Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem
An Open Letter to Martin Amis
"Help one another in Al-Birr and At-taqwa; but
do not help one another in error nor in over-stepping the limits." 5:2
Interpretation of Meaning
All Praise and All Thanks are for Allah (Subhanahu wa
Ta'ala) to whom we shall all return to be judged on The Last Day.
We praise Him and ask Him for help and forgiveness; and ask His
protection from the mischief of our souls and the bad results of our
deeds; whomsoever Allah guides, none can misguide; and whom He declares
misguided, none can guide to the right path; and I bear witness that
there is none worthy of worship but Allah: He is Alone, without
partner. And I bear witness that Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa
sallam) is the Messenger and Servant of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala).
Mr. Amis:
Since you have mentioned me by name in both a recent article and a
television interview, it seems rather fitting that I, a Muslim, should
reply to some of the statements you have made in such articles and
interviews regarding Islam, especially since your statements seem to
reveal that sense of innate Western superiority and that prejudice
which are some of the fundamental causes of the current conflict
between the West and those many, many Muslims, worldwide, who strive to
follow Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah - the way of Jihad Fee Sabilillah and
Al-wala wal-bara -
and who thus take exception to the invasion and occupation of our lands
and who are actively prepared to fight, who fight or who support those
fighting, both the Western forces of occupation and Western lackeys and
allies.
You write that Muslims who actively oppose the invasion, by the West,
of their land, who oppose the hegemony of the West - who seek to
establish a land or lands where the West, the kuffar, the infidels,
have no power and no influence - are "rejecting reason" (which you
state is the idea of cause and effect) and transcending "the confines
of moral law." Thus, you are judging according to certain Western
abstractions that you accept without ever pausing to consider whether
or not such abstractions are "universal" and can and should, and must,
be applied to Deen Al-Islam and Muslims.
For example, when you speak and write of "reason" what do you mean? Do
you mean reason as defined by Western philosophy? When you speak and
write of "morals", what do you mean? Morals as defined by a theory of
Western ethics? When you speak and write of "law", what do you mean?
Law as defined by Western jurisprudence? The answer to these questions
is, of course, yes.
But have you ever considered that what the West calls reason, Muslims
understand as 'aql
and that 'aql is or may be different from the "reason" defined by
Western philosophy? Have you ever considered that, for Muslims, knowing
is what arises from 'aql and that this knowing is or may be
different
from the "knowing" that is pursued and accepted in the West, which
Western "knowing" arises from projecting abstractions (such as
categories) onto "things" and individuals and then interpreting those
things and individuals according to such abstractions, such Tawagheet?
Have you ever considered that, for Muslims, what is moral is what is
defined by the Quran and Sunnah - not what is moral according to a
Western theory of ethics? Have you ever considered that, for Muslims,
what is lawful is what is established by Muslim (or "Islamic")
jurisprudence and not what considered lawful according to Western
jurisprudence? I somehow doubt that you have considered such things,
and that - if you have - you have assumed or you believe that what is
"good Islam" (as opposed to "deviant" or "extremist Islam") is what
accords with the Western ideas, theories and abstractions which you
have accepted. This is, surely, a kind of intellectual and moral
imperialism, a prejudice, a bigotry, that you seem unaware of - or, if
you are aware of it, that you accept without question and which you do
seem afraid to be honest and open about.
The essence that you do not seem to comprehend is that we are not the
same as you and we do not desire to be the same as you: we do not view
life, existence, this world, in the same way as you do. Our
perspective, our very thinking, is different. Our goal, our aims in
life, are not the same as yours, not the same as those of kuffar in
general.
Of course, you may well retort that we are not the same "because we
have rejected reason" and have immersed ourselves in a religion, and,
according to you, "opposition to religion already occupies the high
ground, intellectually and morally". Thus we are returned yet again to
the assumptions, the prejudices, on which your views are based - to
your rather bigoted affirmation, known or unknown by you, of the
"superiority" and "universality" of Western morals, of what the West
defines as reason, and of what the West defines as "civilization",
culture and law, with the additional bigoted affirmation that we
Muslims must accept such things and use them as our own standards, our
own criteria.
You write that, once, centuries ago, Muslim "societies" were -
according to the Western standards you accept - quite "civilized" and
cultured, but that they are now far behind the West, and that this has
bred, in some Muslims, anger and resentment. Thus, in your own mind,
you see a causal "cause and effect" - the cause being our lack of
development, our lack of "progress" and achievement, in Muslim lands
(compared to the West) and the "effect" being the anger and resentment
we are alleged to feel.
Here, we are entitled to ask such questions as "what is enlightenment"?
What is "progress"? What is culture and civilization? The answers, of
course, depend on what assumptions, what axioms, we use, we posit -
what abstractions we manufacture to understand such things, and, more
fundamentally, what perspective we view such things from: the Western
one, or that of Deen Al-Islam. The two are not the same.
But let us consider, for the moment, the "achievements" of the West.
You and others of your ilk seem mighty proud of the "achievements" of
the West, of its progress - but these so-called achievements, and this
so-called progress, derives from the greed of the West, from its lust
for conquest, from its pursuit of materialism, from its exploitation,
from its colonialism, and have resulted in the killing of hundreds of
millions of people in the last hundred years alone. They have also
brought about climate change, which will assuredly cause great
suffering, great conflict, in the future, for both human beings and the
other life on this planet.
Furthermore, such are the achievements of the West that every major
Western city is infested with drugs: places so "enlightened" that even
the leaders of the West never, ever, venture alone by themselves into
certain areas of the cities and towns of their lands, especially at
night. Can you envisage Bush walking alone, unprotected, unarmed,
around certain neighbourhoods in St. Lious, or Newark, New Jersey, at
night? Around parts of Detroit? Can you envisage the un-elected British
Prime Minister, Brown, walking alone, unprotected, around some of the
streets of London, of Salford, of Nottingham, of many others places?
No? Can you imagine them doing this not just once, but many times -
walking alone by themselves in dark places among their own people in
cities and towns that they, in theory at least, are responsible for and
are considered to "govern"? What does their failure in this respect say
about them, about their "politics", about their fine-sounding promises,
about the "achievements", the hypocrisy, of the West?
Such are the achievements of the West, that in Britain nearly 100,000
women per year seek treatment in the British city of London alone for
violent injuries received in their own homes, and, on average, in
Britain, two women per week are killed by a male partner or former
partner - that is over one hundred women a year. Also, in England and
Wales alone, in one year, there are over 600,000 recorded incidents of
domestic violence, and every minute of every day the British Police are
called by a woman who has been subject to violent domestic abuse.
Such are the achievements of the West that Amerika has over seven
million people locked up in prisons, on Parole or on Probation, and
Amerika is such an "enlightened place" that, every year, nearly twenty
million people use an illicit drug and nearly thirty million people
receive treatment or counselling for mental health problems. Such are
the achievements of the West that Britain has an estimated two million
alcoholics. Such are the achievements of the West that there are vast
bleak housing estates in Britain where gangs of youths have made the
lives of ordinary folk a living hell; where crime is a way of life for
many, many people, and where violence, drugs, gang-culture and alcohol
are often seen as the only escape from a dreary life which offers no
prospects and little hope.
Are these achievements worth the deaths and suffering that the West has
caused for so many centuries, in the lands of the West, in what were
the new colonies of the West, and in the rest of the world? The almost
wholesale extermination, for instance, of the native American peoples.
The treatment of the indigenous peoples in Australia and the
Philippines. The hundreds of invasions and colonial wars in Africa,
Asia, and elsewhere, leading to millions of deaths. The hubris-like
exploitation of the resources of the world. The extermination of
hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women and children by means of
two atomic bombs; the systematic killing of millions of people in
Vietnam by Amerikan bombs. The forceful repatriation, and starvation,
of millions of Germans after what the West calls the Second World War.
The liquidation of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people during
and after the Russian revolution and in the following years of
Stalinist rule.
Now, Amerika struts around like some cowardly bully, determined to
bring "enlightenment", and spread its "achievements" - the achievements
of the West - to the rest of the world, invading here; invading there;
undertaking "regime change" here, and "regime change" there. Arresting,
torturing, and detaining without trial thousands upon thousands of
Muslims world-wide. Bombing this village, then that village; killing
thousands upon thousands of people, year after year after year, letting
its troops rampage through cities, towns and villages, kicking down the
doors of people's homes, forcing people to lie down while an Amerikan
boot is on their neck, and soldiers shackle and hood men and boys and
take them away for days, weeks, months of interrogation.
Now, Amerika and its allies hypocritically lie to get their own way, as
they did before their invasion of Iraq, with their lie, their
deception, of Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction". Now, they
hypocritically forget their own problems, their many many failures in
their own lands, and seek to export their failed way of life to others.
Are you surprised, then, that there is resentment, even anger, among
the Muslims who are the victims of such hypocrisy, such bullying
tactics? Here is the simple cause-and-effect you want.
Have you forgotten how - before the Washington and New York expeditions
- Amerika imposed sanctions on Iraq, causing the death by starvation of
tens upon tens of thousands of children? Have you forgotten how - long
before the Washington and New York expeditions - Amerika supported the
creation of a Zionist State in a Muslim land, and how it supported the
occupation of that Muslim land for decades? Have you forgotten the
suffering the Muslims in occupied Palestine have endured for decades?
Have you forgotten how Amerika and its ally, Britain, in their own
interests, carved up Muslim lands in the Middle East after what the
West called the First World War, manufacturing artificial entities like
Iraq?
You wail and bemoan the few thousands deaths that the Washington and
New York expeditions caused, while we remember the tens of thousands of
our brothers and sisters killed directly and indirectly by Amerika, as
we remember Amerikan support for the brutal Zionist occupation of
Palestine where our brothers and sisters have suffered for decades and
where tens upon tens of thousands of them have been killed and maimed.
We remember Amerikan support for the tyrants and corrupt rulers of
Algeria, of Egypt, of the Land of the Two Holy Places, of elsewhere,
places where tyrants and corrupt rulers do the bidding of the Amerikan
masters and torture and imprison tens upon tens of thousands of
Muslims, of our brothers and sisters, years after year after year.
So it was that many Muslims considered the Washington and New York
expeditions as revenge, as a just retribution, for the suffering, the
killing, that Amerika has brought to the Muslims, decade after decade
after decade.
The cause of those expeditions, those attacks, was not as you and your
ilk delude yourself into believing as due to the "evil" of some Muslims
who adhered to or who believed in some "irrational religion" - rather,
the cause was the interference of the West in our affairs, an
interference that has lasted well over one hundred years. Here is a
simple cause and effect you seem to want. Here is the reason.
You, the West, Amerika and its allies, are not blameless as you like to
believe. What is to blame is your arrogance, your hubris, your
prejudice, your belief in your superiority, your delusion that you have
some sort of moral right to export your ways, by force of arms, by
indoctrination, by propaganda, by deceit, to other lands, to other
peoples. Are you then surprised that there is resentment, even anger,
among Muslims?
As I wrote elsewhere:
"In the Jumaadi Al-Thaani attacks we can see the
fundamental
difference between the Muslim perspective, and the kaffir one,
represented as the kaffir perspective is by Amerika and its kaffir
allies such as Britain. For the Muslims, the attacks (even if they
disagree with them) are understandable, one act in a conflict that has
a very long history. For the kuffar - for the West and its lackeys and
apostates - the Jumaadi Al-Thaani attacks mark "point zero": the
beginning of their self-declared "war on terror" and the beginning of
their campaign to bring their so-called "freedom", "democracy" and
"progress" to Muslims, whether these Muslims want these Tawagheet or
not."
You go into paroxysms of anger about the three thousand or so people
killed in the Washington and New York expeditions (the Jumaadi
Al-Thaani attacks) and yet do not seem to care about the continued
killing, oppression and suffering of Muslims in occupied Palestine, in
Chechnia, or the hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed by the West
and their apostate allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the torture of
thousands upon thousands of Muslims by Amerika and its allies.
You write that you do admire Islam, with the unstated - and possibly to
you, unacknowledged - condition that this Islam conforms to and accepts
certain Western abstractions, ideas.
That is, what you are comfortable with - what you can accept, within
certain limits - is an "Islam" which does not threaten nor frighten
you, and which does not threaten the hegemony of the West, and which
conforms to the norms established by the West, and which uses the
criteria of the West to judge by. An Islam, in brief, of Muslims who
have abandoned Jihad Fee Sabilillah and Al-wala wal-bara.
But what you do not seem to understand - what is possibly
incomprehensible to you and to kuffar in general - is that the
authentic Islam of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah, the Islam of Jihad Fee
Sabilillah andAl-wala wal-bara, is totally distinct from the way
of the West, and that Muslims view life, our purpose, in a quite
different way from you.
In summary, your arrogant, hubris-like, assumption - the foundation of
Western prejudice, the basis of Western notions of superiority - is
that your values, your abstractions, your ideas, your assumptions, are
universal; correct. Thus, we Muslims must accept these so-called
"universal values" and reinterpret Deen Al-Islam in accord with them.
Thus, you have projected your abstractions onto Deen Al-Islam, and
judged what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, according to
these abstractions. What is not acceptable, by these standards,
according to these criteria, is "extremist", or "deviant Islam" and
must, according to you and Western governments, be systematically, even
ruthlessly, rooted out.
Let us consider just two examples. First, what you mean by "peace" is
not what we mean by peace. As I wrote in The Ignorance of Infidels:
Myths, Prejudice and Propaganda About Islam and the West:
For the kuffar, peace is the "happiness of the greatest
number", personal happiness and contentment, or the tranquillity which
can arise from lack of conflict
We Muslims do not view peace in the same way as the kuffar - or,
rather, we should not view peace in the same way as them. For Muslims,
peace is what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala informs us it is. What others
call peace, and how they define it, is therefore irrelevant for us. For
us, peace is the peace of Jannah, and that state of being which arises
from submission only to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala.
Our goal is not to attain some state of "peace" on this Earth, or to
strive for "peace" between nation-States; or to avoid conflict in the
name of "peace". Our goal is obedience to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala -
to strive to do, and uphold and propagate, what is halal; to restrain
from doing, to restrain others from doing, what is haram
Thus, by striving for these things we, as Muslims, hope for Jannah,
InshaAllah. That is, our primary focus is on the next life.
Second, the question of so-called "innocent civilians". As I have
written elsewhere:
It should be understood that there is no concept of
civilian (or “non-combatant”) in Deen Al-Islam. Instead, it is
generally accepted, according to Ulaama, that Deen Al-Islam makes a
distinction between those people who have hurma - protection
(ismah al-nafs) under
Shariah - and those who do not. Those who are protected are Muslims,
and those of the kuffar who have a treaty, or covenant, with the
Muslims, either general, as in case of Dhimam, or particular, as in the
case of Aqd Al Amaan. Those who have the benefit of protection
can only be killed if they transgress a limit, or limits, which Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta’ala has set, defined as these are by Shariah. Thus, a
Muslim who, for instance, was found guilty in a Sharia Court of zena
could be killed.
The asl (rule) is that the kuffar have no protection - and it is not
forbidden to harm or kill them - unless they are covered by an
exemption, such as Aqd Al Amaan, or unless they become Muslim, or
unless they seek sanctuary, for as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“And if anyone of the Mushrikeen seek your protection
then
grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and then
escort him to where he can be secure…” 9:6 Interpretation of Meaning
Sheikh
ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullah) - in one of his writings regarding
the Tartars - wrote that one of the primary aims of a Muslim is to
defend the Deen against our enemies, and, citing a Hadith [See Footnote
1], he wrote that Jihad against the kuffar would continue until The
Last day. He also wrote, in the Jihad al-Kuffar: Al-Qital al-Fasil
part of his Siyasatush-Shariah,
about the “glory of Jihad and those who participate in it” stating that
it is the best of voluntary deeds: better than Hajj, than Umrah, than
voluntary Salah and voluntary shawm. As narrated by Mu’ath Ibn Jabal
[2], it was authentically recorded that the Prophet, Muhammad (salla
Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:
“The head of this matter is Islam; the central pillar is Salah; and
summit is Jihad.”
Furthermore, in Jihad al-Kuffar: Al-Qital al-Fasil ibn
Taymiyyah (Rahimullah) mentioned those among the kuffar who, according
to the majority opinion, should not be targeted when Jihad is
undertaken. These are women, children, the elderly, the blind, and
those who are incapable of physically fighting, provided such
persons as these do not assist or aid, through words, or deeds, or by
giving assistance or encouragement to, those who are physically
fighting the Muslims. Note there is no mention of “innocent people” or
of “civilians”, and note the important words here: “provided such
persons as these do not assist or aid, or give encouragement to…”
Hence, if such people as are mentioned do in some way assist or aid, or
give encouragement to our enemies, then they may be targeted. Thus, if
they - for instance, a woman, or an elderly person - aid or assist or
give encouragement to our enemies, then the protection afforded them by
the exemption mentioned by Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullah)
and other Ulaamah no longer applies.
In this respect, let us consider the example of the two servants of
Abdullah ibn Khatal (ibn Taymiyyah in Al-Saarim al-Maslool names
them) who were commanded to be killed by order of the Prophet (salla
Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and the example of the killing of Duraid ibn
Al-Simma. What do these tell us? In respect of Duraid ibn Al-Simma,
that those who support, in any way, our enemies, may be killed. In
respect of the two servants, that those who incite or encourage or
support those who fight against the Muslims can be killed, in the same
way that those who insult or demean the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi
wa sallam) can be killed. These are relevant examples because Duraid
ibn Al-Simma was an old man, and no direct physical threat to Muslims
forces, and because the servants were women.
Thus, the relevant question we should ask is: “What constitutes aid,
assistance and encouragement, in words and deeds?” This way of
reasoning, this type of question, is in accord with Deen Al-Islam: for
example, Imam al-Shafi in Kitaab al-Umm
writes only about those whom it is not correct to kill, without
attributing to them any specific term, and without applying to them an
specific concept (such as the kaffir concept of “civilian” and
“innocent”). [3]
The question we need not ask, we should not ask - because it is
irrelevant, according to Deen Al-Islam, and reveals the influence of
the kuffar - is: “Is it haram to target civilians?”
In addition, some evidences - such as Shahih Muslim 19, 4294 and 19,
4456 - 4457 - are often used by moderates and modernists opposed to,
for example, Martyrdom Operations, and these moderates and modernists
take such evidences in the general sense, to apply unreservedly,
without restriction, or exemption. This, however, is an error, because
they do not consider the specific situations, and other evidences,
which do or which might restrict these.
In respect of one such Hadith, ibn Qudamah (Rahimullah) pointed out:
“He
(Ahmad ibn Hanbal) said, ‘The Hadith of As-Sa’b came after the
forbiddance of killing the women and children, because his forbiddance
of killing the women was when he sent (men) to ibn Abi Al-Huqayq.”
Al-Mughni Wash-Sharh Al-Kabir (10: 503)
Hence, we return to
asking the important and relevant question as to what, exactly, is the
aid, assistance or encouragement, which removes the particular
exception made - in the case, for example, of women and the elderly -
to the general rule of the kuffar having no protection.
Notes:
1) See Muslim Book 20 (Kitab Al-Imaara) Chapter 53, and also Bukhari 9,
Book 93, Number 552 and 9, Book 92, Number 414.
2) Refer to Hadith 29 in An-Nawawi’s Forty Ahadith.
3) Refer to Kitaab al-Umm, 4:253, 274
Do you not see the difference, here? Do you not understand, for
example, that, for Muslims it is only correct to talk and write about
the limits imposed by Shariah, with these limits being determined
according to adillah from Quran and Sunnah? Do you not understand that
this is the right, the correct, Muslim way?
Do you not understand that instead of us thinking like a Muslim,
instead of us being Muslim, that you want - even demand - that we think
like you, using your terms, your terminology: that we re-interpret Deen
Al-Islam via the abstractions, the Tawagheet, you have manufactured?
No, I am reasonably confident that you do not understand this, that you
cannot see this difference. Why not? Because of an innate prejudice; an
inability to free yourself from the often unstated assumptions and
axioms that underlie the Western weltanschauung you have accepted,
giving rise to an inability to use the faculty of pure reason.
The distinction I have briefly outlined is crucial to correctly
understanding the Deen that is Islam. Thus it is that the classical
Muslim scholars did not talk or write about whether it is morally right
or wrong to target "civilians" or "non-combatants" or some general
abstract category
which may be or has been manufactured by us in an attempt to
"understand" - but only about those it is unlawful, according to Quran
and Sunnah, to kill.
You write that Islam is a "totality" - and thus, by extension, inclines
towards or even is "totalitarian in nature", which is a typical
Western, kaffir, mis-apprehension, based on manufactured abstractions,
on division into categories. For Islam, correctly understood, restores
us, as human beings, to our natural nature - our fitrah - which is to be'Ibaad
of
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. That is, it is an expression of harmony, a
means whereby we restore our natural connexion to our own nature, to
other human beings, to Nature, to the Cosmos, and, of course, to Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, Who - Muslims believe - created human beings so
they might discover and know their true nature. Thus, Deen Al-Islam is
the Way of natural balance, of awareness and appreciation of the
sacred, something which the West has lost, which is why, of course,
there is so much hubris, so much arrogance, so much dishonour, so much
hypocrisy, in the West. It it such divisions, such abstractions - which
are or which become Tawagheet - which obscure, which cover-up, the
simple truth of the unity of Tawheed. Thus, they are kufr, and thus do
such things conceal our true nature, as human beings.
This error, of concealment, of division, is also what you and others do
when, in stories or other writings, you ascribe certain motives to
individual Muslims, describing such motives according to some
psychological term or other, or some such abstraction manufactured
according to some Western theory. It does not seem to occur to you, or
others, that such Muslims may have done what they have done purely out
of a humble desire to obey Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, to do what they
sincerely believed was correct according to Quran and Sunnah. Thus, yet
again, there is a certain prejudice, a certain arrogance, and a certain
hubris-like profanity: an inability, wilful or otherwise, to perceive
and appreciate and respect what many regard as the sacred.
What we desire is very simple, InshaAllah. We want the West to stop
interfering in our affairs. To leave our lands. To stop supporting the
tyrants, the corrupt leaders, who rule and who govern lands where
Muslims are in the majority. We desire to live, as Muslims, according
to Quran and Sunnah alone, with Shariah our only guide to what is
lawful, and what is unlawful. That is, we desire a land or lands where
the West has no influence, no power, whatsoever; a place where Muslims
from other lands can migrate to, if they so wish; a place where we can
make the Word of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala supreme. We do not want your
"peace", nor your "democracy", nor your Taghut of the nation-State.
Why will the West not leave us alone? Why does the West insist that we
abandon our perspective, our Way, for yours? Why does the West resist -
by force, by terror - any and all attempts by us to live in a land
where we are rid of you and of the Tawagheet that you bow down before
and which, whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not, you
have made into a new religion?
Thus, and in conclusion, I invite you to consider the assumptions upon
which your views are based. I invite you to investigate Deen Al-Islam
as it is, not as you seem now to view it, through the abstractions, the
perspective, of the West. Thus, I invite you to Islam: to the Way of
true humility and true honour, where we feel and know the limits
imposed upon us, which limits are the genesis of both humility and
honour, and thus the foundation of genuine civilization, of that way of
living which arises from having Adab, and which thus makes real for us
what is numinous, what is sacred. We know these limits because of the
Prophet, Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) who revealed them to
us in the Quran and Sunnah. Thus do we feel and know our true
relationship to other human beings, to other life, and to our Rabb, Who
says:
"Be loyal and do your duty to Allah; fear Him and always
speak with honour. He will direct you to do honourable deeds and will
forgive your mis-deeds. And whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger
will achieve the greatest achievement of all." 33:70-71 Interpretation
of Meaning
This greatest achievement is the attainment of Jannah, the eternal life
beyond our fleeting life here, in the Dunya, and it is the perspective
of Jannah which is the essence of Islam: of that simple, humble,
submission which makes us, and which marks us as, Muslim.
May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala protect us from all forms of Al-asabiyyah
Al-Jahiliyyah, forgive us for our mistakes, and guide us to and keep us
on the Right Path. Whatever good that may have been written is from
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, and whatever mistakes or errors have been
made are from me, wa Allahu Allam.
Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt
18 Muharram 1429