Showing posts with label Dar Al Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dar Al Islam. Show all posts

Sunday, 20 November 2022

Islamic Modernism


An Islamic View of Gog Magog in the Modern World
 
 

Islamic Modernism

This is a sect of secularized Muslims who are enamored by the scientific and technological achievements of modern Western secular civilization and by its political and military power and economic prosperity. They recognize and interpret this power and these achievements as a validation of secular Western civilization’s claim to truth. Indeed some of them actually claim that modern Western secular civilization emerged out of Islam and represents the blossoming of all that is best in Islam. The sect made its debut  in post-Caliphate Turkey.  

 

‘Islamic modernists’ wish to see the world of Islam so modernized that Muslims could comfortably embrace the Western way of life complete with its political Shirk, economic and monetary Riba, feminist revolution, and the like. Islamic modernists usually come to terms with the State of Israel and enter into friendship and alliance with that state. Modernist Turkey did so, and Musharraf’s modernist regime in Pakistan attempted to do the same. Other Islamic modernists find it expedient to maintain a convenient silence in response to oppression in the Holy Land.

 

They accept Israel’s moral and legal right to exist. They do so despite Israel’s record of continuing oppression from the moment of its tortured immoral and unjust creation and throughout its bloodstained existence. Some Islamic modernists even criticize mainstream Islam in its conflict with the Ahmadiyyah Movement. Others identify themselves with the West to the extent that when they reside in USA, UK, Australia, Canada, etc., they refer to members of the US and British armed forces engaged in brutal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as ‘our’ troops. They function as sponges that readily soak up all that they receive at the altar of the West. They can be easily identified through their denunciation of Jihad and those whom they demonize as Jihadists. They adopt terminology as “Islamists” and “Islamism” and hurl abuses against “Mullas”, “Islamic obscurantism” and “Islamic fundamentalism”. The late, Oxford-educated, Benazir Bhutto, was a typical product of Islamic modernism. 

 

They are quick to lecture Muslims against committing acts of terrorism but in doing so these Islamic modernists actually deliver false unspoken recognition of Muslim responsibility for such acts of terrorism as the 9/11 attack on America. In doing so they subliminally advance a sinister agenda on behalf of the Jewish-Christian alliance that now controls power in the world. They never recognize and denounce the greatest terrorist-States that the world has ever known, since if they were ever to criticize Israel, USA, UK and Europe for state-sponsored terrorism and for genocide in occupied Gaza in the Holy Land for example, and extend tangible support to the oppressed Palestinian Muslims and Christians, their modernist platform and alliance with the West would not survive. They close their ears and eyes and refuse to join the majority of American people in rejecting as lies the official US government explanation of the 9/11 terrorist attack on America.

 

Such misguided ‘Islamic modernists’ lack the capacity to recognize that while both civilizations have benefited from each other, the foundation of modern Western civilization is the anti-thesis of Islam. The religion of Islam is founded on truth, absolute moral values and a spiritual interpretation of the universe which transcends the visible material world. On the other hand this godless and decadent rival to Islam rejects belief in any reality beyond material reality, and constantly creates its own secular values in which, for example, homosexuality and lesbianism are no longer morally evil. There can be no synthesis between truth on the one hand, and godlessness, decadence, ethical relativism and metaphysical materialism on the other, yet the raison d’etre of Islamic modernism is located in the effort to realize precisely such a synthesis. 

 

This writer has recognized Dajjal as the mastermind responsible for bringing modern Western secular civilization into being, and just as Dajjal has the word Kafir (disbeliever) written between his eyes on his forehead so too is Kufr (disbelief) indelibly imprinted on the face of this civilization. Islamic Modernism is emphatically entrenching itself in the modern West in countries such as USA and UK. But it has also raised its ugly head in the Muslim world as was evident from recent events in Malaysia for example. Prime Minister Ahmad Abdullah Badawi has championed the cause of Islamic Modernism with his Islam Hadari movement.

 

Common to all these misguided sects is their reluctance to teach or write on the subject of ‘Signs of the Last Day in the Modern Age’. They also share with many in the rest of the world of Islam a curious, highly regrettable and utter lack of interest in seeking to locate the iron barrier that Dhul Qarnain had built which must necessarily be still standing if Gog and Magog have not as yet been released into the world. 

 

Also common to these sects is their demonization of those Muslims who pursue the authentic path of al-Ihsan or Tasawwuf (i.e. Islamic spirituality) despite the fact that this is a path and a struggle which can eventually deliver Nurullah (i.e. light from Allah Most High) and with it a capacity to see with two eyes (the internal and external) while Dajjal the false Messiah and his many disciples see with only one eye (i.e. the external eye). 

 

The world continues to wait for a scholarly work from Islamic modernists on the subject of ‘Signs of the Last Day in the Modern Age’. 

 

Elitist sectarian Sufism

Finally we must make mention of certain modern-day elitist Sufis who wield a magical pen in proclaiming the gospel of Islamic spirituality yet remain amazingly blind and incapable of recognizing the reality of much of what was described above, or are mysteriously silent on the subject. Neither can they recognize that the Hajj in the Saudi-American Kingdom is now controlled by the enemies of Islam and has therefore lost much of its validity, nor that modern non-redeemable paper currencies, as well as the cashless electronic money that is now poised to replace paper money, to be bogus, fraudulent and hence Haram. They cannot recognize the bogus nature of much of so-called Shariah-compliant Islamic Finance (the so-called Murabaha center-piece transaction of modern so-called Islamic finance is, in fact, Riba disguised as a sale), nor can they recognize voting in elections of the modern secular State to be an act of Shirk, and the list goes on and on. Most significant of all however is their non-participation, even with the pen, in the struggle of the contemporary world of Islam for liberation from western political and economic oppression. Yet many of these so-called Sufis constitute themselves as condescending elitist Muslims while others participate in sectarian rivalry with gusto. 

 

In demonstrating its capacity to use the Qur’an and Ahadith to accurately explain the strange world today, Islamic scholarship would not only validate truth in Islam but also distinguish itself from such elitist and sectarian Islamic scholarship. In explaining the subject of ‘Signs of the Last Day in the Modern Age’ Islamic scholarship would blaze a trail that would benefit Muslims who seek to distinguish between the very many spurious sectarian claims to authenticity in Islam on the one hand and the true faith on the other. 

 

Finally let us remind readers that many ‘Signs’ of the ‘Last Day’ are directly linked to the worst forms of oppression that are constantly escalating in the Holy Land. True Muslims can be recognized and distinguished from their counterfeit sectarian rivals through their determined resistance of the godless decadent oppressors who now rule the world on behalf of the imposter Euro-Jewish State of Israel. The rightly-guided community of Muslims (i.e. Jama’ah) would be those blessed with the capacity to locate that explanation of ‘Signs of the Last Day’ in the blessed Qur’an and Ahadith which explains events now unfolding in the Holy Land, and which guides to a proper response. They would be those who, as a consequence, wage a courageous struggle to realize in that Holy Land the triumph of truth and justice over falsehood, injustice and barbaric oppression.

 

to be continued . . . .
 

 


Saturday, 3 July 2021

Riba and Dar al-Harb




CHAPTER SIX

RIBA AND DAR AL HARB



Many Muslims respond to lectures on riba with many very important questions and observations. Some question the juristic opinion of some ulama that there is no riba in Dar al-Harb. What is Dar al-Harb?

Allah the Most High, informs us in the Qur’an that the whole earth belongs to Him (7:128). He further informs us that His righteous servants shall inherit the earth (21:105). What they, in fact, inherit is the responsibility for maintaining a state of salaam on the earth, since Allah the Most High, calls for such (10:25). Salaam means peace, security and the warding off evil. That state of salaam is violated when aggression is committed, or when a people are being oppressed and tyrannized, and are themselves crying to the heavens for deliverance from oppression, in such a situation, Allah the Most High, makes it obligatory on Muslims to fight to respond to aggression and to liberate the oppressed (4:75). Since the Arabic for war is harb, such a territory (i.e. territory with which Muslims are at war) was designated Dar al-Harb.

There is nothing in the Qur'an or the ahadith of Prophet Muhammad (s) which make riba lawful in Dar al-Harb! In the Hanafi School of Law, however, there is an opinion which has now been applied in a rather careless and dangerous way to North America. The opinion is that riba can be accepted in Dar al-Harb. Here is the relevant section from Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani’s Kitab al-Siyar al-Kabir which is the most authoritative work in Hanafi jurisprudence on the Islamic Law of Nations:

764. I asked: If a Muslim entered into a transaction with a harbi (i.e. someone from dar al-Harb) involving usury (riba), or corpses (dead animals), do you-think that such a transaction would be rejected as null and void?

765. He (Imam al-Shaybani) replied: Yes, if it took place in Dar al-lslam. If it were in the dar al-Harb, it should not be regarded as null and void according to the opinions of Abu Hanifa and Muhammad (b. Al-Hasan).

766. I asked: Why? You have said that if a Muslim enters the Dar al-Harb, it would be permissible for him to sell corpses and take two dirhams in exchange for one.

767. He replied: Yes, it would be quite all right to do so in their land, but not - as in the former situation - in the Dar al-Islam, where Muslim rulings are binding on them and where it would not be lawful to do so save what is lawful among Muslims. If (on the other hand) the Muslims were in Dar al-Harb under an aman, it would be lawful for him to acquire property from them in accordance (with their law) by their consent, since Muslim rulings would not be binding on them there. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and Muhammad (bin al-Hasan). However, Abu Yusuf held that he would not approve of (a Muslim being involved in) a transaction in the dar al-Harb involving riba, wine, or dead animals, and he rejects it. But Allah knows best!

Even if it were to be agreed upon that there is no riba between a Muslim and a harbi in the territory of Dar al-Harb, we would still argue that United States of America is not Dar al-Harb and hence, the prohibition would still apply In USA. We do so for the following reasons:

In the first place there can be no Dar al-Harb without Dar al-Islam. And there is no Dar al-Islam existing anywhere in the world today, not even in Makkah and Madinah! it was too early, in his time, for an outstanding scholar like Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani to perceive that Dar al-Islam was coming to an end in his age. Nor even, could Al-Azhar University perceive this when it convened the Caliphate Congress in Cairo in 1926 in order to respond to the Turkish abolition of the Caliphate in 1924.

In order for a territory to be designated Dar al-Islam Muslims must have the freedom, in that territory, to submit to the supreme authority of the Word and Law of Allah the Most High. In other words, the shariah must have supremacy over any and all other laws in that territory. That is no longer possible anywhere in the Muslim world today. Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter of the UN, for example, are in conflict with that essential requirement of Dar al-Islam, since they require that member States recognize, instead, the supreme authority of the Security Council of the United Nations:

Article 24;
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, Its members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf. . .

Article 25:
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. Very few Muslim countries were free from colonial rule at that time. One of them was Saudi Arabia, which signed this document.

This is just one example demonstrating that all Muslim countries which are members of the UN (such as Iran and Sudan. and all others), and are thus contractually obliged to submit to the supreme authority of the Security Council of the UN, rather than the supreme authority of Allah the Most High, do not conform with the most fundamental of all due characteristics of Dar al-Islam. namely that the authority of Allah. the Most High, must be supreme over the Muslims.

Also, in order for a territory to be designated Dar al-Islam, the rights of the Muslims must be respected in that territory. Among those rights are the following:
  • freedom to enter the territory of Dar al-Islam,
  • a Muslim does not need a visa;
  • freedom to reside in that territory,
  • he does not need a residence permit;
  • freedom to seek his livelihood in that territory,
  • he does not need a work permit;
  • and freedom to participate in the political process (in accordance with the political Sunnah) in that territory,
  • he does not need citizenship!
No Muslim country respects these rights anymore, not even Iran and Sudan. And foolish Muslims who have been absorbed in the jahiliyah of nationalism would actually oppose efforts to restore those rights. And yet the European Community has copied this aspect of Dar al-Islam and established all of these rights for all citizens belonging to member countries of the EC.

In order for a territory to be recognized by Muslims as Dar al-Harb, it has to be so designated in a proclamation issued by the Amir al-Mumineen. The last time such a proclamation was made was in 1914 by the khalifa (Caliph) in Istanbul. (The present King of Saudi Arabia once declared jihad against Israel. He appears to have forgotten about it). Again in 1991 there was the declaration of jihad which preceded the Gulf war, and which entered into history as the first ever ‘Yankee jihad’. If the Muslims were to restore Dar al-Islam anywhere in the world, those Muslims resident in that territory will then be in a position to elect a khalifa or Amir al-Mumineen. He, the khalifa, can then (if conditions so-justify) declare USA or any other country in the world to be Dar al-Harb in accordance with the laws of war and peace in Islam!

When a territory is designated Dar al-Harb then Muslims are not permitted to reside in that territory. If they have any temporary business there they are supposed to attend to it and then promptly leave that territory.

Harbis (i.e. the citizens of Dar al-Harb) are a people with whom all Muslims are at war. Hence a harbi can be killed by any Muslim in accordance with the laws of war. If United States of America is Dor al-harb then a Muslim would be permitted by his religion to kill an American (i.e. harbi) in accordance with the laws of war. The harbi may, however, enter into Dar al-Islam in safety if he is granted an aman (a guarantee of safety) by any Muslim, male or female.

Finally, the property of a harbi can be seized by any Muslim in accordance with the laws of war. This would apply to the property of Americans if United States of America is Dar al-Harb. The above observations should force Muslims resident in North America to pause before they accept any opinion to the effect that USA is Dar al-Harb and that it is permissible for Muslims to take loans on interest in USA, or to utilize for their own benefit the interest which is paid to them!

If a Muslim accepts the view that USA is Dar al-Harb, and yet seeks to acquire or to retain US citizenship or permanent residence (Green Card), he or she would, firstly, be engaged in clear hypocrisy and even treason against Islam! Such Muslims would face terrible consequences on the Day of Judgement unless they made tauba and sought to leave Dar al-Harb as soon as possible. Secondly, the US government would be entitled to revoke the citizenship and Permanent Residence (Green Cards) of all such people and arrest or deport them.

to be continued . . . . 

The Prohibition of Riba (Interest) by Imran Hosein



The Prohibition of Riba (Interest) (Q&A) by Imran Hosein