Wednesday 30 September 2015

Ben Carson Is Right

Understanding more about the Anglosphere




I chose to include the above video because it includes the man's original statements as well as his later defense and affirmation of them. In summary, Dr Carson says that the Revealed Law is incompatible with the US Constitution and he would not advocate a Muslim becoming president of the United States (POTUS) unless he or she were to reject certain tenets of Islam and put the US Constitution above their religious beliefs. He also makes it clear that the latter point, i.e. putting the US Constitution above one's religious beliefs, would be a condition for any US president, including a Christian. He also admits and acknowledges that a Muslim would be accused of blasphemy for doing so.

Carson has been attacked from all corners. Daniel Hannan, whose writings I greatly admire, says that Carson is being political rather than theological and that there is nothing preventing a Muslim becoming POTUS, but he then mentions, more or less, the same conditions that Carson does:

Will Muslim-Americans be similarly assimilated? I'm optimistic. There are plenty of passages in the Old and New Testaments that can be read as incompatible with giving your first loyalty to a secular republic, but Jewish and Christian Americans, for the most part, have learned how to compartmentalize their beliefs.

This is nothing new, except maybe to Muslims living in these countries. This is the Anglosphere understanding, and it is especially strong in the United States. People of every religion are welcome but they must subjugate their beliefs to American and Anglosphere values, as enshrined in documents like the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta and so forth. Beliefs will have to be compartmentalized. Again, How We Invented Freedom is a must-read. 

The "no religious test" clause of the US Constitution is referred to again and again in refutation of Dr Carson, but the reason why there is no religious test is that it is presumed that the president's religious beliefs have already been subjugated.

In Islam we do have our own system of governance, based on ahl al-halli wa al-'aqd, who are the foremost scholars, followed by the qadis (judges), fuqaha (jurists) and muftis, i.e. those who answer questions. More details can be read in my forthcoming translation of Imam an-Nawawi's Adab al-Mufti wa al-Mustafti, which is to be published shortly. We should also remember that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, set up his own government in Madinah and this was the beginning of what is now known as Dar al-Islam. Our books of jurisprudence include chapters on governance, warfare, judicial procedures, punishments and penalties and so forth. There are even books like Imam al-Mawardi's Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah which are exclusively dedicated to such topics. 

Once the above is understood, the issue of the Revealed Law being compatible with the US Constitution becomes secondary. As Hannan admits, Judaism and Christianity could also be seen as incompatible. Here, a Catholic priest clearly states that God's law trumps the law of the State, but what laws or legal system do they have that compares to ours? As Bishop Kalistos Ware points out, when the Ottomans took over the Greek Orthodox Church they made the church become a civil as well as religious institution:

For the Mohammedans drew no distinction between religion and politics: from their point of view, if Christianity was to be recognized as an independent religious faith, it was necessary for Christians to be organized as an independent political unit, an Empire within the Empire. The Orthodox Church therefore became a civil as well as a religious institution: it was turned into the Rum Millet, the "Roman nation."

The ecclesiastical structure was taken over in toto as an instrument of secular administration. The bishops became government officials, the Patriarch was not only the spiritual head of the Greek Orthodox Church, but the civil head of the Greek nation — the ethnarch or millet-bashi

In other words, the Greek Orthodox Church simply didn't have the same legal institutions that the Muslims did and they therefore had to be established.

A final point: the constant comparison with Catholics. It should be borne in mind that the US Constitution is constantly violated, or "reinterpreted", by those in power but the principle that all religious beliefs should be subjugated to the values of the country persists. The Catholics are not a good example because of the reasons mentioned above: they have had to subjugate/compartmentalize their beliefs and they do not have the legal and governance institutions that we do. Judge Andrew Napolitano also shows here how the US government now treats religious groups within its borders:


To quote the judge, 'Health and Human Services Secretary, Catherine Sibelius, herself a Roman Catholic, issued regulations that require all employers in America to make contraceptive materials and devices available to their employees.' This obviously includes Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and so forth. Will it be a Muslim in the US government who will one day force all imams and masjids to conduct gay marriages?

In conclusion, and as mentioned in the last post, we can see where Islam in Europe and the Anglosphere is headed. With the exception of a few pockets here and there, it is rapidly being exposed as a fraud and farce. As Imam al-Bouti put it, may Allah have mercy on him, we were rejoicing at first, but now we are watching the Islamic presence in these countries being dissolved.

And with Allah is every success.

Related Articles:
Muslims and Infrastructure 

7 comments:

iDetective said...

السلام عليكم

Can a Muslim hold Office in a Muslim Majority State as one's beliefs will have to be subjected to the Constitution in that situation as well?

Mahdi Lock said...

Wa alaykum Assalaam,

Jazakum Allah khayran for writing.

It would depend on the nature of that constitution. If it's based on the Revealed Law then there wouldn't be an issue.

But how governance works in Islam is much deeper than this. Please read this article:

http://mahdinnm.blogspot.com/2016/02/authority-in-islam.html

Wassalaam,

Mahdi

Anonymous said...

No muslim should become US president only gonna be used,i think.Like obama.

Truth Seeker said...

Salaam Shaykh

I've been reading up on your website lately... and I gotta say, it is AMAZING! But, I have a question. On this particular article, you've recommended a person to view and read the Ahkam Al Sultaniyya by Imam Al Mawardi. In this work, it states that a Muslim combatant may "kill any mushrik combatant, whether he is fighting or not" and that a truce isn't permissible if there is no necessity. Although I am not intending to attack the Shafi'i scholar on this matter, but I've noticed that you state that Muslims are opposed to terrorism and terrorist attacks (which is very true). So keeping this in mind, I would like to know the Shafi'i position on making sulh or treaties with non-Muslim polities, is it done out of daroura (necessity) or can it be done out of mere interests (Maslaha)? What is the Shafi'i stance on who ought to be fought in a war? Are non-combatants (other than women and children) killed and etc? Please do provide detailed sources (and quotes) from Shafi'i literature.

JazakAllahu Khayr

Mahdi Lock said...

@Truth Seeker
Wa alaykum Assalaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
There are few things to bear in mind:
1) I mentioned Imam al-Mawardi's book because I was explaining how the rules of governance (war, peace, the judiciary etc.) are a part and parcel of Islam. Islam is NOT like Christianity and other religions. Please look at the context. Imam al-Mawardi’s book is an example of a book on these topics.
2) What does war have to do with terrorism? The former involves two armies fighting on a battlefield; the latter involves the killing and maiming of innocent people while they are going about their daily business.
3) You ask me for detailed sources and quotes but fail to provide even the page number for Imam al-Mawardi's quote. Nevertheless, it is on p.77 of the Arabic edition and it is as follows:
وَيَجُوزُ لِلْمُسْلِمِ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ مَنْ ظَفِرَ بِهِ مِنْ مُقَاتِلَةِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ مُحَارِبًا وَغَيْرَ مُحَارِبٍ
"It is permissible for the Muslim to kill whomever he seizes from among the idolater fighters, whether he is partaking in the fighting are not.”
When two armies go to war, not everyone involved is carrying a weapon and actually fighting. What about the people who are responsible for the weapons and other supplies? What about the people who are there to motivate the soldiers? What about the engineers and mechanics? What about those responsible for strategy and tactics? Please look up the term "war effort".
4) Your insinuation that I am contradicting my opposition to terrorism by mentioning that this book exists (and this book contains rules governing warfare and the above quote) is not appreciated, to say the least.
5) The English translation of Imam al-Mawardi’s book is completely devoid of footnotes, which makes it pretty much impossible for the reader to do further research. I would recommend that you read two books by Imam Muhammad Saeed Ramadan al-Bouti: Fiqh as-Seerah and al-Jihad fil-Islam: Kayfa Nafhamuhu wa Kayfa Namarisuhu. The English translations that are available can be improved but should be sufficient for what you are seeking.
And Allah knows best.
Wassalaam,
Mahdi

Truth Seeker said...

Jazak Allahu Khayr for your answer, Shaykh.
Few comments:
A) I am sorry if you felt like I am insinuating that you are making a contradiction, I do sincerely apologize. I should have just cut to the chase and query instead of building a starting point on an illogical analogy (i.e terrorism v warfare).
B) Please do forgive my shortcoming for providing references from Imam Al Mawardi's book
C) I understand that Islam has it's political aspects and etc (I never disagreed there). But to claim that Islam isn't like other religions in this regard of having political aspects is not correct. As Christianity was heavily involved in politics and wars (done in the name of the Church and the Christian religion), until liberal and secular ideals started to be adopted by the Christian nations. But the difference is that Islam is true and above all other religions.
D) I had asked the conditions and legality of the initiation of truces and peace treaties within the Shafi'i madhab (where or not they have to be done out of a necessity), I would appreciate an answer on that.
E) I will try to obtain and check out the references given

JazakAllahu Khayr.

Mahdi Lock said...

@Truth Seeker

Regarding C), read the article again, carefully. What I said is correct. I asked what legal systems and institutions Christians had that could compare to what the Muslims have. Then I addressed the issue of Muslims in the West being compared to Catholics and said that Catholics do not have the same legal and governance institutions that we do.

However, just like your great leap to equate war with terrorism, you conclude that I somehow claimed that Christianity has no political aspects whatsoever. Yes, Christians do have books on political theory and there is something called caesaropapism, but what they have is nowhere near as developed as what the Muslims have. Think about it. Our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, led armies in battle, set up a governance structure in Madinah and ruled over that territory and its people for a number of years. He resolved disputes between people, carried out judicial punishments, established a market, and so forth. We have a clear example in our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, of how all of these matters are to be carried out. The Christians do not.

Regarding D) and E), I have told you what you need to read.

As a final point, if you disagree with what I write on my blog, no one is stopping you from writing your own.