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.”

The Names of Allah, the Most High, are all husnaa (beautiful), meaning that they reach the extremity of beauty. As Allah, the Most High said, “To Allaah belong the Most Beautiful Names“. (7:18). This is because they comprise perfect attributes which do not have any deficiency from any angle, neither in meaning, nor in implication.

When we look at words, we find that they can either:

• indicate the extremity of perfection
• indicate perfection that is not the extremity of perfection
• indicate perfection in one context and deficiency in another
• indicate a meaning that is deficient in all respects

A further explanation of these four types:

The first: If these words indicate the extremity of perfection, then they are from the Names of Allah, since they do not contain any defciency. Examples would include, as-Samee’ (the All-Hearer), al-Baseer (the All-Seer), al-’Adheem (the All-Mighty), al-’Aleem (the All-Knower). All these names indicate complete perfection, which is perfection that admits no deficiency.

The second: Those words that indicate a quality of perfection that can admit to deficiency. Allah is not to be named with them, however they can be used to inform about him. In other words, these would not be formal names, but they can be used in order to inform about Allah. For example, al-mutakallim (the one who speaks), ash-sha’ee (the one who wills), as-saani’ (the one who makes), al-faa’il (the one who does) - and whatever is similar to that. So it is permissible that we say Allaah is mutakallim (one who speaks), that Allaah is fa'’aal (one who does) and so on, but he is not to be formally named with them.

For al-mutakallim (the one who speaks) is not from the Names of Allah, because one who speaks could speak with that which is praiseworthy, or he could speak with that which is blameworthy. Even though speech in itself is a quality of perfection, specific instances of speech could denote imperfection or perfection. Hence, one who speaks with good is one who speaks with perfection, and one who speaks with evil is one who speaks with deficiency. Thus, speech itself is perfection, but its content can be praiseworthy or blameworthy. Thus, al-mutakallim (one who speaks) cannot be from the names of Allah, however Allaah can be described as “one who speaks” from the angle of informing about him.

The third: Those words that contain both perfection and deficiency within their actual meanings (instead of by implication with something else). These words are not applied to Allah, but they are to be mentioned restrictedly, with qualification. For example, makr (plotting), khidaa’ (deception), istihzaa (mockery), kaid (plot). It would not be correct for us to say that Allah plots or that he plans. This is because plotting divides into that which is praiseworthy and that which is blameworthy. Hence, the name al-Makir (the plotter), or al-Kaa’id (the planner, schemer) cannot be names of Allah. What is correct is that we are to qualify that, so we say that Allah plots against the one who plots, and Allah schemes against the one who schemes, and Allah mocks the one who mocks and so on.

The fourth: The words that are pure deficiency. Allah is not to be described with them at all, such as al-’umaa (blindness), as-samam (deafness), al-’ajz (incapacity). All of these are pure defciencies, hence they are not applied to Allah in any form, neither by way of a formal name, nor by way of description.

Thus, all of Allah’s Names are complete perfection and they do not entail or imply any deficiency whatsoever.

Examples of Allah’s Perfect Names

For example, al-Hayy (the Ever-Living) - this is a name of Allaah denoting the attribute of perfect life that was not preceded by non-existence, and is not followed by cessation. It is a life that necessitates all other perfect qualities such as knowledge, power, hearing, seeing and others.

Another example, al-’Aleem (the All-Knowing), a name denoting perfect and complete knowledge that is not preceded by ignorance, nor followed by forgetfulness. It is a complete, all-comprehensive, all-comprehending knowledge that covers everything in general and in detail, irrespective of whether that relates to His own actions or the actions of His creation.

Another example, ar-Rahmaan (the One Full of Mercy), this denotes perfect mercy, and about which the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “Indeed, Allah is more merciful to His servants than this (mother) is to her son”, referring to a mother who breastfed her child.

The esteemed and late Shaikh Muhammad bin Salih al-’Uthaimin of Saudi Arabia stated, during a tele-link in the evening of Friday, 28th July 2000:

…Likewise I invite you to have respect for those people who have the right that they should be respected, those between whom there is an agreement (of protection) for you. For the land in which you are living is such that there is an agreement between you and them. If this were not the case they would have killed you or expelled you. So preserve this agreement, and do not prove treacherous to it, since treachery is a sign of the hypocrites, and it is not from the way of the Believers. And know that it is authentically reported from the Prophet that he said, “Whoever kills one who is under and agreement of protection will not smell the fragrance of Paradise.”

Do not be fooled by those sayings of the foolish people, those who say ‘Those people are Non-Muslims, so their wealth is lawful for us (to misappropriate or take by way of murder and killing).’ For by Allaah - this is a lie. A lie about Allaah’s Religion, and a lie about Islamic societies.

So we may not say that it is lawful to be treacherous towards people whom we have an agreement with.

O my brothers. O youth. O Muslims. Be truthful in your buying and selling, and renting, and leasing, and in all mutual transactions. Because truthfulness is from the characteristics of the Believers, and Allaah - the Most High - has commanded truthfulness - in the saying of Allaah - the Most High -

“O you who believe - fear and keep you duty to Allaah and be with the truthful”

And the Prophet encouraged truthfulness and said, “Adhere to truthfulness, because truthfulness leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise; and a person will continue to be truthful, and strive to be truthful until he will be written down with Allaah as a truthful person“.

And he warned against falsehood, and said, “Beware of falsehood, because falsehood leads to wickedness, and wickedness leads to the Fire. And a person will continue lying, and striving to lie until he is written down with Allaah as a great liar.”

O my brother Muslims. O youth. Be true in your sayings with your brothers, and with those Non-Muslims whom you live along with - so that you will be inviters to the Religion of Islaam, by your actions and in reality. So how many people there are who first entered into Islaam because of the behaviour and manners of the Muslims, and their truthfulness, and their being true in their dealings.

The Qur’an has outlined the base rule concerning the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims who do not fight the Muslims on account of their religion or expel Muslims from their homes or lands.

Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity. (Al-Mumtahinah 60:8)

The classical commentator Ibn Kathir stated in his exegesis of this verse:

“… meaning that you are benevolent towards them and deal justly with them.”

This verse was revealed during the truce between the Muslims and the Quraish of Mecca. The mother of Asma, the daughter of Abu Bakr came to Medina and brought with her some presents. Asma sought recourse to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) on the matter.

Ibn Kathir brings a number of narrations from Asma, the daughter of Abu Bakr (radiallahu anhu), whose pagan mother came to visit her in Medina, explaining that this was the reason for the revelation of this particular verse. Asma said:

My mother who was a pagan approached (Madinah) during the truce with (the tribe of) Quraish, so I came to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) and said, “O Messenger of Allah, my mother has come and she desires to see me, shall I keep ties with her?” He said, “Yes, keep the ties of kinship with your mother”.

Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, another classical commentator explains in his exegesis that there were a number of opinions regarding this particular verse, and mentions amongst them:

• That this verse was particular only to those Muslims who were residing in Mecca but had not yet emigrated.
• That this vere relates to people outside of Mecca who had not emigrated to Medina
• That this verse was regarding the pagans of Mecca who did not fight the Muslims nor expel them from their homes, but that it was later abrogated with the command to fight the pagans (on account of their breaking the truce)

Then at-Tabari explains the correct viewpoint:

The most correct of these sayings is the statement of the one who said that what is meant by, “Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion…” (is that it pertains to) all of the factions from the varying beliefs and religions. That you behave good towards them, and that you are just regarding them, because Allah, the Mighty and Majestic generalised with His saying, “…those who fought not against you on account of your religion and did not drive you out of your homes…” So this applies to everyone who is characterised by this. He did not specify some as opposed to others in this regard.

And then at-Tabari goes on to discredit the view of those who said this injunction was abrogated.

The esteemed Scholar from the last century Muhammad Ameen ash-Shanqiti (rahimahullah) has a lengthy discussion in his exegesis, “Adwaa ul-Bayaan”. Ash-Shanqiti mentions the various views, including the viewpoint that this verse was abrogated with the command to fight the pagans. He then goes on to provide historical and textual evidences to discredit this view bringing:

• The statements of at-Tabari, ash-Shafi’i,after which he said:
  

  This (view) that has been deemed correct by Ibn Jarir (at-Tabari) and which was authenticated by as-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy upon him, is that which is necessitated by spirit of the Islamic legislation.

• The benevolence of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) towards specific non-Muslims, such as Thumama who had come to assassinate the Prophet but was captured by the Muslims. He was treated well, eventually released and he voluntarily became a Muslim.
• The various delegations that came to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) in the 9^th year after the hijra. Such as the Christians of Najran, and the delegation of Tamim, and others. With all of them, the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) was gentle and kind, he was benevolent towards them.
• The treatment of the Jews of Khaibar who despite being treacherous - scheming a variety of intrigues, instigating the Bani Quraiza, and plotting against the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) on numerous occasions - were spared. After being forced to surrender they were allowed to live off their land whilst giving a share of the produce to the Muslims.
• The verse in the Qur’an regarding the treatment of non-Muslim parents who force a person to worship others besides Allaah. Ash-Shanqiti said:
  

  And in closing, that which makes this clear very strongly, and about which no one has claimed abrogation is the saying of (Allah), the Exalted, “And if they both strive to make you associate with Me (in worship) that of which you have no knowledge, then do not obey them. But accompany them in this life with goodness.” (Luqman 31:15). This good behaviour and benevolence is towards the one who strove to make a Muslim associate others with Allah (in worship) but did not actually fight against the Muslims. Hence, the right of the parents are to be given precedence, even if they are upon disbelief, and strive to lead one to associationism (Shirk).

With these and other evidences ash-Shanqiti invalidates the view of those who spoke with abrogation of this verse. Ash-Shanqiti covered this issue in some depth in his Adwa ul-Bayan, explaining:

And we have lengthened the speech regarding this matter due to its importance and the dire need for it today.

Hence, it is established that the normal relation between Muslims and non-Muslims who do not show aggression or expel Muslims from their lands, as established in the Islamic texts, is one of benevolence and good behaviour.

Contemporary Islamophobes attempt to portray Islam and the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) as a violent, aggressive, murderous entity - and often distort, and outright lie, concerning historical occurrences and realities. Perhaps their distortions will be covered in later posts.

The late and renowned Hadith scholar, Shaikh al-Albani (rahimahullah) said on this subject:

“…Now we come to suicide missions, we have come to know of this from the Japanese and their likes when a man amongst them would attack an American war ship with his fighter jet. He would blow up along with his jet, however he would inflict damage upon the soldiers in that American war ship. We say: Suicide missions in the present time, all of them, are not legislated (by Islam) and all of them are unlawful. They could be of the types (of suicide) which cause a person to remain in the Hellfire eternally. As for suicide missions being (a means of) nearness, by which one seeks closeness to Allah, then today (we find) that a man fights for the sake of his land or his homeland. These suicide missions are not Islamic, absolutely…

From the cassette recording, “The Verdicts of the Scholars concerning Assassinations and Bombings”, quoted in the book, “The Verdicts of the Scholars in Englightening the (Muslim) Nation”, of Jamal bin Farihan al-Harithi (p.76).

In a question and answer session almost 20 years ago, the late Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaikh ‘Abdul-’Aziz Bin Baz (rahimahullah) was asked concerning the “Jama’at ul-Jihad” and co-operation with them. His response was:

They are not to be co-operated with, nor are they to be given salutations (the regular greeting amongst Muslims). Rather, they are to be cut off from, and the people are to be warned against their evil. Since they are a tribulation and are harmful to the Muslims, and they are the brethren of the Devil.

The Jama’at ul-Jihad was an organisation from Egypt whose ideological roots lied in the teachings of Sayyid Qutb and Abu A’la Maududi.