a minor relationship to the truth.

The other significant response was from a Black gentleman who at one time was a close associate of Dr. Martin Luther King during Dr. Kings early days. Stokely Carmichael, later known by his African name of Kwame Ture separated from Dr. King over mostly a difference in philosophy. Mr. Carmichael became impatient with Dr. King’s non-violent approach to change. Although my friend’s poem contained no hint of violence, Mr. Carmichael said that it offered more insights as to the causes of the Gulf War than anything he had encountered. Though Mr. Ture is an eclectic when it comes to religion, he told my friend that he considered him a prophet for exposing the United States for its strategic part in causing the Gulf War.

W:    Despite all that you have said, I know deep in my heart that it would be impossible for Israeli and American officials to even consider either manipulation or allowing Iraq to invade Kuwait. How would Israel or the U.S. even know that Iraq wanted any of Kuwait’s land and economic resources? Additionally, manipulation of Iraq would be deceptive and would obviously result in much destruction to both Kuwait and Iraq and could cause a horrible ecological disaster. The U.S. and Israel would never do anything that would deceive or harm other nations.

Pr:    Please excuse me but I cannot accept your very optimistic view of human nature. Do you have no knowledge of what is called Christian theology? Do you not realize that it is because of the wicked decisions of both leaders and followers that the Messiah allowed himself to be the temporary victim of Israel’s oppression? We are not to excuse the wicked decisions of leaders. Instead we are to expose evil. We are to plead with all perpetrators of evil to sincerely repent and to weep over the destruction they have brought to innocents. We must point them to the murdered but victorious Messiah so that they will plead for his forgiveness.

W:    Wait a minute. Your Qur’an does not teach that there is forgiveness available to all through the Messiah. Where did you get such an idea?

Pr:    The Qur’an definitely teaches the need for forgiveness. It does not emphasize the Messiah’s part in providing that forgiveness just as a majority of the Old Testament does not emphasize the Messiah’s part in that provision. There are many things that the Qur’an does not teach, but they are still true. The Qur’an does not teach us to stop at a red light and go at a green light, yet we all do. But the Qur’an does clearly direct us to the Scriptures before the Qur’an, where forgiveness through the Messiah is emphasized. The Bible is a longer book. There is much teaching there that is not in the Qur’an. The Qur’an is only one book. It cannot have every true teaching in it.

        But if you say that the Qur’an does not teach us to follow the Messiah and that it denies that there is forgiveness through him, once again you are wrong. Why else does the book of Imran teach that there will be no help in this world or in the hereafter for those who continue in their disbelief in Isa?

W:    I had no idea that the Qur’an sets forth Isa as man’s Messiah. But I cannot believe that a truthful politician like President Bush would ever need forgiveness for anything that he has ever said or done.

Pr:    Do you truly believe that what the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, told President Hussein one week before the invasion, did not give a green light for the invasion to occur? Was she not operating under the directions of the U.S. State Department? She told the Iraqi president that:

        “We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait…James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction.”

        Do your truly think that the statement made by Margaret Tutwiler, the State Department’s official spokesperson, was also not designed to give a green light for Iraq to invade Kuwait? On July 24^th, 1990, one day before Glaspie’s statement, Ms. Tutwiler told reporters,

        “We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.”

        To make certain that Iraq knew that the green light for the invasion remained on, two days before the invasion, John Kelly, an undersecretary of State again and again told congress,

        “…we have no defense treaty with any Gulf nation.”

        You must realize that Iraq was well aware that each of these statements individually and collectively were intended to give Iraq the green light to invade. This obvious permission to invade was not even veiled in Kelly’s multiple responses to the repeated questioning by Representative Lee Hamilton regarding whether there was a U.S. commitment to come to Kuwait’s defense if it was attacked.

        Also, if these three quotes from State Department officials could leave any doubt of what message the U.S. Administration intended Iraq to receive, there is another telling piece of evidence. This evidence would be humorous if it did not relate to tens of thousands of human lives being destroyed.

        Cox news service reported that Domino Pizza Company sells extra pizza dinners to the White House, Pentagon, and the State Department before expected major international military action. The night before the United States officials expected Kuwait to be invaded by Iraq, numerous U.S. officials stayed late at their offices and ordered more pizza than they had even ordered the nights before the U.S. invaded either Panama or Grenada.

        But probably the strongest signal from the State Department that U.S. leaders definitely wanted the invasion to occur comes directly from the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney. His reported response after the war as to why he did not heed two urgent warnings form a field analyst that the invasion would occur, appears at best, to be a superficial cover-up. The first warning by Defense Intelligence Analyst Pat Land occurred two days before the actual invasion. The second more urgent warning came just hours before the attack. It is reported that while Cheney dismissed the buildup as a bluff, Colin Powell, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged that the Untied States sternly warn Iraq not to invade. It was not allowed that such a warning be given. However, it appears that General Powell, to his credit, was not aware of the Presidents’ strategy to encourage the invasion.

        Cheney’s weak excuse regarding one of the most significant issues of the Twentieth Century was, “It is not a new discovery to say that one particular analyst knew what Saddam Hussein was going to do. Nobody could believe he would do anything as stupid as to do what he did.”

        For Cheney to try to deflect suspicions away from the Administration’s strategy of deception and blame all of the invasion on Hussein’s stupidity sounds like an excuse a five year old would use after he put gum in his little sister’s hair. Mr. Cheney’s excuse of “Hussein’s stupidity deserves all the blame” is equivalent to a little boy saying that if his sister did not have hair, he could not have put gum in it.

        But Mr. Cheney is not a five year old, so Mr. Cheney and the former Bush Administration must bear the responsibility for the rivers of blood that were shed and the multitude of lives which were ruthlessly snuffed out. It was not Mr. Hussein’s stupidity that deserves the blame. If Mr. Cheney’s true intention was to prevent the invasion, then it is Mr. Cheney’s stupidity which deserves the blame and not Mr. Hussein’s stupidity.

        When a responsible official observes a multitude of troops and tanks surrounding a vulnerable nation which the invading nation has grievances with and historical claims upon, no reasonable defense secretary makes a ridiculous assumption that the leader of the nation will not invade. Instead, the responsible defense secretary prepares for the worst-case scenario in every way possible. The invading nation must be strongly warned in every conceivable way imaginable. But, Mr. Cheney knew that but he did not want to take any chances that Iraq would withdraw. So, he made certain that no unequivocal warning was given even though General Powell strongly encouraged that such a warning be given.

Consequently, in view of Mr. Cheney’s blatant deception, it is a miracle that any current Arab leader any longer trust the deceitful, but smooth talking Mr. Cheney. Such trust is not only beyond my comprehension, but it is also beyond my imagination.     

        It seems exceptionally significant that both Ambassador Glaspie and Secretary of Defense Cheney find it more convenient to call President Hussein “stupid” than they find it possible to give reasonable answers to important questions. In addition to these superficial smokescreens, the then President of the United States had the arrogance to call it “nit-picking after the fact,” when he publicly complained about the legitimate questions being raised regarding why the U.S. made absolutely no attempt to prevent Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

        Top administration officials appeared to nervously realize that some day their contemptuous deceit will be exposed. That Administration may at least salvage some semblance of integrity by finally admitting to the American people and to the International Community that

        “We did not attempt to prevent Iraqi’s invasion of Kuwait because we decided that their invading fit much more conveniently into our own planned strategy to solve the balance of power needs in the Middle East than would their not invading have helped to resolve those needs.”

        While they continue to chant loudly that the same Saddam Hussein who, so far, has successfully resisted the efforts of the U.S. and other nations to drive him from power, is actually stupid, they are instead inadvertently broadcasting another message. For the eyes and ears of the International Community, the U.S. State Department was vividly demonstrating that it was they themselves who were being stupid and also were being immoral.

        For the International Community to accept at face value the superficial, evasive explanations of Dick Cheney and the U.S. State Department is to make the international community complicit in the American immoral cover-up. Was it not immoral to manipulate Ambassador Glaspie to inadvertently misguide President Hussein? Was it not both immoral and criminal for Undersecretary of State John Kelly to deliberately misguide a congressional foreign relations committee? Was it not both immoral and criminal for the U.S. State Department to manipulate their spokesperson Tutwiler to purposely misguide the U.S. press?

        If these officials had not been manipulated to deceive those who trusted them, then president Hussein would not have made his decisions based on a foundation of misinformation. Rather he was the victim of sophisticated deception and he was lured into a trap baited with the people of innocent Kuwait, a nation that Iraq had well known historical designs upon.  

        What Secretary Cheney should have observed about President Hussein and his advisors is this. They were naive not to realize that the U.S. Administration was deliberately leading Iraq into a baited trap by a series of purposely misleading statements that were never intended to reveal truth. The irony is that, although there was the series of deliberate deceptions by the U.S. State Department, it is President Hussein’s statement that he would not invade Kuwait that has received the U.S. Press coverage.

        That the U.S. Congress would choose to believe the cover-up explanations of president Bush and Defense Secretary Cheney should shock the International Community. The President said:

        “…in hindsight, maybe there were some things we should have done differently.”

        This statement should not be accepted by any thinking adult as a credible explanation. This obvious smoke screen, designed to stop criticism and further questioning, is such a weak excuse that it should have aroused intense Congressional suspicion rather than having been considered a credible explanation. It is obvious that the American Administration desired Iraq to invade Kuwait. To accept a weak explanation that the invasion was not their intention is ludicrous and irresponsible. This cover-up by the Bush Administration dwarfs former president Nixon’s infamous Watergate cover-up. It is even a much more significant deception than President Lyndon Johnson’s infamous deceptions of congress and the American Public during the Vietnam tragedy.

        If the American Congress will not accept their responsibility to expose this deception by the U.S. Administration, every sincere believer in ALLAH should cry out to the ALMIGHTY to bring his discipline to those who would replace truth to their own people, the U.N., and to the International community, with a shocking violation of their trust. The degree to which the Bush Administration played like it was God so that it had the right to decide what was best for the hundreds of millions of people who have been affected by the Persian Gulf tragedy, is almost incomprehensible. To compare the Administration horrible crime with the arrogance exhibited in the shocking Iran/Contra scam is like comparing the size of a large camel to the size of a small spider.

        Allow me to present another a very important point that is often overlooked. One of the main U.S. officials to strongly resist the war with Iraq was General Colin Powell. Yet, eleven years later General Powell is still receiving criticism for resisting an all out Gulf war and wanting diplomacy to receive a higher priority. I am 100 per cent convinced that those powerful men who facilitated war will be judged for that by the Messiah when he judges man. But I am also convinced that a person of character like Colin Powel will receive his reward for his sincere attempts at conciliation.

W:    All of your talk indicates that you do not appear to believe Glaspie’s testimony of having given stern warnings to Saddam Hussein that the U.S. would not tolerate the use of force against Kuwait. She said that the transcript of her meeting with the Iraqi president was tampered with so that it omitted her stern warnings.

Pr:    Your American leadership knew prior to Ms. Glaspie’s appointment as ambassador what the probable result would be of your imposing your western customs upon Iraq. Do you not understand that your administration’s choice of a woman to be the ambassador to an Islamic nation was in itself a stronger message to Iraq that any words she would say? Iraq was not an ordinary country. It was reputed to have had the fourth most powerful military force upon earth and could obviously influence the balance of power in the Middle East to that nation, Islamic in culture and the most dreaded nation in the Middle East, President George Bush chose to send a woman to be the bridge of communication.

        Your president cannot claim that he did not understand how cultural influence could seriously interfere with a woman’s effectiveness as an ambassador to an Islamic nation. As a former CIA direction, he was not only aware of the significant influence culture can have on political outcomes, but he also understood how to skillfully manipulate cultural factors in a strategy of deception.

W:    But don’t you realize that President Bush received pressure form women’s rights organizations to choose qualified women for important ambassadorships? Also, it would have been unfair to the career of April Glaspie is she had been denied this opportunity to fully use her Middle Eastern training and expertise.

Pr:    Your reasoning is flawed. You know that your State Department Middle Eastern experts advised your president regarding the complexities of a women’s role in Islam. Of course they were able to explain to him that, though Islam greatly honors women, the Qur’an teaches that there are circumstances when a women does not have a status equal to that of a man. For instance, in 2:282 of the Qur’an, two female witnesses equal one male witness. Also, in 2:228 it is stated that men have a status above women. With a display of typical western cultural arrogance, you suggest that fourteen hundred years of significant Islamic cultural influence should be abruptly set aside. Do you actually think that blatant insensitivity to Islamic culture is justified in order to accommodate America’s present day women’s rights movement so that one woman’s foreign service career could be advanced? In view of April Glaspie’s regrettable experience, I wonder if there are any other women who will risk similar career assistance from your president.

W:    You speak of the Qur’an presenting circumstances when a woman has less authority than a man, but you omit an important point. Somewhat similar observations may be made regarding certain statements in the New Testament. Also, you appear to forget hat Iraq is not truly an Islamic nation. Instead, it is a liberal secular Baathist state.

Pr:    The reality is that whether the leaders of Iraq find it convenient to acknowledge being an Islamic nation or they don’t acknowledge it, concepts from the Qur’an are deeply rooted in the hearts and minds of both the people and the leaders. Even when Iraq’s leaders attempt to decrease the influence of Islam on themselves and their nation, one fact remains certain. Iraqis take the teachings of the Qur’an regarding a woman’s position in their culture much more seriously than the majority of Americans take the teaching of any New Testament verses about the position of women in the church.

W:    But don’t you realize that in 1984 the number of women representatives in the Iraqi National Assembly was increased from 14 to 80, making women 32% of that important ruling group?

Pr:    Do you actually believe that Iraq gives women in their government a much greater voice than women in the United States have in governing your nation?

W:    Of course American women have a much greater voice in governing the U.S. than the Iraqi women do in governing Iraq. We have a much longer tradition of women’s rights than Iraq has.

Pr:    But do you not realize that 32% of women in the Iraq National Assembly is a much higher percentage than women representatives in either the U.S. Congress or Senate? Can you not understand that President Saddam Hussein himself is the one who dictatorially rules Iraq and has manipulated the number of women representatives in order to suit his particular political strategy? The 32% figure is totally misleading regarding the amount of influence the president allows some to have over significant decisions and important government policy. One significant reality should be obvious to the world. A relatively unspecific warning by a woman diplomat to the dictatorial leader of a nation with an Islamic worldview, without the strong, unequivocal backing by top U.S. officials, would not be taken seriously. Is it difficult to understand that that was the precise result the U.S. administration wished to accomplish? Iraq did receive the message that U.S. leaders intended it to receive.

        Your leaders were well aware that the medium by which you send a message is often more significant than the content of the message. Through April Glaspie, the U.S. said just enough to Iraq about their dispute with Kuwait in order for your officials to claim that President Hussein was adequately warned not to invade. But your administration had a covert purpose. It wished to emphatically convey to Iraq that your own nation’s efforts to prevent Iraq from invading were not to be considered as serious efforts. This would enable the U.S. to manipulate the world community to support you in your destruction of Iraq when they did invade Kuwait and were then manipulated into not withdrawing. By more deception and exploitation your leaders were able to skillfully cover their own deceit and send the implied message to the world that April Glaspie had been ineffective in her diplomatic communication with Iraq. Thus, it was made to appear that Ms. Glaspie’s own personal ineffectiveness resulted in her being the American most responsible for over one hundred thousand human beings losing their precious lives in the desert massacre. Your leaders’ refusal to acknowledge their own culpability in exploiting their female ambassador made her one more victim. She was not only set up to fail, but she was also set up to receive the blame for the dreadful consequences of your administrations’ deceptive plan.

W:    But you conveniently forget that a woman was the recent leader of Islamic Pakistan.

Pr:    To compare a western woman diplomat with the Muslim daughter of a legendary Pakistani leader, hero, and martyr is again to display your ignorance. You are also forgetting that Pakistan has a democratic tradition that is totally lacking in Iraq. But there is one previously mentioned reality that must constantly be kept in mind. Whether or not the American ambassador gave the Iraqi president a clear verbal warning to not use force against Kuwait is not the important issue. Without clear emphatic verbal and written warnings from other high ranking U.S. officials previous to the invasion, the words of one woman were interpreted as a clear invitation for Iraq to invade Kuwait and that clear invitation was precisely the message that your administration intended Iraq to receive.

        Ask yourself, would your leaders have chosen a woman ambassador to represent your nation to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, or Jordan? Of course not. Then why did they send a woman to handle the explosive situation in powerful Iraq and then not support her? All women and men in the U.S. should inform the former president of their outrage for his administration’s insulting, disgraceful, and exploitive treatment of April Glaspie.

W:    But I repeat that we gave Iraq considerable opportunity to leave Kuwait and avoid the whole war.

Pr:    In reality, you gave Iraq no opportunity to leave Kuwait. Once Iraq conquered Kuwait, a combination of political, economic, cultural, and strategic factors made it totally impossible for Iraq to leave, with one exception. If the United States had engaged in good faith, negotiations with Iraq which recognized some of Iraq’s legitimate grievances, that nation may have withdrawn form Kuwait.

W:    But there were serious diplomatic negotiations. Even the Secretary General of the U.N. traveled to Baghdad to negotiate with Saddam Hussein.

Pr:    There is a vast difference between negotiations and ultimatums. The U.S. made certain that all of the ultimatums to Iraq were made in a context of political, cultural, and military intimidation which was designed to maximize the personal humiliation of both Saddam Hussein and his supporting staff and envoys. This deliberate attempt to personally insult Iraqi leadership ensured that Iraq would remain in Kuwait. In fact, the U.S. resorted to this deliberate humiliation tactic any time that you wanted to appear to the world to desire an end to the conflict. However, your actual desire was for Iraq to refuse your terms so that you could begin your destruction, and simultaneously blame the Iraqis for refusing what you called your reasonable terms. The U.S. consistently went to great lengths to avoid reaching a diplomatic solution that would eliminate the opportunity to destroy Iraqi personnel, weapons, and infrastructure and hopefully destroy Saddam Hussein himself. The U.S. and Israel agreed that Iraq had become too strong for the strategic balance of the Middle East and specifically was becoming a serious threat to the existence of Israel. But you considered insignificant Israel’s consistent antagonistic statements toward Iraq which were made to stir Iraq to threaten Israel.

W:    I can’t believe that you make things so complicated. The U.S. leadership would never attempt to deal with another nation’s war making potential without openly admitting to the Senate, the Congress, the American people, the U.N. leaders, and to the press that we were meeting our own strategic needs by using deception.

Pr:    Is your middle name “Naive?” Deception is not deception when it is openly acknowledged. If the U.S. had admitted its strategy, it would have lost American and United Nations support for its own initiation and continuation of military hostilities. In fact, the deception was so thorough that there are U.S. officials who participated in the deception but who have deceived themselves into believing that there was no deception.

W:    Not that I accept your deception theory, but are there any other reasons why the U.S. may have enticed Iraq to invade Kuwait and also to have discouraged Iraq from withdrawing?

Pr:    Of course: The most obvious reason was oil. If Iraq had not invaded Kuwait, the U.S. would not have had an excuse to bring a troop presence to Saudi Arabia, which it has desired to do for years. Now you have the potential to keep a military presence in Saudi Arabia to ensure your own future oil supply.

        In your minds, the economic stability of the entire world was another contributing factor. Since you had built up Iraq to the degree that you did, you felt that unless Saddam Hussein was crushed, he would eventually control all the Gulf oil, and then have the entire economy of the industrial world at his mercy. If Iraq did not commit an atrocity such as invading Kuwait that would seriously arouse world opinion to support the crippling of that nation, you were convinced that Iraq and Saddam Hussein would be much more difficult to stop later.

        Perhaps the most significant reason for the U.S. to have provided itself with a pretext for moving massive troops to the Gulf is one that has received almost no coverage in the U.S. media. The ruling dynasties of both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have invested multiple billions of dollars of oil revenues in U.S. banks, Treasury Bonds, and U.S. multinational corporations. There has existed the real possibility that these billions of dollars could be withdrawn and reinvested in Euro dollars in the rapidly emerging United Europe. The United States hopes that it has now eliminated this potential mortal blow to its own economic system by establishing a military presence in the Gulf region to guard against the investments being withdrawn and reinvested in Europe.

        What neither the American or Arab leaders appear to understand is that the oil that earned the money was placed in the ground by ALLAH. This fact makes the money His. It is not for the exclusive benefit of any nation, ruler, or president. Therefore, if that money is not used responsibly and equitably to relieve the true physical needs of as many people as possible, one reality is certain. The Almighty Himself will find new stewards of his wealth who will be more responsible and more accountable to Him.

        Another reason was the U.S. fear of the U.S.S.R.’S threat to the Middle East. All the emphasis in the media and in open congressional hearings was the threat of Iraq to Middle East and U.S. interests. However, U.S. experts realized that the threat from the Soviet Union was definitely not over. They knew that a leader’s words and lines of authority, would not by themselves convince the Soviet Union’s military to take a back seat and watch the union disintegrate. Quietly, the Soviet Union moved over five hundred thousand troops with massive weapons to locations near the Turkish border for military exercises. If the Soviet Union could gain control of Middle Eastern oil, many of that nation’s complex social and economic problems would be partially solved. Make no mistake about it: the U.S.S.R. was ready to compete with the U.S. diplomatically and militarily for the control of Middle Eastern oil. In fact, by your engaging an Arab nation in war you gave the Soviet Union which is now Russia, the ability to defeat you diplomatically in the Middle East. Before your unwise manipulation of Iraq, the Soviets were about to lose the allegiance of their sixty million Muslim minorities. Now that minority has become enraged at the U.S. for killing tens of thousands of Muslims and will be a mighty force against you when Russia is able to mobilize them to drive you out of the Mid-East so they can control the oil resources.

        The accessible supply of oil in the Soviet Union was being rapidly depleted. Due to permafrost, poor technology, disorganization, open rebellion, sabotage, and severe transportation difficulties, the Soviets were having enormous problems in exchanging oil for desperately needed hard currency. Part of the reason for the massive U.S. military build-up in the Middle East had Kuwait as its apparent reason. But the very real threat of the Soviet Union to Middle Eastern oil was a major factor in influencing the U.S. to use Kuwait as the bait for Iraq. But now the U.S. has helped Russia gain lasting favor in the region by being a reasonable mediator. In contrast, the U.S. has for future decades lost favor by putting yourselves in the role of warmongers, and the murderers of thousands who tried to flee from Kuwait, and as the nation who allowed thousands of Kurds to be massacred, and the nation which supports Israel in its killing of Palestinians.

        A reason for the war that received little public attention was the desperate need for the U.S. military to see serious action so that its size would not continue to shrink. It is reasoned that a superpower such as the U.S. must have a massive military. With the appearance that the cold war had ended, coupled with severe U.S. economic problems, the congress needed to receive a compelling justification to halt the deep cuts that were being planned for the military budget. These cuts would not involve only multi-billion dollar defense contracts. They would also mean that thousands of career military personnel would lose their military careers. The powerful military lobby could not allow the military to be weakened through massive cuts to weapons and manpower. Coupled with the need to resist the cuts was also the need for a real life war situation to test the ability of military leaders to integrate tens of thousands of reserves with the active duty forces. The so-called “liberation of Kuwait,” not only provided an opportunity for the Pentagon to test its total force concept, but it also prevented enormous personnel and weapons cuts in the U.S. military establishment.

        Of course there were other considerations. A diversion was definitely needed from the severe U.S. economic problems, including the multiple billion-dollar U.S. savings and loan disaster. An opportunity was also needed for the U.S. to test new advanced weapons technology under wartime conditions. Another major consideration was that the U.S. desperately needed an opportunity to show the world that you had recovered from your Vietnam complex where you saw yourselves as losers. You reasoned that a convincing military victory would regain respect for you as a military power and world leader. You decided that a crushing defeat of Iraq would forcefully teach any nation which attempted to defy your strategic interests, that it would be the recipient of your horrible military might.

        Yet, there was one additional compelling motivation for the U.S. to encourage Iraq to invade Kuwait and also to make it difficult for it to withdraw. President Bush vitally needed an opportunity to test his vision of a new world order that was so personally important to your President. He reasoned that if the U.N. could not effectively deal with the strategic ambitions of a small nation such as Iraq, what hope would that organization possible have of securing peace for an unstable world? If Iraq invaded Kuwait there would be a practical test case through which the United Nations could demonstrate its ability to ensure world order.

        Since you think that I am inventing these considerations, please think about this. The entire first month of the war was committed to Allied bombing missions to eliminate Iraq’s war making capabilities and nuclear potential. Do you think that was all done to make it easier to free Kuwait? Do you honestly think that high-level strategists were not planning a justification to destroy these strategic targets long before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait? If the main motive of the U.S. was to liberate Kuwait and to punish unwarranted aggression, why did you not fight on the side of Iran when Iraq started a war with Iran? Instead you applauded that surprise attack of Saddam Hussein against Iran and aided him in that war. But you used Kuwait to destroy your former ally whom you made so strong that it was a threat to the other nations who formerly aided Hussein in his war with Iran.

W:    If all these factors had been involved in Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, U.S. leaders would have explained to the American public that Saddam Hussein should not receive all the blame. They would have admitted that the war was at least partially the U.S.’s responsibility. We have said horrible things about Hussein and have convinced the American people that he is worse that Hitler.

Pr:    I am not suggesting that Saddam Hussein was guiltless. It was his selfish and ruthless political ambitions that caused the deaths of tens of thousands of his people in years of bloody, useless wars. It was his own greed for power that caused him to fall into the trap the U.S. set for him in Kuwait. Did not even you become suspicious when the man that the U.S. administration fully supported before the invasion, suddenly lost all of his redeeming virtues? But, for you to expect U.S. leaders to admit all the factors that led to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait is totally unrealistic and naive.

        You must realize that as an ancient Chinese philosopher tells us, “The first casualty of any war is always truth.” The U.S. accomplished the demonizing of Iraq’s President by constantly chanting that the only issue in the whole situation was Saddam Hussein’s stubborn refusal to leave Kuwait. Then, to relieve the monotony, you would acknowledge that oil and the stability of the world economy might also have a little to do with causing your involvement in the war.

W:    Iraq’s refusal to withdraw from Kuwait was indeed the only real reason for the war.

Pr:    I will not even respond to your last comment. But there is one regrettable circumstance that I do need to mention. It is extremely disturbing that both George Bush and Saddam Hussein attempted to turn the Iraq war into a holy war. Both leaders emphasized that GOD is on their side. Also, both have said that those who die for their side in the war go directly to be with GOD/ALLAH, where there is no more pain. Both seem to have adopted for their warriors a viewpoint that is often held by Muslims but is not usually the Christian perspective; that because their cause is just, paradise is the certain reward for those who die. Additionally, the President of the U.S. inadvertently brought difficulty to thousands of Muslims who have come to understand that Isa is truly their living Messiah.

W:    How could our religious and sincere President have brought difficulty to these Muslims?

Pr:    It was reported that on the day the U.S. Senate and Congress gave permission for your president to begin the horrible conflict whenever he decided, he invited the most famous American Christian spokesman to spend the night with him for the purpose of prayer, support, and counsel. Although there had been the potential to delay the beginning of the conflict for days, weeks, or even months, the horrible bombing began the next day. Though the Messiah encouraged secret prayer, the prayer of the president and this religious figure was reported by the international news media. Both of these persons may have been totally sincere in their prayer together. However, it did not hurt the image of the U.S. president with the American people when they were assured that their president was seeking spiritual guidance from the world famous Christian spiritual leader. This meeting did not give similar assurance to millions of Muslims in the Middle East. To the Middle Eastern Muslim, the message was unmistakable. Since the bombing of Iraq started while the U.S. spiritual leader was still with the president or soon after they parted, one conclusion became obvious. The Christian leader and the Christian U.S. president agreed together that the bombing of Muslims should begin. As a consequence, many Muslims and Muslim leader concluded that they have an obligation to ALLAH to rid their countries of as much Christian influence as possible.

        The question with which the Muslim leaders wrestle is how can we trust those who trust the Messiah when there appears to be evidence that a western Christian leader advised the President of the United States to order his own monstrous military to begin slaughtering Muslims? I am personally convinced that this Christian leader did not realize that his close association with the U.S. president in his decision to begin the war would give this appearance. Nevertheless, I am deeply saddened that there was an appearance of Christian complicity in a decision that the bombing of Muslims people should begin.

        It is extremely regrettable that this occurrence caused Muslims to vividly recall the horrible twisted distortion which inspired the despicable Christian crusades. May God and Muslims forgive western Christians for disgracing our Messiah by making it appear that some of those who believe in him encourage killing and vengeance. In contrast to solving problems by hostile actions, Jesus discouraged war by teaching: “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.” The truth is that our Messiah, sincere Christians, sincere Muslims, and sincere Jews weep over the killing or injuring of any human being. ALLAH holds each of us responsible for our attitudes and actions toward all human beings.

        Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the few Christians to try to stop Hitler from murdering millions, made an important statement regarding the activity of GOD during war. “GOD is in our midst but He is not on anyone’s side.” There are Muslims, Christians, and Jews who would like to think of GOD as on their side. ALLAH loves all people. He is in the midst of us all.

W:    I just can’t imagine that a respected spiritual leader could ever do anything that would cause anyone to doubt that the Messiah can be trusted.

Pr:    This may appear to be a strange question, but its answer is of vital importance. Do your president and his advisors know how to read?

W:    If you are referring to French or Arabic, he has advisors who are fluent in both of these languages.

Pr:    No, I am asking whether or not they are able to read English.

W:    I consider this an insulting question. Can you understand how badly we feel that you would think that U.S. leaders might be illiterate in their own language? Your insensitivity shocks me. All of these men read broadly and possess deep knowledge and understanding.

Pr:    Do you understand that your own words severely condemn the actions of your leaders?

W:    What can you possibly mean?

Pr:    Anyone who has read history clearly understands that the shield was the symbol of the horrible crusades when those known as Christians cruelly victimized thousands of Muslims. Yet, your leaders presumable gave careful consideration to what symbol they would use to mark their extensive military preparations for their dreadful destruction of tens of thousands of Muslims. If your leaders had been unable to read, perhaps they would have an excuse for their gross insensitivity for selecting “Desert Shield” as the title of their advertisement for their gigantic, destructive, militaristic operation. Since they did clearly understand the terrible images of human pain, humiliation, degradation, and suffering which would be brought to memory through the exaltation of the shield symbol, the following assumption appears to most accurately describe the situation. These leaders planned this disgraceful insult in order to stir up animosity between Middle Eastern Muslims and Middle Eastern Christians who have for centuries peacefully coexisted. Your goal must have been to produce further instability so that your own forces would have additional pretense for remaining in the region in order to calm the instability that you yourselves have produced. While America loudly boasts to the world of the stability you claim to bring to our region, your actions consistently produce regional misunderstanding, tension, polarization, instability, conflict, civil war, and millions of suffering refugees. If we had more help like yours we would soon be destroyed.

        While we are speaking of crusades, I have another question. Why do certain Christian leaders in American work so hard to offend Muslims?

W:    Of course they don’t try to offend Muslims. Where could you possible get such an idea?

Pr:    Though there are thousands of Middle Eastern Muslims on University campuses in the U.S., the largest university Christian organization has for many years prominently used the word “crusade” in its title. Then, when you realize that the most famous Christian evangelist also insists on using the title ‘crusade” whenever he brings his religious campaign to major cities, you realize that there must be an agreed upon commitment to offend Muslims or perhaps it is only blatant insensivity.

W:    Oh, I don’t think that they realize that the word “crusade” is offensive to Muslims. Apparently no one has ever mentioned this to the leaders of these organizations and they are much too busy themselves to think of such an insignificant problem.

Pr:    Please permit me to change our subject. Why do you in the West always support Kings, Emirs, and dictators in the Middle East?

W:    Our nation does not support these leaders. The people themselves support their kings, emirs, and dictators. They all love their leaders. The U.S. government supports whomever the people support. That is our way. As our president stated publicly after the senate and congress voted for him to be able to wage war against Iraq, “Our nation has always been on the side of justice.”

Pr:    Did you believe him when he said that?

W:    Of course. Our presidents always tell the truth.

Pr:    Please forgive me for my honest words to you. It sometimes sounds as if your brain is made out of a combination of wet sand and camel foam.

W:    I just can’t believe that you would think that our presidents ever misguide our people.

Pr:    Did your nation always treat your Indians with justice? They are the true Native Americans. The policy of certain of your presidents was to savagely slaughter hundreds of Indians, steal the land of tens of thousands and even allow thousands to starve.

        Have you always treated your African Americans with justice? No. They have been made to suffer socially, physically, psychologically, and economically. Yet, your economic and military systems are such that a disproportionate percentage of Blacks and Native Americans are forced by circumstances to fight and potentially die for your nation.

W:    There is some truth to what you say. But we have now corrected most of our past mistakes.

Pr:    Are you saying that your president, senate, and congress are all ashamed of your past abuses of justice?

W:    Of course they are.

Pr:    Do you know what many of your congressmen did after they voted for your president to have authority to send your massive weapons of destruction against Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis?

W:    I have no idea what they did after their courageous and historic vote.

Pr:    They rushed out to turn on their TVs to watch your Washington D.C. mascot, the Redskins, play professional football against San Francisco.

W:    What is wrong with that? After all their agony and hard work, they deserved a diversion.

Pr:    Don’t you understand that your U.S. government even now tolerates blatant racism against the people from whom you stole the land you now call your own? The Native Americans have pleaded with public officials to eliminate the hostile, racist name “Redskins” from the U.S. government’s Washington, D.C. football representative. But the feelings of the Indians who still remain alive are not important to your government. But their feelings are important to our Holy GOD. It is He who will soon judge your nation for the disgusting arrogance and insensitivity of your leaders.

W:    I am a football fan. I can’t believe that I have never even thought of the name “Redskins” being a problem for the Indians. But, since there are no longer many Indians, it is not a serious problem.

Pr:    If you are thinking only in terms of votes for politicians, there may be an insignificant number of Native Americans. If you are measuring personal sacrifice for America, it is reported that Native Americans have the highest ratio of military service of any ethnic group. In fact, there are 30% more Native Americans in the military than is represented by the population as a whole. This becomes more significant in terms of sacrifice when you realize that fifty percent of Native Americans are in combat roles.

W:    Your statistics demonstrate how much the Indians appreciate America. Since they are all so thankful for America, they have volunteered in great numbers for the all-volunteer military service.

Pr:    Do you not understand that for both Native Americans and African Americans, a large percentage of their ethnic groups volunteer because they cannot find other employment? This may be called volunteering but when minorities are faced with poverty as the alternative, it is more appropriate to label what you call volunteering as coercion. It is similar to my putting a loaded gun to your head and saying, “Would you please volunteer to give me all your money?” Unless you want to die, you volunteer.

        While we are speaking of Native Americans, there is a horrible irony connected with their potential to fight against internationally outlawed germ warfare. Though the United States and every civilized nation were horrified that Iraq might stoop to the immorality of such an inhumane weapon, decades ago members of the U.S. government encouraged the use of germ warfare in an attempt to murder Native Americans. They did this when government agents distributed smallpox-infested blankets to the Native American people.

        Since we are discussing some of the injustice facing minorities in the U.S., do you know what the date January 15 stands for in American history?

W:    Of course. That is the day that the U.S. was allowed by the U.N. to begin helping the people of Kuwait by bombing Iraq into submission.

Pr:    Does anything else come to your mind for that date?

W:    Yes. That is exactly three months before the United States income taxes are due that help to pay for our huge military expenditures.

Pr:    There is one man that your nation has especially honored for his leadership in helping your entire society. He did this by achieving much more justice and dignity for his African-American brothers and sisters than they had ever previously experienced. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday is January 15^th. Despite great opposition and resistance, your government finally honored him for his outstanding civil rights achievements by declaring his birthday as a national holiday.

        So significant was his leadership in American that a civil war between Blacks and Whites was at least temporarily prevented. The horrible abuses which were occurring against Blacks were blatantly dehumanizing. If the majority of these abuses had not been corrected, there would have been so much rebellion that only massive suppression could have stopped the destruction and killing. In addition to fighting against injustice through non-violence, Dr. King vigorously pleaded with national leaders to totally eliminate killing and war as a means to settle international disputes. Despite his sacrificial efforts and godly ideals, your government has greatly dishonored him. You have not only disregarded his impassioned appeal for military restraint and peaceful negotiations, but you have also made his birthday a day of infamy.

W:    You are wrong about our leaders picking the January 15^th date as the day that massive destruction could begin. The U.S. suggested beginning it sooner on January the first. It was the U.S.S.R. that recommended delaying it until January 15^th.

Pr:    Don’t be silly. If your nation was serious about honoring the name and ideals of Dr. King, your leaders could easily have convinced the Soviet delegates to change their recommendation by one day. It is clearly the responsibility of U.S. leaders for having made this great man’s birthday the same day that his own beloved nation would prepare itself to release the massive destruction that he himself had pleaded against. Additionally, it is significant to many Blacks and Native Americans that the Iraqi’s skin color is darker than the vast majority of those that lead the U.S. They wonder if the rush to kill would have been so frenzied if the Iraqis were white Europeans.

W:    You are making a big issue out of issues that are quite insignificant.

Pr:    Ask older African American thinkers. You fill find that this strong symbol of disrespect if not contempt for Dr. King and the ideals he represents is viewed by many of these leaders as slapping Blacks in the face, if not spitting in their face. Making the situation even more degrading, a disproportionate amount of blood from Blacks and Native Americans would be spilled in any major ground conflict, even though it is those two groups who are more unanimously against war than are their lighter-skinned neighbors.

W:    How did you get us on the depressing subject of racism? This war has absolutely nothing to do with disrespect for any person of color. Don’t you realize that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an American general with an African-American heritage? But I don’t like to discuss ideas about justice and racism. They are not nearly as important as religious and political subjects. Let’s talk about a different subject.

Pr:    Have you attempted to convince the Compassionate that religion and politics are more important than justice? Do you truly believe that ALLAH tolerates racism? If you remember, we began discussing this subject what you told me that your president stated that your nation is always on the side of justice.

        Continuing on the justice theme, do Middle Eastern Kings and Emirs ever subtly manipulate and influence certain religious ideas in order to stay in power? That is, would they ever attempt to control beliefs about ALLAH so that their people would be more likely to keep kings and emirs on their thrones? Another consideration is, is it possible that a monarch’s influence on religious ideas could help assure that his family and friends would continue to live in luxury?

W:    It is wrong for you to suggest that religion could ever have influence on whether certain monarchies stay in power.

Pr:    You do not understand that there are some dynasties who love power and control more than they love ALLAH. Like many in the West, they exploit people’s religious beliefs for their own benefit. Powerful leaders who are involved in wealthy dynasties want their people to believe that ALLAH is One in a very simple way. They think that if the people under their authority begin to view ALLAH as more than a one-dimensional authority, they begin to have less loyalty to their own narrow, one-dimensional leadership. Additionally, when the people begin to understand GOD as more complex, they become convinced that the leadership of their nation should be more complex. They even begin to understand that ALLAH Himself has given them both the right and responsibility to participate in a pluralistic government. GOD forbid that royal families should influence and control theology so that their designated family member can reign as king or emir in order to keep their families and friends wealthy and powerful.

W:    You can’t convince me that there would ever be conflict between rulers and the people’s understanding of ALLAH.

Pr:    As the Egyptian Pharaoh hated Moses, as King Herod hated the baby Jesus, as the leaders of Mecca hated me, so the conflict between power earthly leaders and the Almighty continues. Some kings, emirs, and dictators of the Middle East do not want their authority to be challenged. They promote the narrowest possible interpretation of the unity of ALLAH and then attempt to justify that narrow interpretation from the Qur’an. This is done to be one more protection of their own exclusive hold on power.

W:    I am confused. I talk of religion. You speak of justice. I attempt to convince you of the death of Jesus. You speak of the death of Palestinians. When we discussed the American support of Israel, you linked that with the U.S. manipulating Iraq to invade Kuwait. I spoke of our nation always being on the side of justice. You expose racism and injustice in our nation. I express a tri-dimensional interpretation of the Almighty. You explain that this concept is against the interests of royal families. Things are so complicated. You seem to twist everything I say. Everything I talk about, you talk about something else.

        Here is the subject you will not twist. Your Qur’an teaches that no one can bear another’s burdens. To put it another way, in Islam there cannot be such a thing as a mediator. This is true, is it not?

Pr:    Are you asking me about Islam or lecturing me about what we believe? Of course you are wrong. Our whole society is built on the foundation of brother helping brother, sharing burdens, and meditation. It is your nation which has difficulty accepting mediation. For instance, our society has a much lower percentage of lawyers than does your society. Your lawyers write laws in order to ensure that they and their colleagues make money. Why does this not occur in our society? Because wise and compassionate men, whether rich or poor, will mediate for hours with brothers who have a quarrel or serious disagreement. They will, for no fee, mediate their problems and usually will lead them to an amicable resolution. With this kind of mediation occurring, how can you lecture to me that we cannot accept a mediator? Shame on you!

W:    Once again you have missed my point. I am not talking about any mediator, but about the Messiah Isa being the mediator between GOD and man. For instance, the Bible teaches in Timothy that there is One GOD and one mediator between GOD and man, the man is Christ Jesus, who gave himself to be a ransom for us all.

Pr:    Who is this Timothy fellow?

W:    A relatively young man in the early church. He received letters from Paul instructing him on how to guide the Christians to proper belief.

Pr:    And who was the letter writer, Paul?

W:    He was a former Jewish Rabbi who became a messenger for GOD. His special goal was to take the message of forgiveness through the rise Christ to non-Jewish people. He recognized that Jesus was GOD’S anointed when the Messiah appeared to him near Damascus, Syria. However, like you, Paul did his main thinking about the content of his message when he meditated and prayed in the Arabian Desert.

Pr:    It surprises me that the Prophet Isa walked as far as Damascus, Syria in order to appear to the rabbi.

W:    Oh, I am not speaking of the Messiah while he was still on earth. The Messiah appeared from the heavens after he had risen from the dead.

        When Paul first encountered the risen Messiah, he was still using his Jewish name, Saul. But, afterward he adopted a Roman name, Paul, because he was a Roman citizen. It was undoubtedly a relief for him to drop his Jewish name, Saul. With that name he had committed horrible crimes. He had been responsible for the murder and imprisonment of countless Christians. He had convinced himself that the Christians had committed an unforgivable crime of believing in Jesus as the Messiah.

Pr:    You western Christians are confused. You support the Jews who kill Christians. Yet, you show little respect for the Arabs who honor out mutual Messiah.

W:    The Jews no longer kill Christians. That was in the time that Christianity was just beginning. They thought that they were killing heretics.

Pr:    Do you think that the killing of Christians by Jews was all in the distant past? You are exceptionally misinformed. Have you heard of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon? Have you considered what is happening to Palestinians? There are suffering Christian Palestinian widows and mothers who have lost their husbands, sons, daughters, and babies to Israeli bombs and bullets in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza.

W:    But I thought it was only Muslims who were being killed by Israelis.

Pr:    You say “only Muslims?” No, ALLAH had lost His Muslims, His Christians, and His Jews in this horrible unsolved situation that your government does not allow to be mediated by an international conference.

        But that is another matter. Let us return to Paul and Timothy, and to the mediator that you say I don’t believe in. You say that Saul became Roman Paul after seeing the risen Messiah in Damascus, Syria.

W:    Yes, that is correct.

Pr:    Was Timothy also a Roman?

W:    No, Timothy was a Greek, but he had had a Jewish mother and a very godly Jewish grandmother. His grandmother was the person through whom ALLAH taught him the Hebrew Scriptures.

Pr:    Allow me to isolate some of the many variables we are dealing with. You are a Westerner who is a Christian talking with me, a Middle Easterner who is Muslim. We are discussing someone who was Jewish Saul but who became Roman Paul. Roman Paul who had been Jewish Saul wrote to his half Greek and half Jewish friend Timothy about the man who some say was not a man but was the Son of GOD. Others even say he was GOD Himself. But in this verse Paul does not call him God or the Son of God, but refers to him as the man mediator between GOD and man. In summary, Paul speaks from his Jewish and Roman background to instruct Greek and Jewish Timothy about GOD who is accessible to very man but is not really accessible unless there is a mediator who is a man but who is more than a man because he is GOD or the Son of GOD.

W:    You have done it again. You Arabs are all alike. You have made something simple very complicated. We told the Iraqis to get out of Kuwait and they told us that their being in Kuwait was related to other issues. If you Arabs would just do what we Americans tell you to do without any arguments or questions there would be many less problems for all of us. You Arabs have too many opinions.

Pr:    It is regretful that you blame Arabs for problems created by your own arrogance and simplistic patterns of reasoning. You treat important nuances and related issues as irrelevant. According to you, your opinion is all that matters. You insist that it is your right to commit cultural imperialism. In the West, living is often very easy. You push buttons to get what you want. In a desert heritage, a person has learned to think of the linkage and relationship between many variables in order to remain alive. You may choose to continue with your black and white superficial thinking. But I strongly advise you to grow up. You Americans must stop thinking of yourselves as bulldozers that must run over everything in your path. If you insist on thinking of yourselves as the god of the Middle East, be a just god who treats all of your children justly.

        As for the man Jesus being a mediator, we cannot accept this and we can accept it. We cannot accept this concept when it tells us that people no longer have individual accountability to GOD for the way they conduct themselves. This concept is offensive to us when it is used to encourage sin against ALLAH when people are convinced that no matter what they do, their mediator will take care of all their transgre