Suicide or Murder at Guantánamo?

[Ibtisam]

n June 2 last year, the Pentagon announced that a Yemeni prisoner at Guantánamo, Mohammed al-Hanashi (also known as Muhammad Salih) had died, reportedly by committing suicide. He was the fifth reported suicide at Guantánamo, following three deaths on June 9, 2006 and another on May 30, 2007, and he was the sixth man to die at the prison, following the death, by cancer, of an Afghan prisoner, Abdul Razzaq Hekmati, on December 26, 2007.

 

All of these deaths were, in one way or another, suspicious, except for Hekmati, a 68-year old Afghan, whose story, instead, hinted at medical neglect, and also revealed, on close examination, the callous cruelty of the regime at Guantánamo. A quiet hero of the anti-Taliban resistance, who had helped free three important anti-Taliban leaders from a Taliban jail, he had discovered at Guantánamo that no one in authority was interested in ascertaining whether or not there was any truth to his story, and he went to his grave without having been able to clear his name.

 

This ought to be a source of undying shame for those who failed to investigate his story — and who may well have not acted decisively to prevent the spread of his cancer — but, unlike the other five men, his death does not carry with it the suspicion that he was deliberately killed, whereas all the others do. Last week, I recalled the Saudi prisoner Abdul Rahman al-Amri, on the third anniversary of his death, and was unable to come up with an adequate explanation for why he would take his own life.

 

A devout man, who had traveled to Afghanistan to help the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance, he was deeply troubled by the kinds of sexual humiliation to which he and other prisoners were subjected, and this could, perhaps, have tipped him over the edge, but he was also a long-term hunger striker, and may, therefore, have been in such a weakened state at the time of his death that a round of particularly aggressive questioning may have been enough to kill him.

 

In addition, the deaths of the three men on June 9, 2006 — all long-term hunger strikers, like Abdul Rahman al-Amri — have long been contentious, and became more so in January this year when, in a compelling article in Harper’s Magazine, Scott Horton drew on eye-witness accounts by former soldiers, including Staff Sgt. Joe Hickman, to paint a vivid and genuinely disturbing picture of how the alleged suicides of the three men in question — Salah Ahmed al-Salami, Mani Shaman al-Utaybi and Yasser Talal al-Zahrani — were announced shortly after a vehicle had returned from a secret prison outside the prison’s main perimeter fence, where prisoners were reportedly tortured, and how there was, according to the soldiers, an official cover-up on an alarming scale.

 

I’ll be returning to Staff Sgt. Joe Hickman’s story in the near future, but in the meantime I want to shift the focus onto Mohammed al-Hanashi, to mark the first anniversary of his death, to ask why questions raised at the time have not been answered, and to bring readers up to date on further questions asked in the last year by the author and journalist Naomi Wolf and the psychologist and blogger Jeff Kaye.

 

Shortly after his death, the released British resident Binyam Mohamed, who knew al-Hanashi in Guantánamo, provided an explanation of the circumstances of his death that was deeply shocking. In an article for the Miami Herald, he stated that he and al-Hanashi, who, at the time, weighed just 104 pounds (and at one point had weighed just 86 pounds), had both been on a hunger strike at the start of 2009, which had involved them being force-fed daily, strapped to restraint chairs while tubes were pushed up their noses and into their stomachs.

 

The man described by Binyam Mohamed was someone who stood up to the unjust regime at Guantánamo and “was always being put into segregation because of his determined insistence in pointing out the realities of what had happened to us all.” Mohamed continued:

 

The fact is, US authorities didn’t like him talking about words and practices they were only too familiar with: kidnap, rendition, torture, degradation, false imprisonment and injustice. But, while [al-Hanashi] opposed the policies and treatment in Guantánamo, he didn’t have problems with the guards. He was always very sociable and tried to help resolve issues between the guards and prisoners. He was patient and encouraged others to be the same. He never viewed suicide as a means to end his despair.

 

However, as Binyam Mohamed explained, when the officer in charge of Camp 5 (a maximum-security block) sought out a volunteer “to represent the prisoners on camp issues such as hunger strikes and other contentious issues,” al-Hanashi agreed. On January 17, 2009, he was taken to meet with the Joint Task Force commander, Adm. David Thomas, and the Joint Detention Group commander, Col. Bruce Vargo, but he never returned to his cell. “[T]wo weeks later,” Mohamed wrote, “we learned that he was moved to what we called the ‘psych’ unit — the behavioral-health unit (BHU).” He added:

 

There has yet to be any explanation as to why he was sent there or even what was the cause of death. The BHU was built as a secure unit to prevent, among other things, potential suicide attempts. Everything that someone could use to hurt himself has been removed from the cell, and a guard watches each prisoner 24 hours a day, in person and on videotape. In light of this, I am amazed that the US government has the audacity to describe [al-Hanashi’s] death categorically as an “apparent suicide.”

 

Instead, Binyam Mohamed explained that he thought al-Hanashi’s death was “a murder, or unlawful killing, whichever way you look at it,” and wondered whether “he was killed by US personnel — intentionally or otherwise” or whether his long years of hunger striking “led to some type of organ failure that caused his death.”

 

Last August, following up on the story, the author and journalist Naomi Wolf, who had been present at Guantánamo on the day al-Hanashi died (as part of a group of journalists covering pre-trial hearings in the trial by military commission of Omar Khadr), revealed that she had been deeply troubled by his death, and the “terse announcement” by the press office of his “apparent suicide.”

 

Her unease heightened when, on her trip back to the States, she “happened to be seated next to a military physician who had been flown in to do the autopsy on al-Hanashi.” “When would there be an investigation of the death?” she asked, receiving the reply, “That was the investigation.” As she described it, “The military had investigated the military.” She added:

 

This “apparent suicide” seemed immediately suspicious to me. I had just toured those cells: it is literally impossible to kill yourself in them. Their interiors resemble the inside of a smooth plastic jar; there are no hard edges; hooks fold down; there is no bedding that one can use to strangle oneself. Can you bang your head against the wall until you die, theoretically, I asked the doctor? “They check on prisoners every three minutes,” he said. You’d have to be fast.

 

Wolf also noted that the story “smelled even worse after a bit of digging.” After discovering that al-Hanashi had volunteered to represent the prisoners in Camp 5, she noted that this would have meant that he “knew which prisoners had claimed to have been tortured or abused, and by whom.” She also raised doubts about whether it was possible for a prisoner to kill themselves in the psychiatric ward, asking Cortney Busch of Reprieve, the London-based legal action charity whose lawyers represent dozens of Guantánamo prisoners, who explained, as Binyam Mohamed had, that “there is video running on prisoners in the psychiatric ward at all times, and there is a guard posted there continually, too.”

 

Shorn of these options, Wolf noted that al-Hanashi could have been killed during the force-feeding process, reflecting on “how easy it would be to do away with a troublesome prisoner being force-fed by merely adjusting the calorie level. If it is too low, the prisoner will starve, but too high a level can also kill, since deliberate liquid overfeeding by tube, to which Guantánamo prisoners have reported being subjected, causes vomiting, diarrhea, and deadly dehydration that can stop one’s heart.”

 

In an attempt to discover exactly what happened to Mohammed al-Hanashi, Wolf spent several months putting pressure on Lt. Cmdr. Brook DeWalt, the head spokesman for the Guantánamo press office, but never received a satisfactory answer, even though she pointed out that “[a]n investigation by the military of the death of its own prisoners violates the Geneva Conventions, which demand that illness, transfer, and death of prisoners be registered independently with a neutral authority (such as the ICRC), and that deaths be investigated independently.” As she explained, “If governments let no outside entity investigate the circumstances of such deaths, what will keep them from ‘disappearing’ whomever they take into custody, for whatever reason?”

 

In Yemen, where al-Hanashi’s body was repatriated, the government “announced only what the US had — that al-Hanashi had died from ‘asphyxiation.’” Wolf added, “When I noted to DeWalt that self-strangulation was impossible, he said he would get back to me when the inquiry — now including a Naval criminal investigation — was completed.”

 

Wolf never heard back from DeWalt, but in November Jeff Kaye took up the story. Although he noted that self-strangulation was “rare,” but “possible,” he had other reasons for doubting the official story. The first is that al-Hanashi, who was seized in northern Afghanistan in November 2001, survived a massacre in a fort in Mazar-e-Sharif and subsequent imprisonment in a brutal Northern Alliance jail in Sheberghan, where he would have met survivors of another massacre, involving mass asphyxiation in containers, and may, therefore, have “hear[d] tales of US Special Operations soldiers or officers involved.”

 

The second, which drew on my work, involves the fact that, in his tribunal at Guantánamo, the Pentagon inadvertently revealed that a false allegation made against him — regarding his presence in Afghanistan before he was even in the country — had been made by Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a “high-value detainee,” held in secret CIA prisons for over two years before his transfer to Guantánamo in September 2006. In every other instance, the names of the “high-value detainees” were redacted from the transcripts, but in al-Hanashi’s case, Ghailani’s name slipped through the censor’s net.

 

Last May, Ghailani was transferred to New York to face a federal court trial for his alleged involvement in the 1998 African embassy bombings, and, as Jeff Kaye pointed out, al-Hanashi’s “possible testimony at a trial in New York City, establishing that Ghailani’s admissions were false, and likely coerced by torture, may have been a hindrance to a government bent on convicting the supposed bomber.”

 

Whether it was his knowledge of massacres in Afghanistan, his eligibility as a damaging witness in the trial of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, or his knowledge of dark secrets in Guantánamo, it seems probable that, one way or another, Mohammed al-Hanashi knew too much, and what makes this suspicion even more alarming is the fact that he died just weeks after he was finally assigned a lawyer. Elizabeth Gilson never got to meet her client before he died, but as Naomi Wolf noted last September, she “probably knows al-Hanashi’s state of mind before he died, but the US government will not allow her to talk about it.” In November, Jeff Kaye added an even more disturbing detail. Gilson, he wrote, “represents another detainee at the psychiatric ward [and] said she heard details about the suicide from her client but cannot divulge them because the information is classified. She described the force-feeding as ‘abusive and inhumane.’”

 

Moreover, a review of the cases of all the alleged suicides reveals not only that all the men were long-term hunger strikers, but also that none of them had spoken to attorneys before their deaths, and that therefore any incriminating knowledge they may have had went to their graves with them. This may only be coincidental, but it is worth noting that, after the deaths in June 2006, the Pentagon initially reported that none of the three men had legal representation, but that, within days, officials were obliged to acknowledge that, in fact, two of the men did have legal representation.

 

In the case of the first man, Salah Ahmed al-Salami (also identified as Ali Abdullah Ahmed) it was also revealed that, at the time of his death, his lawyers had not been cleared to visit him, and in the case of the second man, Mani al-Utaybi, his lawyers had not been able to see him. Speaking at the time, his legal team complained that they had waited over nine months for the Pentagon to grant them clearance to see their client, and that, in the meantime, they had not been allowed to correspond with him at all, because of confusion over the spelling of his name. They also explained that, during a visit to Guantánamo just weeks before his death, they had been told that he wouldn’t see them, and that they had, therefore, been unable to tell him that he had been cleared for release.

 

This has always struck me as a particularly bleak commentary on Guantánamo — that no one told Mani al-Uyaybi that he had been cleared for release before his death — but in the bigger picture of the five unexplained deaths the most important thing is for these men not to be forgotten, and for calls to be made — loudly and regularly — for an independent inquiry into how they died.

 

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, currently on tour in the UK, and available on DVD here), and my definitive Guantánamo habeas list, and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

 

As published exclusively on the website of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

 

For a sequence of articles dealing with the hunger strikes and deaths at Guantánamo, see Suicide at Guantánamo: the story of Abdul Rahman al-Amri (May 2007), Suicide at Guantánamo: a response to the US military’s allegations that Abdul Rahman al-Amri was a member of al-Qaeda (May 2007), Shaker Aamer, A South London Man in Guantánamo: The Children Speak (July 2007), Guantánamo: al-Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj fears that he will die (September 2007), The long suffering of Mohammed al-Amin, a Mauritanian teenager sent home from Guantánamo (October 2007), Guantánamo suicides: so who’s telling the truth? (October 2007), Innocents and Foot Soldiers: The Stories of the 14 Saudis Just Released From Guantánamo (Yousef al-Shehri and Murtadha Makram) (November 2007), A letter from Guantánamo (by Al-Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj) (January 2008), A Chinese Muslim’s desperate plea from Guantánamo (March 2008), Sami al-Haj: the banned torture pictures of a journalist in Guantánamo (April 2008), The forgotten anniversary of a Guantánamo suicide (May 2008), Binyam Mohamed embarks on hunger strike to protest Guantánamo charges (June 2008), Second anniversary of triple suicide at Guantánamo (June 2008), Guantánamo Suicide Report: Truth or Travesty? (August 2008), The Pentagon Can’t Count: 22 Juveniles Held at Guantánamo (November 2008), Seven Years Of Guantánamo, And A Call For Justice At Bagram (January 2009), British torture victim Binyam Mohamed to be released from Guantánamo (January 2009), Don’t Forget Guantánamo (February 2009), Who’s Running Guantánamo? (February 2009), Obama’s “Humane” Guantánamo Is A Bitter Joke (February 2009), Forgotten in Guantánamo: British resident Shaker Aamer (March 2009), Guantánamo’s Long-Term Hunger Striker Should Be Sent Home (March 2009), Guantánamo, Bagram and the “Dark Prison”: Binyam Mohamed talks to Moazzam Begg (March 2009), Forgotten: The Second Anniversary Of A Guantánamo Suicide (May 2009), Yemeni Prisoner Muhammad Salih Dies At Guantánamo (June 2009), Death At Guantánamo Hovers Over Obama’s Middle East Visit (June 2009), Guantánamo’s Hidden History: Shocking Statistics of Starvation (June 2009), Binyam Mohamed: Was Muhammad Salih’s Death In Guantánamo Suicide? (June 2009), Torture In Guantánamo: The Force-feeding Of Hunger Strikers (for ACLU, June 2009), Murders at Guantánamo: Scott Horton of Harper’s Exposes the Truth about the 2006 “Suicides” (January 2010), Torture in Afghanistan and Guantánamo: Shaker Aamer’s Lawyers Speak (February 2010), The Third Anniversary of a Death in Guantánamo (May 2010), Omar Deghayes and Terry Holdbrooks Discuss Guantánamo (Part Three): Deaths at the Prison (June 2010).

 

Also see the following online chapters of The Guantánamo Files: Website Extras 2 (Ahmed Kuman, Mohammed Haidel), Website Extras 3 (Abdullah al-Yafi, Abdul Rahman Shalabi), Website Extras 4 (Bakri al-Samiri, Murtadha Makram), Website Extras 5 (Ali Mohsen Salih, Ali Yahya al-Raimi, Abu Bakr Alahdal, Tarek Baada, Abdul al-Razzaq Salih).

 

Source:

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/06/08/suicide-or-murder-at-guantanamo/

[Polanyi]

When the leader of the Tatars, Qazan came with his followers to Damascus, he claimed a false conversion to Islaam. Yet his behaviour and that of his subordinates were a testimony to their abandonment of Allaah's commands. I have met them all in one famous gathering, the news of which became widespread. On that occasion we humiliated him. Amongst his courtiers was the Christian chief of the castle of Sees2. This chief was never respected or honoured in the company of Qazan, but rather treated as an ignorant minor. Furthermore, others of the circle of Qazan knew that man's bad intentions and how we tried to commit you deceivingly into a war with the Tatars. Nevertheless, our position had never changed towards the Christians. I have always called for treating them with justice and defending them when attacked.

 

 

It is also common knowledge the content of my correspondence with the Tatars and my request for the release of prisoners of war. Yet their rulers agreed to release Muslim prisoners only and retain the Christians prisoners from Jerusalem. I had refused such a reply and insisted on the release of all prisoners of war including Jews and Christians, whom are of the people of our dhimmah3. This demand was granted to me, and this is our good work and reward is sought solely from Allaah.

 

 

It is common knowledge to all that even those prisoners that we have under our hands are in fact treated justly and mercifully. This was indeed one of the recommendations of the Seal of Prophets during his last days on this earth:

 

 

"Take good care of your prayers and those under your domain".

 

 

Allaah, the Exalted in Might, said;

 

"And who give food - however great be their own want of it - unto the needy and the orphan and the captive". (76:8)

 

 

The Tatars as I have mentioned, had proclaimed their conversion to this religion, yet we never concur with their hypocrisy or stayed silent when viewing their mistakes. Instead we made it very clear to them our objection to their transgressions and deviations from Islaam, that obliges waging jihaad against them. When the army returned to Egypt and received the news about the immorality and anti-religious activities of this cursed group (Tatar Army), they came out, all these armies of Allaah, and their size was great and whose numbers filled the valleys. This great force that came prepared with eemaan, sincerity and arms, was fortified by the angels through whom Allaah still aids his truthful nation. Their enemies were surpassed, defeated and dazzled. Thus, Allaah had completed His favour and aided His servants and thereby promoted the glory of Islaam, a religion of ascendance, leaving their enemies in disarray and anguish. The Prophet (saw) said,

 

 

"Allaah will send this nation at the helm of every century he who will revive its religion".

 

 

The King, as I am sure, is well acquainted with the story of the deputation of Najran's Christians who came to Prophet Muhammad (saw). The Prophet invited them to Islaam, and they asked him about the Messiah. They debated with him, and when their arguments were soundly beaten they resorted to slippery ways and deceitful tactics, until the Prophet was commanded to invite them to Mubahalah.4:

 

 

"And if anyone should argue with you about this [truth] after all the knowledge that has come unto you, say: "Come, let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves; and then let us pray [together] humbly and ardently, and let us invoke Allaah's curse upon those [of us] who are telling a lie". (3:61)

 

 

The deputation consulted among itself reaching an agreement based on their fear of the consequences and saying, "You know fully that he is a Prophet, and none has ever succeeded when taken up a prophet's challenge of a Mubahala", and so they paid the jizyah5.

 

 

The Prophet Muhammad (saw) had sent a letter to Caesar, the king of the Christians from Syria to Constantinople. This king was a noble man and he knew when reading the letter, of the authenticity of Muhammad's (saw) prophethood as prophesied by the Messiah and promised by Ibraaheem to Isma'eel. Caesar then urged his people to honour the Prophet's ambassador and he held the letter, kissed it and put it on his eyes, saying, "If it was not for this kingdom and rule, I would have loved to go to him and wash his feet".

 

 

The Ashamah Negus was another noble Christian king. He had met the migrant believers in Abyssinia and migrated himself to Allaah as a truthful believer, crying at the recitation of Soorah Maryam and saying, "By God, these words and those which were revealed to Moosa are rays of light which have radiated from the same source!" Ashamah Negus had also sent his son, among others of his people, to the Prophet (saw), and was prayed upon by the Prophet when he died.

 

 

In the Seerah of the Prophet of Allaah Muhammad (saw), many examples are to be found of his equitable and honourable treatment towards the Christians. Whoever embraced Islaam from amongst them became one of Muhammad's (saw) nation with all subsequent obligations and responsibilities. He indeed is liable to be rewarded twice, one for his faith in 'Eesaa and the other for faith in Muhammad (saw). He who did not believe, on the other hand, was liable to be fought, as Allaah instructed,

 

 

"Fight against those who - despite having been vouchsafed revelation - do not believe either in Allaah or the Last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which Allaah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth [Which, Allaah has enjoined upon them] till they [agree to] pay the jizyah with a willing submission, and feel themselves subdued". (9:29)

 

 

I ask you, Oh King! Has the Messiah, 'alayhis salaam, or indeed did the disciples after him, call for the struggle against our nation? How could you then make lawful the spilling of blood, seizure of women and confiscation of land without any justification? Does he not know that we have a great number of protected people of dhimmah resident in our lands, under our authority, protected and safe?

 

 

How is it then that our Muslim brothers are treated in a way that is unacceptable to people of religion and honour? I do not, however, accuse the King, his brothers and family directly, as I know of the hospitality and good spirit that Abul-'Abbas was received with and his acknowledgement and praise of it. Yet, are not our Muslim prisoners jailed at his pleasure and under his rule? And have not the commandments of the Messiah and the rest of the prophets prohibited acts of castigation and enjoined acts of good will? Furthermore, how can the treacherous way our prisoners were captured be justified and treachery is forbidden in all religions, sects and wise ways. How can you render lawful for yourselves an act of deceit? Are you not afraid that Muslims will reward you in a similar way, and Allaah will be their helper and guide?

 

 

Let me tell the King that the Muslims are already in preparation for Jihaad and strenuous struggle against the Tatars, and they are returning to their Lord and pursuing His Pleasure. Moreover, those princes ruling the coastal outposts who are increasing in number and authority are staunch believers. Let me tell the King that, among the Muslims are many virtuous people whose prayers are not refused and whose requests are not denied and whose anger does Allaah avenge! Indeed, the Tatars are an example of a people who had outraged the Muslims, and although they were great in number, Allaah had placed His Wrath upon them and they were afflicted in numerous ways. Is it then suitable, Oh King, that a people who border Muslims on many frontiers to treat them in this way? A way that is unacceptable by the wise, be it Muslims or not.

 

 

I would like to remind the King that those lands occupied on the seashore, and ever Cyprus itself, had been Muslim-held until less than 300 years ago. I would like to also remind that the Prophet of Allaah (saw) had promised that a group of Muslims would be aided until the Day of Reckoning. Does the King not think that Allaah is able to assist those wrongly and oppressively imprisoned in the King's lands, and that He can avenge them as He has done for others? Or is the King safe from a Muslim reawakening that will return to them what they had lost? We will treat with kindness those who do the same to us, and Allaah shall succour him who is transgressed upon.

 

 

Such a renaissance for Muslims is not a difficult matter to reoccur. I am now writing in the noblest manner in order to assist in directing to the truth and the way that is best. If the King has among his advisors wise men whose judgement and sincerity he trust, then he should consult with them on the realities of knowledge and origins of religions. He should not be satisfied being a part of those blind following Christians, who hear not, understand not and they are like the lead animals and even worse.

 

 

This endeavour can be achieved by relying upon Allaah and seeking His guidance. The King should say, "O Allaah! Show me truth so plainly and assist me to follow it, and show me falsehood for what it is and guide me to keep away from it, and make the two extremes very distinct as not to follow desire and be misguided". The King should say, "O Allaah! The Lord of Jibra'eel, Mikayeel and Israfeel6, the Originator of the Heavens and Earth, the All-Knowing of the seen and the unseen, You are the Judge between your servants in their disagreements. Guide me, O Allaah, to the truth with your grace for You guide who You will to the straight path!"

 

 

What I wish to convey unto the King, are my hopes for his well-being and benefit in this life and the next. These hopes are two things, one personal and the other general. On a personal note, I wish for him to grasp knowledge and religion, for truth to unveil before his eyes and for doubt to disappear. I wish for him to worship Allaah, according to His Command, for it is better than rule over the whole earth. Indeed, this is what the Messiah was sent with and what his disciples were taught. The second is for his benefit and that of the Muslims in his lands in general. This can be attained through his help to our prisoners and commanding his people to treat them with kindness and aid their release. Truly, the harm incurred on our prisoners will stain his reputation and inflame Muslims. Therefore, helping the release of those prisoners would be a good deed for the King in his own religion, and as the religion of Allaah testifies. Furthermore, it would be a sign of goodwill towards the Muslims, and indeed the Messiah was the greatest caller to this way of behaviour.

 

 

It is surprising that the Christians are taking as prisoners a group of people through treachery or not, who did not even fight them. Has not the Messiah proclaimed: Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also?7 It can then be assumed that the more prisoners held, and the longer that they are held for, the more invoking of Allaah's Wrath is attempted. How can one be silent about the Muslim prisoners in Cyprus, when the majority are weak and poor and have no one to speak on their behalf?

 

 

The religion of Islaam commands aid towards the poor and the weak. The King has the ability and an obligation to assist in this regard more than most, especially as the Messiah instructs this in the Bible, calling for an encompassing mercy and general goodwill by all towards all, akin to the work of the sun and the rain.

 

 

There have always been amongst the Christians those at an advantage in knowledge and religion. Many of the rulers, the clergy and the general public recognise parts of the truth and aim to follow it. This group know the status of Islaam and its people where many do not, and as a result treat Muslims equitably. Indeed many are the sayings of the prophets and pious regarding the virtue of releasing the imprisoned and freeing the oppressed. In short, the King is bound to see the fruits of his labour in this regard. It is of note how the Christians, leaders and general public, who live in Muslim lands, far outnumber Muslims living in your own country. Yet at the same time, we do not seek our prisoners for our own lack of number, neither is it out of our dire need for them. Rather we seek the reward of Allaah, the Exalted, and His Pleasure on the Day when He shall recompense the truthful and He shall not fail the pious.

 

 

It was Abul-'Abas, the carrier of this message who had informed of the good attributes of the King and his brother amongst us, and my message was written after this knowledge. I write to the King, sensing his eagerness for the truth, and his search for knowledge and deen, as I am one of the representatives of the Messiah and the rest of the prophets, advising the rulers and directing them to guidance. Indeed, the nation of Muhammad (saw) is the best nation, raised for mankind, as they want for the whole of creation the best state in this life and the next. This nation enjoins good, forbids evil and calls mankind to Allaah and assists them in the affairs of their life and their hereafter. If any information defiling Muslims or defaming their religion has reached the King, then it is either a lie or a misinterpretation of a condition. In fact, rarely is such information true, that some oppression, sins or vice were viewed within Muslim lands. Yet the fact remains that although every nation will possess some sickness of one type or another, evil when found amongst Muslims, is much less than that found amongst others, and their merit and righteousness is unequalled by any.

Ibn Taymiyah's Letter to the King of Cyprus