One Flu Over The Human Nest
by Lee Tse Ling

The Star Online > Health
Sunday March 5, 2006
One flu over the human nest

Vaccination is one of the greatest achievements of medicine and has spared millions of people the effects of devastating diseases. It’s clear it has a vital role to play in the ongoing concerns over the bird flu.

THAT the next influenza pandemic is on its way is not mere hyperbole. It’s a very real risk, with serious implications.

“We had three pandemics in the last century, and there is no reason to believe there won’t be one in this century,” Nature quoted Klaus Stohr, chief influenza expert of the World Health Organisation (WHO), in May 2005.

We are in our 39th year since the last pandemic outbreak, the longest period the world has gone between pandemics. And nobody can predict how long this window will last.

What sort of numbers are involved when we use the word “pandemic”? In a normal year, the WHO estimates between 5% and 15% of the world’s population is affected by influenza. That’s between 300 million and nearly a billion people. Out of this, up to one million die from influenza-associated complications.

According to Stohr, a severe pandemic-level attack (infection rate: 35%) could result in up to a billion people becoming ill, 28 million hospitalisations, and seven million deaths worldwide. Again, these figures are not hyperbole – the 1918 Spanish Flu attack rate approached 40% at its worst, claiming at least 20 million lives. The 1957 Asian Influenza and 1968 Hong Kong Influenza claimed another four million each.

The crucial difference between 1918 and 1957/1968, and indeed between what happened then and what may happen now, was and still is pandemic preparedness as individuals, as a nation and as a global community. And a crucial element of any preparedness plan will be an effective vaccination policy.

Flu virus 101

There are three types of influenza viruses: A, B and C. All three can infect humans.

While type B viruses have been known to cause epidemics, they have never caused pandemics. (Terminology/Definitions: If a disease is endemic, it is restricted or peculiar to a locality or region. An epidemic affects an abnormally large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time. A pandemic occurs over an even wider geographic area [i.e. globally] and affects an exceptionally high proportion of the population.)

Type C viruses only cause mild illness in humans.

The high-pathogenic influenza A H5N1 infection on the other hand has a mortality rate of almost 100% in poultry, and 50% in humans. That is, it has killed almost every infected bird, and one in two infected humans.

Only type A viruses are classified into subtypes by the unique haemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins found on their surfaces. These proteins are given identification numbers e.g. H1 and N5 and are used in combination to identify type A subtypes e.g. H1N1, H1N2 and H3N2 – the A subtypes in common circulation amongst humans.

All are further classified into strains. Strains develop due to gradual genetic changes. This process is known as antigenic drift – where many small changes accumulate over time e.g. random mutations that occur in a virus particle’s RNA, making its surface proteins less recognisable to the immune system.

Think of it this way: it’s as if a friend of yours gradually grew a moustache and beard. They haven’t changed that much, but you might not recognise them initially over time. And what the immune system can’t recognise quickly, it can’t kill quickly.

Sudden change generates new subtypes through a process known as antigenic shift – where the virus particle acquires a surface protein combination that has not been seen in humans before, or not been seen for a long time.

Because our immune systems have never encountered such a foe, everyone – not just people with young or compromised immune systems – will be susceptible to infection. Think of it this way: it’s as if your friend has gone for drastic plastic surgery now. They’ve changed completely and you can’t recognise them at all. And what the immune system can’t recognise at all, it can’t kill, period. This is what a high-pathogenic H5N1 virus capable of infecting humans will be like.

Several facts make it difficult to eradicate type A viruses. To begin with, they are naturally resident in wild bird populations, which spread them across the globe during their annual migrations. Not only are they persistent in the environment, they are also capable of lying “silent” and can therefore spread undetected in domestic ducks. Lastly, they undergo both shift and drift – producing a source of new and infectious strains and subtypes.

For the moment, the virus does not spread easily from birds to humans. This becomes obvious when you compare the very large number of domestic birds exposed to H5N1 (more than 150 million culled so far), their close proximity to humans, especially in village communities with backyard flocks, to the small number of humans who have contracted the disease from them (approximately 100). Furthermore, the outbreaks of H5N1 have only occurred in small clusters, indicating that it is not easily transmitted from human to human.

Vaccines

In the face of this, vaccines will play a two-fold role in keeping a pandemic in check. The obvious solution is a vaccine that confers protection against human H5N1. However, it will be some time before this new vaccine will make it from the producers to the rest of the world.

In the first place, until H5N1 begins infecting humans in earnest, it is unlikely a highly effective formulation can be developed. That’s because in order to get past our immune systems, the virus will have to evolve a completely novel trait, one our current vaccines have not forewarned our systems about and primed them against.

In the second, vaccine distribution will be limited by production capacity and locality. The vaccine industry is one that never manages to meet demand. World production capacity is currently 300 million doses per annum. That is, enough doses to vaccinate just 5% of the world’s population. Compare that with the postulated attack rate of 35%.

Furthermore, most of the world supply of influenza vaccine is produced in Europe and the US. A small amount is manufactured in Japan. Asia is almost exclusively dependent on Europe for its vaccine supply. It is a tricky situation US vaccination and public policy expert Dr David Fedson brought up in an interview with the Asia-Pacific Advisory Committee on Influenza (APACI).

“We still need to deal with the political implications of distributing pandemic vaccine to countries that do not have production companies of their own. It is likely that the political leaders of countries in which vaccine companies are located will nationalise the production of pandemic vaccine, preventing export until all of their citizens have been vaccinated,” he said.

According to the National Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Plan (NIPPP), it is unlikely Malaysia will receive the H5N1 vaccine until at least six months after large-scale production begins. What can be done in the meantime?

The rationale for vaccination

The best thing we can do to slow the pandemic is to limit the chances of antigenic shift happening. The chances of this happening are high when two influenza viruses – e.g. the high-pathogenic H5N1 bird flu and any human flu virus – infect a human at the same time.

Once in this “mixing vessel”, the viruses can genetically re-assort. That is, they can trade packets of genetic information. What you don’t want the human flu virus to pass on to the H5N1 bird flu virus is a manual titled How to Infect Humans. So first things first – vaccinate the normal hosts: poultry. Second, vaccinate the mixing vessels: humans.

“A strategy to bar the meeting of the viruses in the human body would go a long way towards preventing the emergence of a deadly new virus. It would reduce the opportunities for simultaneous infection of humans with the avian and human flu viruses, decreasing opportunities for reassortment. I believe this can be achieved with higher immunisation rates with the influenza vaccine,” says consultant paediatrician and neonatologist Dr Musa Mohd Nordin.

Besides slowing the evolution of such a virus, increased vaccination will encourage the growth of vaccine production capacity and vaccination infrastructure.

“Perhaps the best we can hope for is to develop the global capacity to produce as many doses as possible, so that they can be supplied to non-producer countries sooner rather than later,” said Fedson in the same APACI interview.

“Too much attention has been focused on curative strategies. My back-to-basics virology and vaccinology would suggest that during this inter-pandemic period, influenza immunisation would be the best option for protection against influenza and would help to mitigate the emergence of a pandemic virus. This investment would prove to be a cost-saving policy. It would undoubtedly decrease the health burden of annual influenza flu epidemics and prevent influenza morbidities and mortalities,” says Dr Musa.

He adds: “Quite evidently, the pandemic clock is ticking; we just do not know what time it is!”

---

---

A guide to vaccination

CHILDREN

Consultant paediatrician and neonatologist Dr Musa Mohd Nordin recommends the influenza vaccination for all children, in particular those above the age of six months and below nine years.

Past six months, the immune system is mature enough to make protective antibodies. But at that young age, the child is still vulnerable to infection, as his/her immune system may not be experienced enough to cope with an attack.

High priority groups include those with:

# Pulmonary conditions e.g. asthma, chronic lung disease of immaturity

# Heart conditions e.g. congenital heart disease

# Kidney dysfunction

# Blood disorders e.g. thalassaemia

# Metabolic disease e.g. diabetes

# Compromised immune systems, including those with HIV infections

The vaccine should not be administered if the child:

# Is under six months of age

# Has a known allergy to eggs, chicken proteins, neomycin (an antibiotic) and other active substances in the vaccine e.g. formaldehyde

# Has had an adverse reaction to the vaccine in the past

# Has a fever or is experiencing an acute illness (in which case, simply postpone the vaccination)

Dosages

# Children aged between six months and 35 months should receive a half-dose (0.25ml)

# Children aged three years and above should receive a full-dose (0.5ml)

# Children below nine years who have not previously received the vaccination should be given a second booster dose one month after the first

# Children above nine years should receive an annual dose

ADULTS

In general, anyone who wants to reduce their chances of contracting influenza should get vaccinated annually. However, high-priority groups include:

# People living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities

# People with the chronic conditions listed under high-priority for children

# People with impaired respiratory function (those conditions that make it difficult to breath or swallow e.g. brain or spinal cord injuries; seizure disorders; and nerve or muscle disorders)

# Women who will be pregnant during the influenza season

# Anyone who can transmit influenza to others in high-priority groups e.g. healthcare workers and caregivers

THE ELDERLY

The elderly typically have weaker immune systems and may experience chronic diseases that render them more susceptible to infection and complications following infection. Consultant geriatrician Dr. Rajbans Singh recommends annual influenza vaccination for all persons above 60.

“Patients who have taken their influenza and pneumococcal vaccines have less incidence of chest infections. I also find the vaccine safe with no side effects,” he says.

The vaccine should not be administered if the elderly persons in question:

# Has a known allergy to eggs, chicken proteins, neomycin (an antibiotic) and other active substances in the vaccine e.g. formaldehyde

# Has had an adverse reaction to the vaccine in the past

# Is febrile

# Is immunocompromised

Note: Information compiled from the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC), vaccine manufacturer Sanofi-Pasteur and local specialists.

---

Dispelling myths about influenza vaccination

Myth #1: The common cold is the same as influenza

According to consultant paediatrician and neonatologist Dr Musa Mohd Nordin, influenza is often erroneously equated with the common cold.

“Hence the myth that it is a relatively mild illness which improves rapidly over two to three days, and that lots of rest, fluids, vitamin C and aspirin are all that is required. On the contrary, they have strikingly different pathologies (i.e. collection of abnormalities). Influenza is often associated with high-grade fever lasting three to four days; severe muscle aches, chest discomfort, early and severe physical weakness and generalised fatigue, which could last up to three weeks,” he says.

The two are both respiratory illnesses caused by different viruses. Anyone who has experienced a bad attack of viral influenza will know the difference. If you haven’t, have a look at the accompanying table, Flu or cold?

Myth #2: The current influenza vaccine will protect you from bird flu

When medical practitioners recommend vaccination as the primary means of preventing influenza, they’re referring to the normal influenza vaccine – meaning, the influenza you are being vaccinated against is not the H5N1 subtype, but the endemic subtypes that normally circulate and cause the seasonal epidemics we are familiar with.

It is unlikely the current vaccine formulation will confer any cross-protection against a virulent H5N1 subtype. By definition, a pandemic can only occur when a new subtype emerges or when a subtype has disappeared over many generations re-emerges.

Myth #3: The influenza vaccine only protects me

Herd immunity, or community immunity arises when enough individuals in a population are protected from a given infection. Since nobody catches the infection, nobody spreads it, so the infectious agent never has a chance to get a foothold. While a few vaccinations may protect individuals, widespread vaccination protects everyone. This is how smallpox was eradicated completely by 1980.

Myth #4: The influenza vaccination is only for travel

Current data shows the influenza vaccine is an effective, vital and common pre-travel protective measure. Vaccination rates among Malaysians as a whole are low – about one in every four hundred people (0.3%).

On the other hand, vaccination rates among travellers are high – a 2000 study on vaccine effectiveness in Malaysian Haj pilgrims showed a rate of up to 88%. That’s nearly every nine out of 10 people, thanks to the constant recommendations made by the Haj Authority.

The study also showed that the influenza vaccine was 78% effective in protecting recipients from clinic visits for influenza-like-illness. Why stop there? School environments, offices, and public transport all are environments in which influenza can be transmitted too.

Miracle of Stem Cell Therapy
by Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin

There is universal interest in discovering and developing a permanent source of cells which would be capable of generating any cell type and which would avoid the problem of transplant rejection. These cells called human stem cells have the unlimited capability to divide and the potential ability to develop into most of the specialized cells or tissues of the human body.

Human stem cells can give rise to many different type of cells, such as muscle cells, nerve cells, heart cells and blood cells. They could therefore be potentially useful to generate replacement cells and tissues to treat many conditions including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, leukaemia, stroke, heart attack, diabetes multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and spinal cord injury.

There are 2 major sources of stem cells.

a. Adult stem cells. They are derived from aborted fetuses, umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, blood and brain. They are less plastic (less able to differentiate into specialized cells compared to embryonic stem cells); scarce and sometimes inaccessible (in brain, retina of eyes).
b. Embryonic stem cells. They are derived from embryos as a result of in-vitro fertilization (surplus or created embryos) or from embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning technology). There is an unceasing moral and ethical debate on the use of embryos for research.

Cord blood is a relatively rich source of haemopoietic stem cells (HSC). About 100 mls can reconstitute the haemopoietic system in small patients; usually children.

The first successful related cord blood transplant was undertaken 16 year ago. Since then, over 3,000 transplants have been done worldwide. There are a few reports of successful transplantations of adults.

The advantages of cord blood over bone marrow or peripheral blood transplantation are:

1. The donor does not have to be admitted to undergo collection procedures which may involve mobilisation of stem cells using drugs eg cyclophosphamide and G-CSF ( in case of peripheral blood donor) and anaesthesia ( in bone marrow donor)
2. Unlike the other two sources, cord blood has a reduced risk of graft versus host disease.

There are currently no clear guidelines locally to address the issue of cord blood collection and cord blood banking for future transplantation.

The National Blood Bank has already been collecting and banking cord blood as part of their non-profitable National Cord Blood Bank. The National Cord Blood Bank would be available to doctors to search the public registry for possible unrelated but matched samples as an alternative source for stem cell transplantation.

The issue is clouded further by the sales pitching and often non-evidence based medicine claims of private cord banks. The American Academy of Paediatrics warns that families may be vulnerable to “emotional marketing” at the time of birth of their child. Professor Nick Fisk, Chairman of the Royal College of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Scientific Advisor Committee said “We are concerned that commercial companies are targeting pregnant women with such emotive literature when the scientific evidence is not yet there to back up their claims”.

The risks of a child developing a disease which may require cord blood transplantation is not known. There are no accurate estimates on the likelihood of children requiring their own stored cells. The best guess of this ever happening ranges from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 200,000. There is therefore only a tiny and remote chance of children ever requiring to utilize their own stored cells.

Scientific indications for collection and banking of cord blood are far and few in between. In families where there is a known genetic disease that can be treated by HSC transplantation, cord blood collection and storage are recommended for siblings born into these families. Cord blood collection is also recommended in specific settings eg

1. A sibling who is suffering from leukemia, just in case he relapses and may require HSC transplant
2. A sibling in whom HSC transplant is indicated but has no match related donor available.

The storing of cord blood privately by private cord banks is based on the premise that the sample is stored specifically for use within the family concerned and more specifically the child’s own future use (autologous transplant).

Autologous transplantation itself maybe problematic because the use of one’s own stem cells may not cure the underlying pathology. In the case of leukaemia and other congenital disorders eg Thalassaemia and Fanconi’s Anaemia; transplanting ones own stem cells with the defective genetic and immune structure (thus causing the disease) would only be returning the disease to oneself.

The 80-100ml of umbilical cord blood collected at birth may not be adequate when the baby grows into an adolescent or adult. The volume of cells is insufficient if he should ever require it later in life.

Thus, the concept of a ‘biological insurance’ which is much hyped by the private cord banks is therefore actuarially unsound given the very low estimates on the likelihood of use, or the need of using one’s own cord blood for transplantation. The emotional marketing is however burgeoning the bank balances of private cord banks.

In the final analysis, public cord blood banking should be expanded for the benefit of the wider population. Collection of altruistic donations of cord blood and directed donations for families at high risk should be encouraged. The National Cord Blood Bank was set up to achieve these objectives at no cost. Rather than just to keep the cord blood banked for one’s own use, it should be made available to others who may need the cord blood in the allogenic (genetically different) setting.

Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin
Consultant Paediatrician & Neonatologist
musamn@gmail.com

Reponse to Marina Mahathir (IFLA Issue)
by Farah Pang Abdullah and Siti Jamilah Sheikh Abdullah

Marina Mahathir’s recent outbursts likening Muslim women in Malaysia to black South Africans under apartheid is completely ignorant of the reality on the ground. This renders a great disservice to a country praised by many as a model Muslim nation.

Marina has taken advantage of the Islamic Family Law (FT) (Amendments) Act. 2006 debate to regurgitate her tiresome and predictable attacks on the Shariah (Islamic Law) as it pertains to women and family law, and to vent her anger at the relevant government body that has been instrumental in setting the bill in motion. Her prejudiced views and assumptions smacks of ignorance of the objectives and methodology of the Shariah, and a slavish capitulation to western feminism’s notions of women’s rights, gender equality and sexuality.

An accurate and complete understanding of the IFLA requires much more serious scrutiny than many are seemingly willing to give. Any study of the IFLA must reference the primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence namely the Quran, the Hadiths (the authenticated traditions of His prophet), Ijma (consensus of the Muslim scholars) and Qiyas (analogies). It is completely unacceptable that views on any matter related to Islam be represented by anyone applying only their human opinions and benchmarks.

Mainstream Muslim NGOs upon substantiative research of the IFLA Bill, have concluded that it does not violate the principles of the Shariah Laws. The Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF) led a delegation of Muslim NGOs to meet the Minister for Women, Family and Development on Feb 13, 2006, where we reaffirmed our support of her firmness in dealing with the controversies plaguing the IFLA Bill. We nonetheless pointed out a few “grey areas” in the Bill which ought to be improved to ensure that no provisions could be interpreted or misconstrued as being discriminatory to women.

Truth, justice and equality has nothing to do with gender attributes. We must rise above the narrow sexism/feminism dialectics by embracing a theology in which the divine is truly gender neutral. It gifts humanity with a legal code and family norms which are rooted in the understanding that, the sexes are created differently and will naturally gravitate towards roles which affirm rather than suppress their respective genius.

And that Allah has invested both genders with inherent dignity and has made men and women, collectively, His trustees on earth. And the Quran is very clear about the issue of claimed superiority or inferiority of any human.

“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (one who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).”
(Quran 49:13)

The verse addresses not only Muslims but the whole of mankind, irrespective of their gender, their national or religious backgrounds. It is a universal declaration to all made by the Creator of all. And being a faithful person, servant and worshipper of the One God is at the heart of one’s real spirituality and humanness. In this, the essence of gender equality finds its most profound basis.

Muslim women in Malaysia are perfectly comfortable reconciling the injunctions of the Shariah with modern life. We continue to play a prominent role in public life as high ranking civil servants, in academia, the corporate world, even in politics, something that our sisters in more “progressive Muslim” Morocco and Tunisia – countries that among others outlaw polygamy, bans the hijab, sanctions social abortions – can only look with envy.

We would like to reiterate our previous position, shared by other NGOs with popular mainstream support , that after a careful study the IFLA is Shariah compliant. The government’s intention of bringing the Islamic Family Law (FT) Act. 1989 in line with that of other states is a positive move towards streamlining of this law in Malaysia, is deserving of support of Muslims and should be commended.

Farah Pang Abdullah and Siti Jamilah Sheikh Abdullah Founding Members Muslim Professionals Forum Suite 1810, 18th Floor, Plaza Permata, Jalan Kampar, Kuala Lumpur 50400 Tel : 03-40427139

Also click here to view a BBC article which quoted MPF regarding this issue

IFLA
by E. Lim Abdullah

While Brigitta Wong Fui Lin is entitled to her freedom of expression (“Shahrizat, what’s your game plan now?”, 22 Feb, “Minister, what’s your current stand?” 16 Feb), it needs to be pointed out that her abrasive intrusion into the Islamic Family Law Amendment ( IFLA ) debate is in extreme bad taste and a blatant affront to Muslim sensitivity.

The IFLA is a religious issue that does not concern non-Muslims. Putting things in perspective, Islam, meaning ‘submission’ – however awkward such a notion is to secular liberal thinking – is acceptance with a free conscience both the tenets of the faith and outwardly the injunctions of the Shariah which encompass formal ritual worship and the regulating of personal and social mores based on sacred texts. The Islamic family Law is a legal codification of a relevant part of that.

Ms. Wong’s savage mauling of the honourable minister, twice within a week, is baffling given the recent media reports that highlighted the support for Shahrizat from organizations representing mainstream Islam, many of whose members are women drawn from various professional backgrounds. After studying the bill in detail, they affirmed that it conforms to the objectives and methodology of the Shariah. It was very unfortunate that the way the bill was initially tabled confused many quarters, including Muslim women senators, women groups and members of the public.

Being a member of the cabinet charged with a high profile portfolio, making a u-turn on such a major issue makes the minister open to ridicule and abuse. But it was an enlightened one based on good faith and a correct attitude toward such a complex religious and legal issue.

Again, the Islamic Family Law is strictly a Muslim concern. Ms Wong’s spiteful comment about “ministers who either practices or have practiced polygamy” is irrelevant t the debate.

Admittedly non-Muslims may be affected when a family member reverts to Islam but there are channels by which such grievances can be addressed.

Ms Wong’s letters reflect the distressing trend that non-Muslims are making ill-informed, prejudiced and unwelcome comments on the religion of the majority of people of this country. This is very unhealthy, and dangerously crossing the lines of civilized discourse.

E. Lim Abdullah
c/o Damansara Specialist Hospital
119 Jalan SS 20/10
Damansara Utama
47400 Petaling Jaya
Tel/Fax : +603-77293173

The Islamic Family Law Amendments
by Azra Banu Mohd. Sidek

The Islamic Family Law Amendments (IFLA) most unfortunately continue to cause a completely unjustified uproar, and have resulted in wildly incorrect and inflammatory statements from various individuals and organizations, some of whom are clearly ignorant about the true intention of the amendments and their accurate and authenticated foundations in Islamic Law. These letters have recently taken on an abrasive and offensive tone. Gender issues and women’s rights are of critical importance to us all, but they do tend to generate highly charged emotions. It is evident from recent publicized communications that reason and rationality are being discarded in dealing with gender issues, particularly in the case of the IFLA.

A good and complete understanding of the IFLA requires much more serious scrutiny than many are seemingly willing to give. This is evident from the many letters being circulated which are still repetitively trumpeting the same objections that had originally been raised in a very emotional and hasty manner, even though these objections had already been satisfactorily and accurately answered by competent authorities. Now the attacks have taken a malicious and abusive personal slant against a respected government minister who finds herself caught in the middle of this issue. To make this type of criticism is indeed reprehensible and tells a lot about those who would stoop to such devious and distasteful antics. The minister in question should be lauded for her integrity in standing firmly behind the correct interpretation of the complex legal and religious principles involved upon expert advise by authorities of the law.

As Muslims, our first allegiance is to our Creator whose infinite wisdom we do not question. Any study of the IFLA must take the specifics and intentions of Allah’s revelation into primary consideration and the authenticated traditions of His prophet. Anyone wishing to support or oppose these amendments must do the same. As Muslims we cannot reject the spiritual guidance of God, therefore becoming our own authority, and establishing our own worldly standards. It is completely unacceptable that views on any matter related to Islam be represented by anyone applying only their human opinion and standards. How arrogant and unbecoming for anyone to think Muslim women need saving from the clutches of Islam! For non-Muslims to demand that Islamic Family Law be based on godless and secular principles of so-called justice and equality is absolutely ridiculous and grossly insulting. If it ever becomes necessary to propose new legislations then that new law must also be based on the established, correctly interpreted principles of Islamic justice.

Of course comments on Islam are always welcome but must be based on authenticated sources of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), not just someone’s arbitrary opinion. Those who desire to comment on, or even question Islam must first study and truly understand Islam and all that Islam stands for.

Non-Muslims have to understand that Islam is the governing principle in every aspect of a Muslim’s life to a degree seldom seen in the believers and practitioners of other religions. Islam is not just a matter of rituals and worship; Islam is a total way of life. For those who cannot or will not accept the crucial importance of this most important reality in the life of all Muslims I can only say, hopefully without insult, please stay out of our business. As Muslims we have no difficulty accepting non-Muslims have different beliefs and live their lives differently than we do. Please show us the same courtesy.

Azra Banu Mohd. Sidek
Founding Member
Muslim Professionals Forum
Suite 1810, 18th Floor, Plaza Permata,
Jalan Kampar,
Kuala Lumpur 50400
Tel : 03-40427139
azrabanu@gmail.com

Long-term truce: the hidden truth (Palestine)
by Maszlee Malik

Reading the few articles published by the mainstream English language news papers in Malaysia vis a vis the HAMAS victory is much like listening to the Malaysian version of Fox TV, CNN and BBC. Khaled Hroub’s in his book, HAMAS : Political Thouht and Practice, writes that the western media is still in the dark about the reality of HAMAS. And this is partly contributed by their inability to access the voluminous Arabic literature and references on HAMAS. Thus their flawed analyses and erroneous judgemens of HAMAS actions in the context of the jihad in Palestine.

Dr Azzam Tamimi, Director of the Intenational Institute of Political Thought in the UK, once remarked that the west should begin to examine the issue not from the lenses of the Israelis. They should endeavour an honest understanding of the root of the problem and its history. Otherwise, they would be readily misled by the Zionist propaganda which unfortunately is the case presently.

HAMAS is being potrayed as the bad guy, a “terrorist organisation” which is not fit to rule in a civil sociey. The Zionist lobby has been succesful in convincing the western world that HAMAS mirrors the terrorist profile of Al-Qaeda, is adamant upon the annihilation of Israel and that it has refused to abide by the letter of various peace initiatives (despite their miserable failures). The US and the Europeans continue to parrot Israel’s demand without providing a just and amicable solution to the Palestinians. And our local editors and journalists naively report similarly.

This unceasing diatribe against HAMAS attempts to paint her as a “militant terrorist organisation” which knows no peace and is bent on armed conflict and suicidal bombings to achieve her objectives. Instead, Israel is portrayed as faithful to the peace process and have “conceded” tremendously to make everlasting peace a possibility. What could be further from the truth, a deception unparalled in contemporary human history.

A truthful reckonig of history would hasten to recognise the European guilt for the Jewish torture and deaths under the reign of Europe’s Hitler. But to usurp palestinian lands and carve the Zinonist state of Israel in the Muslim heartland was the “original sin” of the British colonial powers. No amount of historical manipulation would be able to erase this immutable fact. Until and unless the western world wakes up to the grievous injustices which she has meted upon the Palestinians and address these historical blunders, peace would only remain an illusion.

The state of Israel with the blessings of the US and Europeans; like the Whites in then Apartheid South Africa, would continue to oppress and victimise the Palestinians and deprive them of their inalienable human rights. Millions of Palestinians have been displaced from their homeland and are destitutes in refugees camps in neighbouring Arab lands.

HAMAS have been given the legitimate political mandate by the palestinian citizenry to rectify this gross injustice and humiliation of the palestianin people. Instead of heaping hostilities, the western world, the upholders of liberal democracy should be praising the palestinians for honouring the democratic process and congratulating HAMAS for being victorious and unseating the inefficient and irreversibly corrupt PLO.

On the contrary, the intial peaceful gestures offered by HAMAS have been conveniently ignored by the western political leaders and they have instead played the old song, to the tune of the neo-conservatives and zionists, of the “dark side” of HAMAS.

HAMAS has indeed offered Israel an oppotunity for a true and everlasting peace. Since 1988, the late Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the spiritual leader of HAMAS had offered Israel, the “Hudna” or the long term truce. Mahmoud Zahar in 1988, proposed the Hudna to the then Israeli Minister of Defence, Shimon Perez and promised both the Israelis and Palestinians a peaceful accord which they would have never dreamt of before.

For HAMAS, a true negotiation should never surrender the dignity and the rights of the Palestinian people and their will to free their country from occupation. “True peace” is the peace accord that will ensure not only the interests of the Israelis but also that of the Palestinian’s unlike that promised by Oslo, Madrid or the Road Map.

Throughout the truce observed by HAMAS, Israel was asked to cease all armed attacks on the Palestinians and to stop the extra judicial killings and assassinations.. They also urged Israel not to inflict harm to the innocent civilains should there be any conflict between the 2 parties.. HAMAS also requested Israel to withdraw their armies and settlers to the 1967 border and to evacuate their settlements in both Gaza and West Bank. HAMAS also raised the issue of the return of the refugees of 1948 to their occupied land based on the UN resolution. The truce will not be realised overnight; that would be wishful thinking. In the long term interest of genuine peace it may draw out over several years as first expounded by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin (al-Mujtama’ magazine, 17 February 1990).

The creation of a Zionist state on Palestinian soil to atone for the sins of Europe or solve the Jewish dilemma can never be legitimised. (Khaled Meshal, Washington Post, 28 January 2006). But HAMAS is nonetheless prepared to negotiate a long term truce based on the unadulterated values of freedom and justice. If Israel accepts the truce, HAMAS will stop her resistance. But if the Israelis rejects or breaches the truce, HAMAS will deal severely with the zionists who annexed the palestinian land, imposed their will on the palestinian people, fractured their society and expelled them from their homeland.

It is high time for the US, EU and the world community to view the perennial conflict through the lenses of justice and freedom and not via the shades of zionist propaganda. HAMAS is offering the olive branch of peace; a true peaceful solution founded on the values of justice, freedom and equality.