“Humaid b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of ‘Uqba b. Abu Mu’ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).” (Muslim 6303)
So if deceit is permissible, according to Muhammad himself, in times of battle and war, and the Islamic State considers itself to be at war with Britain, then how will Hague and the rest determine whether or not they are being deceived by a jihadi who is only feigning “good intentions”? Since they are sure that Islam is a religion of peace and would denounce as “Islamophobic” any idea that its prophet actually sanctions deceit, they are unlikely to consider this question adequately.
Suicidally Naive Britannia Update: “Aid pledge for returning UK jihadists with ‘good intentions,’” by Rowena Mason, the Guardian, November 2, 2014:
The UK will help jihadists returning from Iraq and Syria to recover if they have “good intentions” about stopping others joining the conflict, the Conservative leader of the Commons, has said.
In a change of tone, William Hague said that some will “just need help because they will have been through an extremely traumatic period” while fighting overseas.
Downing Street initially floated the idea of banning radical Islamist fighters from coming back to Britain, but the proposal was dropped when it emerged that it would be illegal to make people stateless.
Despite a call from Ukip for returning fighters to be stripped of their citizenship, Hague appeared to soften the government’s rhetoric on the subject as he spoke on the BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday.
“We haven’t had a lot of people coming back yet and saying they want to be of assistance, but if they do of course the government, the police, the National Health Service will work with those people and help them to recover and to assist others,” he said.
“Our top priority has to be the security of the people of this country and that is why we will take action. Where we think people could be dangerous, we confiscate passports. We’re working on additional powers to be introduced in parliament. There have been over 200 arrests this year related to people going to Iraq and Syria.
“But the Home Office and the police and the NHS are also working together on what we can do to assist those people who do come back with good intentions. Of course, we will have to be sure that they do have good intentions.”
How this clueless, politically correct dolt, childlike in his naivete, proposes to do that is anybody’s guess.
A father of three young men who have gone to fight in Syria, two of whom have been killed, told the same programme that his sons had been “naive” and acted out of kindness.
“I do not agree with the word radicalised. My sons went, they did a mistake, they were naive to think that going to Syria and fighting will make a change,” Abubaker Deghayes said.
“I consider it out of their kindness, out of their humanity and conscience, that’s why they took this step, but at the same time, what they did is not right.
“They miscalculated it, because the Syrians do not need foot fighters, they need much more complicated things than that in the war against [President] Assad to stop these atrocities.”…