Ash-Sharq al-Awsat published an interview between Turki as-Suhail and the Saudi Scholar, ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-’Ubaykan on 12th September 2005. We reproduce below some extracts from it that highlight important Islamic issues, regarding which the extremists and terrorists had been misled by their ideological figureheads. A very large number of these people, who were youth poisoned by evil people like Abu Qatada al-Filisteeni and Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (’Isam Barqawi) repented and recanted from their falsehood, on account of these dialogues.

Turki as-Suhail: What about removing the non-believers from the Arab peninsula?

‘Abdul-Muhsin al-’Ubaykan: This is another issue prominent amongst the wanted men. We tell them that removing non-believers from the Arab peninsula in context of the hadith (of the Prophet) is not how they interpret it.

This is because the area the Prophet (peace be upon him) was concerned about removing the non-believers from was that surrounding the two Sacred Mosques and not other areas such as the Eastern Province or other regions in Arabia.

Another point is that there were non-believers who lived in Arabia during the Caliphs’ times. Muslim men married non-Muslim women and lived together in the region.

I even found fatwas for Shaikh Mohammad Ibn Uthaimeen who supported this notion.

A third point is that this issue is the business of the country’s guardians rather than the people. The Caliph Abu Bakr did not have the Jews removed from Medina during his time, nor did he ask ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab to do so either.

A fourth point is that even if non-believers are to leave the region, it does not mean violating their properties or permitting their bloodshed. Furthermore, having them leave the region is related to what is in the best (interest) and it is not an indefinite general predicament.

This is an extract, with some abridgement, from the book, “With Which Religion and Intellect are Suicide Bombings and Destruction Considered Jihad?” by the senior contemporary Islamic Scholar from Saudi Arabia, Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-’Abbad.

WHAT HAS COME CONCERNING KILLING THE ONE UNDER PROTECTION OF A TREATY, INTENTIONALLY OR BY MISTAKE

The killing of a dhimmee (free non-Muslim), mu’aahad (one under a treaty or truce) and musta‘man (one under the guarantee of protection) is unlawful. Indeed, a severe threat has been mentioned concerning that.

Indeed, al-Bukhaaree relates in his Saheeh (no. 3166), from ’Amr Ibn ’Abdullaah (radiyallaahu ’anhumaa), from the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) who said, “Whosoever kills a person who was a mu’aahad, he will not be able to smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance can be smelled for the walking distance of forty years.”

This is mentioned by al-Bukhaaree in the book of al-jizyah (taxes for disbelievers) under the chapter, “Chapter: The sin of the one who kills a mu’aahad who has not committed any crime.”

And he mentions it in the book of compensations, under the chapter, “Chapter: The sin of the one who kills a dhimmee who has not committed any crime.” And it also occurs under the wording, “Whosoever kills a person who was mu’aahad will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its smell can be found for the walking distance of forty years.”

Stated al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr in al-Fath (12/259), (commenting upon the action of al-Bukhaaree in the manner compiling these statements under these chapter headings), “Likewise, he brought the chapter heading of the dhimmee, yet he mentioned the mu’aahad. And in the chapter heading of al-jizyah (taxes for non-Muslims), he brought the wording, “Whosoever kills a mu’aahad…” as is apparent in the narration. So the intended meaning of this is that whosoever has a treaty with the Muslims, whether it be by agreement of a jizyah, or a truce with a Muslim ruler, or protection from a Muslim.”

And this hadeeth is related by an-Nisaa‘ee with the wording “Whosoever kills a person from amongst the people of dhimmah (protection), then he will not find the fragrance of Paradise, even though the fragrance of Paradise can be found for the walking distance of forty years.”

And he also relates it (no. 4749) with a saheeh isnaad, from a man from amongst the Companions of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “Whosoever kills a man from amongst the people of dhimmah, then he will not be able to find the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance can be found for the walking distance of forty years.”

As for killing the one under protection unintentionally, then Allaah has obligated a compensation and retribution for it. Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said,

“And if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whosoever finds this beyond his means, then he must fast for two consecutive months, in order to seek repentance from Allaah. And Allaah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (an-Nisaa‘ 4:92)

And I say in conclusion: Fear Allaah – O youth – with regards to yourselves. Do not become prey for Satan. He gathers up for you the dishonour of this worldly life and the punishment of the Hereafter. And fear Allaah with regards to the Muslims, from amongst the elderly, the middle-aged and the youth. And fear Allaah with regards to the Muslim women, from amongst the mothers, daughters, sisters, maternal aunts and paternal aunts. And fear Allaah with regards to the elderly who ware bowing and the babies who are breastfeeding. And fear Allaah with regards to the spilling the blood of the innocent and the wealth of the unlawful.

“So fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones. (al-Baqarah 2:24)

“And fear a day when you shall be brought back to Allaah. Then every person shall be paid what he earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.” (Sooratul-Baqarah 2:281)

“On the day when every person will be confronted with all the good he has done, and all the evil he has done, he will wish that there were a great distance between him and his evil.” (Soorah Aali-’Imraan 3:30)

“The day when a man shall flee from his brother, and his mother and his father, and from his wife and his children. Every man, that day, will have enough to make him careless of others.” (Soorah ’Abasa 80:37)

Awaken from your slumber and become attentive from your heedlessness. Do not be the riding animal for Satan to cause corruption in the earth.

And I ask Allaah the Mighty and Majestic to grant the Muslims understanding of their Religion, and to safeguard them from the misguidance of tribulations (fitan), whatever is apparent from them and whatever is hidden. And may the salutations, peace and blessings of Allaah be upon His servant and Messenger, Muhammad, upon his family and all of his Companions.

O Muslims Overseas! Beware of Conspirators

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin ‘Ubaykaan
6 July 2006-07-08
Taken from the paper ‘Ash-Sharaq Al-Awsat’

Read Original in Arabic

At this time last year a great evil took place. It visibly affected peoples’ wealth and lives, and injured the image of Islam and the Muslims throughout the whole world.

This time last year attacks were made against the London underground system and (London) buses and explosions went off. Tens of people died and were injured, as a result of these (actions).

Some Muslim youth, who reside in those lands, carried out these disgraceful acts.

What is the correct stance that the Muslim should adopt towards this type of activity?
What advice is it incumbent upon us to offer to the Muslims abroad?

I say that there is not a shadow of doubt that a small group of people, whom ascribe themselves to Islam, have arisen, in the last few years, traversing upon the methodology of the kharijites (a deviant sect) of the past.

This (deviant sect) have left the religion like an arrow leaves its prey. Actually, this present group of people could possibly be viewed as being more astray and misguided than the original kharijites, because they have not only declared Muslims to be infidels and killed them but, instead, they have added to this by violating their covenants and transgressing against the people of the book and other than them, who have agreements with the Muslims; even the kharijtes of the past never done this. So pay attention oh my Muslim brother.

Islam has not sanctioned this type of activity. Opposite to that, Islamic law warns against these acts in the clearest fashion and discourages going down these paths.
On top of that, even Arab and Islamic customs reject these appalling acts that deeply damage the image of Islam. This has caused many non-Muslims to flee from Islam and shun its people.

For this reason, the attacks against London last year that were carried out by some misguided, astray Muslim youth are forbidden. Especially, (bearing in mind) that they killed tens of innocent people with their bombs. These (youth) have committed a grave sin. In the light of Islamic law, this is viewed as a violation of a covenant and treachery. An affair that has resulted in many negatives which have (damaged) the co-existence of these people, and I am referring to how the British people (interact) with the Muslims who reside in those lands.

These bombings have placed the rest of the Muslims of Britain in a difficult situation and, perhaps, caused some aggravation. The least of them being that this has portrayed the Muslims as a possible security threat.

It is not acceptable to reserve the slightest doubt about the fact that those responsible for the bombings in London and any other similar acts have carried out something forbidden in the light of Islamic law. No matter what excuses they offer. I say (for arguments sake) even if the non-Muslims, whom we were residing in their lands, were at war with us and we entered their lands and remained there with an agreement of their protection, it is impermissible to deceive and betray them. The people of knowledge, like Ibn Qudaamah in Al-Mughni (a famous piece of classical Islamic jurisprudence), have mentioned this in the books of Islamic jurisprudence

Therefore, there is no ambiguity that these bombings of the subway in London were a blatant form of deception.

My advice to my Muslim brothers who are residing in Britain, in the west generally or in any non-Muslim land is to be cautious of those conspirators amongst you, who falsely claim that they are implementing the correct Islam. In reality, these people strive to destroy the relationship that (the rest of the Muslims) have with their countries that have hosted them for their whole life.

Also, their activities deprive them (i.e. the rest of the Muslims) of the benefits of life, ruin their relationship with their hosting nations and citizens, spoil their reputation before the people and damage the rights they have acquired.

It is upon the Muslims in those lands to work together to uproot this deviant group, if advice brings no fruits, they should abandon and shun them, and inform upon every trouble maker from amongst them. To allow the rest of the Muslims in that land can live in peace and spread the true Islam. They should be torches of light and guidance, guiding the people to the magnificence and excellence of this great religion that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, revealed as a mercy for the whole of mankind.

An article written by Noor, an overseas student from India who came to study in a British university and accepted Islam following her experiences in Western social culture:

I came from a purely Hindu family where we were always taught to regard ourselves (i.e. women) as beings who were eventually to be married off and have children and serve the husband–whether he was kind or not. Other than this I found that there were a lot of things which really oppressed women, such as:

• If a woman was widowed, she would always have to wear a white sari (costume), eat vegetarian meals, cut her hair short, and never re-marry.
• The bride always had to pay the dowry (bridal money) to the husband’s family. And the husband could ask for anything, irrespective of whether the bride would have difficulty giving it. Not only that, if after marriage she was not able to pay the full dowry she would be both emotionally and physically tortured, and could end up being a victim of “kitchen death” where the husband, or both the mother-in-law and the husband try to set fire to the wife while she is cooking or is in the kitchen, and try to make it look like an accidental death. More and more of these instances are taking place. The daughter of a friend of my own father’s had the same fate last year!
• The “caste” system, where women of lower caste are treated badly.

In addition to all this, men in Hinduism are treated literally as among the gods. In one of the religious Hindu celebration, unmarried girls pray for and worship an idol representing a particular god (Shira) so that they may have husbands like him. Even my own mother had asked me to do this. This made me see that the Hindu religion which is based on superstitions and things that have no manifest proof , but were merely traditions which oppressed women could not be right.Subsequently, when I came to England to study, I thought that at least this is a country which gives equal rights to men and women, and does not oppress them. We all have the freedom to do as we like, I thought. Well, as I started to meet people and make new friends, learn about this new society, and go to all the places my friends went to in order to “socialise” (bars, dance halls, …etc.), I realised that this “equality” was not so true in practice as it was in theory.

Outwardly, women were seen to be given equal rights in education, work, and so forth, but in reality women were still oppressed in a different, more subtle way. When I went with my friends to those places they hung out at, I found everybody interested to talk to me and I thought that was normal. But it was only later that I realised how naive I was, and recognised what these people were really looking for. I soon began to feel uncomfortable, as if I was not myself: I had to dress in a certain way so that people would like me, and had to talk in a certain way to please them. I soon found that I was feeling more and more uncomfortable, less and less myself, yet I could not get out.

Everybody was saying they were enjoying themselves, but I don’t call this enjoying. I think women in this way of life are oppressed; they have to dress in a certain way in order to please and appear more appealing, and also talk in a certain way so people like them.

During this time I had not thought about Islam, even though I had some Muslim acquaintances. But I felt I really had to do something, to find something that I would be happy and secure with, and would feel respected with. Something to believe in that is the right belief, because everybody has a belief that they live according to. If having fun by getting off with other people is someone’s belief, they do this. If making money is someone’s belief, they do everything to achieve this. If they believe drinking is one way to enjoy life then they do it. But I feel all this leads to nowhere; no one is truly satisfied, and the respect women are looking for is diminishing in this way.

In these days of so called “society of equal rights”, you are expected to have a boyfriend (or you’re weird!) and to not be a virgin. So this is a form of oppression even though some women do not realise it.

When I came to Islam, it was obvious that I had finally found permanent security. A religion, a belief that was so complete and clear in every aspect of life. Many people have a misconception that Islam is an oppressive religion, where women are covered from head to toe, and are not allowed any freedom or rights. In fact, women in Islam are given more rights, and have been for the past 1400 years, compared to the only-recently rights given to non-Muslim women in some western and some other societies. But there are, even now, societies where women are still oppressed, as I mentioned earlier in relation to Hindu women.

Muslim women have the right to inheritance. They have the right to run their own trade and business. They have the full right to ownership, property, disposal over their wealth to which the husband has no right. They have the right to education, a right to refuse marriage as long as this refusal is according to reasonable and justifiable grounds.

The Quran itself, which is the word of Allah, contains many verses commanding men to be kind to their wives and stressing the rights of women.

Islam gives the right set of rules, because they are NOT made by men, but made by Allah; hence it is a perfect religion.

Quite often Muslim women are asked why they are covered from head to toe, and are told that this is oppression–it is not. In Islam, marriage is an important part of life, the making of the society. Therefore, a woman should not go around showing herself to everybody, only for her husband. Even the man is not allowed to show certain parts of his body to none but his wife. In addition, Allah has commanded Muslim women to cover themselves for their modesty:

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their Jilbaabs (outer garments) over their bodies (when outdoors). That is most convenient that they could be known as such (i.e. decent and chaste) and not molested.” (Quran 33:59)

If we look around at any other society, we find that in the majority of cases women are attacked and molested because of how they are dressed.

Another point I’d like to comment on is that the rules and regulation laid down in Islam by Allah (God) do not apply just to women but to men also. There is no intermingling and free-running between men and women for the benefit of both. Whatever Allah commands is right, wholesome, pure and beneficial to mankind; there is no doubt about that. A verse in the Quran explains this concept clearly:

“Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and protect their private parts (from indecency, illegal sexual acts). That will make for greater purity for them. And Allah is well aware of what they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and protect their privaate parts (from indecency, illegal sexual intercourse). That they should not display their beauty and ornaments except that which is apparent thereof …” (Quran, surah “Al-Nur” 24:31)

When I put on my hijaab (veil), I was really happy to do it. In fact, I really want to do it. When I put on the hijaab, I felt a great sense of satisfaction and happiness. Satisfied that I had obeyed Allah’s command. And happy with the good and blessings that come with it. I have felt secure and protected. In fact people respect me more for it. I could really see the difference in behaviour towards me.

Finally, I’d like to say that I had accepted Islam not blindly, or under any compulsion. In the Quran itself there is a verse which says “there is no compulsion in religion” . I accepted Islam with conviction. I have seen, been there, done that, and seen both sides of the story. I know and have experienced what the other side is like, and I know that I have done the right thing.

Islam does not oppress women, but rather Islam liberates them and gives them the respect they deserve. Islam is the religion Allah has chosen for the whole of mankind. Those who accept it are truly liberated from the chains and shackles of mankind whose ruling and legislating necessitates nothing but the oppression of one group by another and the exploitation and oppression of one sex by the other. This is not the case of Islam which truly liberated women and gave them an individuality not given by any other authority.

The Globe and Mail Tuesday, June 29, 1993 Facts and Arguments Page (A26)

MULTICULTURAL VOICES: A Canadian-born Muslim woman has taken to wearing the traditional hijab scarf. It tends to make people see her as either a terrorist or a symbol of oppressed womanhood, but she finds the experience LIBERATING.

My Body Is My Own Business

By Naheed Mustafa

I OFTEN wonder whether people see me as a radical, fundamentalist Muslim terrorist packing an AK-47 assault rifle inside my jean jacket. Or may be they see me as the poster girl for oppressed womanhood everywhere. I’m not sure which it is.

I get the whole gamut of strange looks, stares, and covert glances. You see, I wear the hijab, a scarf that covers my head, neck, and throat. I do this because I am a Muslim woman who believes her body is her own private concern.

Young Muslim women are reclaiming the hijab, reinterpreting it in light of its original purpose — to give back to women ultimate control of their own bodies.

The Qur’an teaches us that men and women are equal, that individuals should not be judged according to gender, beauty, wealth, or privilege. The only thing that makes one person better than another is her or his character.

Nonetheless, people have a difficult time relating to me. After all, I’m young, Canadian born and raised, university-educated — why would I do this to myself, they ask.

Strangers speak to me in loud, slow English and often appear to be playing charades. They politely inquire how I like living in Canada and whether or not the cold bothers me. If I’m in the right mood, it can be very amusing.

But, why would I, a woman with all the advantages of a North American upbringing, suddenly, at 21, want to cover myself so that with the hijab and the other clothes I choose to wear, only my face and hands show?

Because it gives me freedom.

-o-o-o-

WOMEN are taught from early childhood that their worth is proportional to their attractiveness. We feel compelled to pursue abstract notions of beauty, half realizing that such a pursuit is futile.

When women reject this form of oppression, they face ridicule and contempt. Whether it’s women who refuse to wear makeup or to shave their legs, or to expose their bodies, society, both men and women, have trouble dealing with them.

In the Western world, the hijab has come to symbolize either forced silence or radical, unconscionable militancy. Actually, it’s neither. It is simply a woman’s assertion that judgment of her physical person is to play no role whatsoever in social interaction.

Wearing the hijab has given me freedom from constant attention to my physical self. Because my appearance is not subjected to public scrutiny, my beauty, or perhaps lack of it, has been removed from the realm of what can legitimately be discussed.

No one knows whether my hair looks as if I just stepped out of a salon, whether or not I can pinch an inch, or even if I have unsightly stretch marks. And because no one knows, no one cares.

Feeling that one has to meet the impossible male standards of beauty is tiring and often humiliating. I should know, I spent my entire teen-age years trying to do it. I was a borderline bulimic and spent a lot of money I didn’t have on potions and lotions in hopes of becoming the next Cindy Crawford.

The definition of beauty is ever-changing; waifish is good, waifish is bad, athletic is good — sorry, athletic is bad. Narrow hips? Great. Narrow hips? Too bad.

Women are not going to achieve equality with the right to bear their breasts in public, as some people would like to have you believe. That would only make us party to our own objectification. True equality will be had only when women don’t need to display themselves to get attention and won’t need to defend their decision to keep their bodies to themselves.

The (realisation of) beauty and perfection in the Names of Allah is by way of considering each Name on its own and it can also be considered when a Name is combined with another. As a result of combining one Name with another, a further level of perfection (in Allah’s Names) is attained.

An example of this is, “al-’Aziz al-Hakim” (the All-Powerful, All-Wise). Allah combines the mention of these two Names often in the Qur’an. Each of these Names indicates the specific perfection that it necessitates (by way of its inherent meaning), and thus, He is characterised with al-’izzah (power) in the Name al-’Aziz, and al-hukm and al-hikmah (judgement and wisdom) in the Name al-Hakim. And in combining them both, there is yet another perfection which is that His ‘izzah (power) is linked with His hikmah (wisdom). Thus, His power does not necessitate oppression, tyranny, or evil action - something that does occur from those weilding power in the creation. Power and authority leads those holding it to misuse, leading them to oppress, tyrannize and evil behaviour.

A great benefit exists in the combination of al-’Aziz with al-Hakim, which is that ‘izzah (power) is tied to hikmah (wisdom). Power on its own can lead to oppression, tyranny and evil behaviour, such as when we find a king with power in his kingdom, with no one opposing him. You will find that such a king, on account of his power and authority will be violent and tyrannical, and he will not care because he is not wise. Likewise, amongst the people are those who are wise, but they do not have any power or sway. Such a person may possess wisdom, and his behaviour will be good, he will place everything in its proper place, yet he does not have strength or power that allows him to implement what he desires (in light of his wisdom).Allah is powerful, possessor of strength, and possessor of complete, perfect wisdom, as He is al-’Azeez al-Hakeem.

Thus in the combination of two Names, another level of perfection is realised. In this case it is strength of implementation and execution in one’s wisdom, and wisdom in one’s use of power and strength.

His real name is ‘Umar bin Mahmood Abu ‘Umar al-Urdanee (residing in Jordan), and is known as Abu Qataada al-Filisteeni (from the point of view of his origin from Palestine).

This individual has a hand in much of the blood that has been shed in the Islamic world - and the Islamic world alone. This individual beautifies his actions in the name of the religion, however he does not do that openly. It is done by indirect means.

He went to the Afghani Jihad but only caught its back end. With the ideology of takfir on his table cloth, he sought refuge in London. There he found shade, a refuge and place to speak. He obtained political asylum, and thus having found his lost haven, began in earnest with his tragedies.

Britain accommodated him and his likes, preparing for them a repose from which to spread their poison of takfir into the Muslim lands. Indeed, it was from Britain that he mobilised his pashas in the Muslim lands to perform takfir and bombings.

These people are not interested except in killing Muslims whom they deem apostates - that is their primary goal, a matter not well documented in Western academic circles. For the base ideology of these people is that of the Kharijites, those who excommunicate whole Muslim societies on account of the absence of total Shari’ah rule in their lands, and due to their being ruled by rulers they see as corrupt and tyrannical. This ideology is the starting point of terrorism carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam. This terrorism is directed first and foremost towards Muslim societies and is not something that emerged primarily in response to non-Muslims.

Abu Qataada has wreaked more havoc and caused more bloodshed in the Muslim lands, such as Algeria and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere than in the West in its entirety. For he has been taken as a spiritual guide and a political leader to the ignorant fools in the Muslim lands, who are like-minded in their thirst for blood. Unfortunately, the likes of Abu Qataada use highly emotive political issues such as Palestine in order to whip up support and bolster loyalty to themselves - using that to insidiously promote their own barbaric ideologies and tendencies.

Abu Qataada said in his interview with the Hayat newspaper (19th May, 1999):

We do not desire to fight America unless it attack us, and begins the fight first. This is different to the fight against the apostate regimes in our lands, those against whom Jihad is an individual obligation upon every single Muslim.

This is the ideology of takfir, the excommunication of governments, and then by extension whole societies that was given a fresh revival in the works of Sayyid Qutb, the root of all contemporary takfiri and jihadi groups.

The Shaikh, ‘Abdul-Malik ar-Ramadani, who had previously exposed the hand of other neo-Kharijites, such as Safar al-Hawali and Salman al-Awdah, in kindling the tribulations in Algeria in the nineties has written a book in refutation of Abu Qataada entitled, “Clearing the Servants From The Barbarity of Abu Qataada Who Calls For the Killing of Women and Children”.

In the book he documents from Abu Qataada with direct quotations the following:

• His takfir (excommunication) of all of the Muslim rulers (p. 55)
• His excommunication of every individual soldier in the Algerian military (p. 62)
• His revilement of the major scholars of Saudi Arabia (p. 147)
• His fatwa permitting the killing of the preachers and scholars (p. 151)
• His fatwa permitting the killing of women and children in Algeria (p. 205)
• His revilement of some of the companions of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), using that in order to commend the Algerian revolution (p. 299).

The condemnation of the Kharijites is well documented in the statements of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), as is related in the collection of al-Bukhari, “There will appear at the end of time a people who are young in age, of foolish minds and who will speak (with what appears to be) the best speech of creation. Their faith will not go beyond their throats. They will leave the religion as an arrow passes through the game animal. So kill them wherever you come across them, for verily in their killing is a reward on the Day of Judgement for whoever killed them.” (al-Bukhari, no. 6930). And the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), also stated about them that “They are the worst of creation”, and “If I was to reach them, I would slaughter them like the slaughtering of Aad”, and he said of the Kharijites, “They are the dogs of Hellfire.”

Indeed, the likes of Abu Qataada consider the Muslims they excommunicate to be more severe disbelievers and enemies of Allah, than non-Muslims themselves. Abu Qataada stated, whilst boasting and praising his own jamaa’a (group of followers) that:

“… they do not see any difference between the police force of (Yasser) Arafat , under the leadership of Arafat and between the Jewish army and police force, except one: that Araft and his government and more severe in their disbelief than them…” (refer to the book of Shaikh ‘Abdul-Malik ar-Ramadani).

This trait is not unique to Abu Qataada, rather it is a trait of all contemporary neo-Kharijites - may Allah disfigure them. This ideology is echoed by Aiman az-Zawahiri. Muntasir az-Zayyat describes in his book “The Path to al-Qa’ida” some elements of this ideology of az-Zawahiri, stating:

For a long time az-Zawahiri repeated that the only form acceptable for Jihad is armed combat, and that it is upon the truthful Muslim to address the internal disbelief - the near enemy - and to address the external disbelief - the distant enemy - thereafter. And az-Zawahiri emphasized his ideology concerning jihad against the near (internal) enemy before the external enemy in a piece that he wrote in the April 1995 issue of “al-Mujahidun” magazine, entitled, “The Path to al-Quds Passes Through Cairo”. He said therein, “Al-Quds will not be conquered or settled, except when the battle in Egypt and Algeria is settled, and until Cairo is conquered”. The fundamental ideology that beseeched az-Zawahiri was his consideration that the fundamental, foremost enemy was the political structure (in the Muslim lands) because it did not judge by what Allah had revealed.

Abu Qataada played a significant role in the 90s in the killing of countless Algerian, men, women and children, by way of his “spiritual guidance” to those who shared his evil ideology, and his subterfuge continued well into the next decade.

A Times article dated 9th November 1993:

Why British Women are turning to Islam

Lucy Berrington finds the Muslim Faith is winning Western admirers despite hostile media coverage

Unprecedented numbers of British people, nearly all of them women, are converting to Islam at a time of deep divisions within the Anglican and Catholic churches.

The rate of conversions has prompted predictions that Islam will rapidly become an important religious force in this country. “Within the next 20 years the number of British converts will equal or overtake the immigrant Muslim community that brought the faith here”, says Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher at a Hull comprehensive and the author of a textbook guide to the Koran.

She says: “Islam is as much a world faith as is Roman Catholicism. No one nationality claims it as its own”. Islam is also spreading fast on the continent and in America.

The surge in conversions to Islam has taken place despite the negative image of the faith in the Western press. Indeed, the pace of conversions has accelerated since publicity over the Salman Rushdie affair, the Gulf War and the plight of the Muslims in Bosnia. It is even more ironic that most British converts should be women, given the widespread view in the west that Islam treats women poorly. In the United States, women converts outnumber men by four to one, and in Britain make up the bulk of the estimated 10, 000 to 20, 000 converts, forming part of a Muslim community of 1 to 1.5 million. Many of Britains “New Muslims” are from middle-class backgrounds. They include Matthew Wilkinson, a former head boy of Eton who went on to Cambridge, and a son and daughter of Lord Justice Scott, the judge heading the arms-to-Iraq enquiry.

A small scale survey by the Islamic Foundation in Leicester suggests that most converts are aged 30 to 50. Younger muslims point to many conversions among students and highlight the intellectual thrust of Islam…

Some say the conversions are prompted by the rise of comparative religious education. The British media, offering what Muslims describe as a relentless bad press on all things Islamic, is also said to have helped. Westerners despairing of their own society - rising in crime, family breakdown, drugs and alcoholism - have come to admire the discipline and security of Islam.

Many converts are former Christians disillusioned by the uncertainty of the church and unhappy with the concept of the Trinity and deification of Jesus. Others are self-confessed idealists wo did not go looking for religion but found an irresistible appeal in Sufi mysticism, which they describe as “the pearl within the shell of Islam”.

Interesting speech given by Israel Shamir - an anti-zionist activist - to the House of Lords in Westminster on February 23, 2005.

…Thus England became a love of my youth, England of pubs serving Brakespear Old Fashioned ale, of neat green squares of Kensington where I lived, of milk bottles on doorstep, of the punchy smell of bacon-and-eggs and burned toast in the morning, of the pleasant feel of the Guardian pages, of the calm bonhomie of English people, of your lovely maidens who are able to propose and prepare a nice cup of tea in the least suitable moment, of your men with their fair play, the green sweet and somewhat parochial England of Blake, Hopkins, Waugh and G K Chesterton, England as opposed to the Empire.

Much as I love England I came to dislike the Empire. The Empire was a vile 19th century invention. The Empire ruined Iraq and used poison gases against its citizens long before the present Bush-and Blair offensive. No land was too far or too near to be safe from the Imperial assaults: from Shimonoseki in South of Japan to Gondor in mountains of Ethiopia, from Beijing to Archangelsk, from the fishermen’ city of Oriente in Brittany to Baghdad, from Dublin to Kandahar, from Dresden in Saxony to Akka in Palestine, the Empire bombed them all. And I do not speak of some long gone days of Queen Anne, but of last hundred fifty years since the fateful accent of your first Zionist ruler, Lord Beaconsfield.

In our country, in Palestine, much of present sorrows are result of the Imperial intervention. The first Intifada, the great Arab revolt of 1936-1939, caused by the creeping Zionist takeover, was crushed by the Imperial forces with great severity. Thousands of native Palestinians were killed, executed, hanged, expelled from their land. The Arab defeat, al-Nakba of 1948 can’t be understood without the context of the previous Imperial war against the Palestinians. The Zionist armies administered the coup-de-grace to the disarmed, bleeding, powerless rural population whose elite and best fighters were eliminated by the Empire.

Oh, you say, why should we remember it now? We can’t let bygones be bygones for the Empire is not a thing of past. Like a monstrous parasite it migrated after sucking the juice of the Brits. Its capital was relocated to Washington and New York, while England remained a subservient part of Empire, a Greece to the New Rome, or rather a Tyre to the new Carthage. Not only your RAF assists the Americans, but your BBC, once a paragon of objectivity, became a propaganda tool for the New Empire.

I did not come to condemn you but to offer my condolences, for England is one of the Imperial victims. I came first time to your land some thirty years ago, and since then the Empire eats you up as much as it eats everybody else. London became a faceless cosmopolitan city, your cinema is destroyed, your streets are taken by international chains of shops, your newspapers belong to Zionists, and there is a danger the English will be turned into human dust by the Imperial burden as the Romans and Macedonians of old, to be followed by the Americans.

The Empire is not particularly good for people, including the people of the mother country. Let us consider Palestine. Thousands of young British men died in order to conquer Palestine and give it to the Jews. They committed many atrocities, killed a lot of natives, and enforced Jewish supremacy in Palestine. They received no gratitude. Elder people maybe remember the subsequent Zionist terrorist attacks on the British troops, the assassination of Lord Moyne, maybe they remember the two British sergeants who were kidnapped and hanged by the Jews, and their dead bodies were defiled, booby-trapped by the killers. Menachem Begin, our late Prime Minister, was particularly proud of it. Younger people won’t even know it, for your media, the mind and the nervous system of the nation, is hijacked by Zionists like Conrad Black and Murdock, and they won’t allow this knowledge to be remembered.

But it is vital to remember, for the new empire continues the ways of the old. Now in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East, for England – or even English business – has no need to be in Baghdad and Basra. Indeed, in the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble – and that is Jewish supremacy drive. In our country, Israel or Palestine, we can have peace today, if we were to agree to equality of Jew and non-Jew. But this principle, so carefully observed in Europe, is anathema to the Jews in Israel. Like in England before the reforms of 1832, your predecessors would not agree to equality of a lord and a commoner before the law; or in Rhodesia of Ian Smith, the white settlers did not want to be equal with the blacks.

Well, so Jews do not want to be equal. But why should you assist them in their pursuit of supremacy? There is an American joke [of Jay Leno]: “If God doesn’t destroy Hollywood Boulevard, he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.” Indeed, if England keeps supporting the apartheid Jewish state, it owes an apology to Rhodesia and South Africa. Why, indeed, it does? This is not a rhetoric question. Why the New Empire went to war, committed itself to the vast expenses and dangers, antagonised bigger part of the world – and all that in the interests of Jewish supremacy?

In my book – that is the one I came to promote – I try to explain why the Jews have a special place in the Imperial conscience. Superficially, one can explain it by personalities, by the special position of the Neo-cons in Washington and of the Jewish media-lords in the US and elsewhere. Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking; just last month a Rothschild bought the French daily Liberacion, and an Israeli citizen bought a TV 4 channel in Sweden. This is a valid observation, but not sufficient.

The New Empire, even more than the old one, is infused with Judaic values on an ideological and theological level. This is the thing I try to deal with, because preoccupation with ethnic or religious origins of a person is not only improper but often misleading. Indeed, the strongest enemies of the Judaic values are often people of Jewish origin. Allow me to mention St Paul, Karl Marx and Simone Weil to make my point clear. Another example can be provided by Sir Carl Popper, a colleague of yours who referred to the Judaic concept of chosen-ness as ‘vile’. He also rejected an approach of a Jewish Year Book to have him included, for he said, he does not believe in race and has nothing to do with Jewish faith or values – despite his Jewish origin. Do not concentrate on ethnics, look for ideology. In your case, Michael Howard is less Judaic than Tony Blair, for the first objects to removal of British liberties and to sweeping anti-Muslim legislation, while the second brought this country into the Iraqi war for Israeli interests.

While a Judaic tendency is just an ideological tendency, a special feeling towards Jews is a symptom of certain pro-Imperial predisposition. For instance, Tony Blair is a great supporter of the Empire. But even if we would not know that, we would be able to guess: for he expressed unlimited support of the Jewish state. The Jewish state is the country where a Jew has more rights than a non-Jew. Three to four million of our native residents have neither right of vote nor citizenship rights for a single fault: they are not Jews. Do not forget, Rhodesia was dismantled for the equal sin of ethnic or racial supremacy.

This feeling that ‘Jews are special’ found now its expression in the story of Ken Livingstone and his sin coming hard on the heels of Prince Harry and his mishap. Actually, I have heard that at the next costume ball, Prince Harry will be dressed as Ken Livingstone. The Ken’s story is simple: the Mayor was rude to a hack. Being a journalist, I sympathise with the journalist; but being rude to is our professional hazard. However, the insult was blown well over normal proportions. If Ken would be equally insulting to a member of Royal family, he will be forgiven if not encouraged. But here – even the Students’ Union decided to ban Ken.

Your anti-racist feelings do not come into it. Some time ago I watched the Hard Talk with Tim Sebastian on the BBC. Tim was grilling a Uganda Asian businessman living in England. He told him: well, you Asians in Uganda were heavily engaged in the black market activities, smuggled hard currency abroad, despised the natives and refused to marry them. Actually the same accusations were traditionally levelled against Jews. If Tim would just try to say it to a Jew he would be kicked out of his job same day. But applied to the Muslims – they did not cause a stir. It was just a Hard Talk. So it is not ‘anti-racism’. In my view, this unbelievable out-of-proportion response to Ken’s affair shows again a mysterious connection of Jews and the new Empire.

One reason is that Jews like an Empire. If there is a choice between an England and an Empire, the Jews prefer an Empire. Benjamin Ginsberg, the Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University, wrote a book on this subject, called Jews and the State: The Fatal Embrace and he attests to this Jewish love of Empire. Any Empire: Franz Josef, the last Emperor of Austro-Hungarian Empire, used to say that Jews are the most loyal of his subjects. In your country, Disraeli was equally proud of his Jewish ancestry and devoted to the Empire-building.

A Jewish joke tells of two Jewish brothers in revolutionary Odessa; one of them emigrated to England and became a peer of the realm, another one remained in Russia, suffered as much as anybody, and eventually the Russian brother was invited by his British brother to London. The brother arrived, received English citizenship, had whale of time, went to Covent Garden, maybe to the Palace, at night the brothers come home, and the Russian brother began to cry. “Oh do not cry, told him the English brother, you had your life, I had mine, it could happen other way around.” “You did not understand me, - says the Russian brother, - I weep for India we have lost”.

This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance – indeed, the same people who were all for the Russian or French or British Empire now became ardent supporters on the new American Empire. Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se, and it does not matter who is the titular head of this Empire: Jews are good for an Empire, as long as they feel the Empire is good for them.

Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England. In my view, Islam is a form of Christianity, even nearer to the Nicene Creed than some Pentecostals or other American denominations. What is more important, they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide. Let us hope that its introduction will be important for England’s future.

This is the right time to overcome left-right divide: if Michael Howard stands on the right –for liberties - and Blair stands on the left – and for anti-Muslim legislation, for police control and for war, the terms have little relevance today. There are friends and enemies of the Empire in all your major political parties, and equally all the parties are Zionist-infiltrated. There is a need for new realignment in order to unite anti-Imperial forces for full withdrawal of British troops from overseas, for independence of England from the American Empire.

In the Apple Cart by Bernard Shaw, the US makes a bid to take over England, and a wise monarch keeps its independence. Disentanglement of England from the US embrace is much needed, an answer to the Boston Tea Party is called for.

‘Domination’ over Palestinians ‘atrocious,’ ex-prez tells ‘Good Morning America’

In some of the harshest and one-sided language he has used to date, former Democratic President Jimmy Carter called Israeli “domination” over Palestinians “atrocious” in an interview today on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Carter said there was “no doubt now that a minority of Israelis are perpetuating apartheid on the people in Palestine, the Palestinian people.”

Carter called Israel’s occupation the “prime cause” of continuing violence in the Middle East.

“And contrary to the United Nations resolutions, contrary to the official policy of the United States government, contrary to the Quartet so-called road map, all of those things – and contrary to the majority of Israeli people’s opinion – this occupation and confiscation and colonization of land in the West Bank is the prime cause of a continuation of violence in the Middle East,” he said.

“And what is being done to the Palestinians under Israeli domination is really atrocious. It’s a terrible affliction on these people.”