This is an excellent article on the constant and consistent watering down of Islam in the Anglosphere, and in this case it takes the form of how Muslims celebrate the Mawlid, which this year fell on Christmas Eve and therefore it was hard to distinguish the Christmas lights put up by Christians from the "Mawlid" lights put up by Muslims. The marches that some Muslims partake are also hard to distinguish for those that Christians partake in during Easter festivities. Here are Russian Orthodox Christians partaking in the Paschal Outdoor Procession:
If these people do indeed love the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as they claim, why not do something about the horrific crimes that have been committed by Muslims in their own communities, top of the list being the rape of white girls? Rochdale appears to have an even more serious problem than Birmingham. Doing something about forced marriages and honour killings would also help.
How is it possible to deal with dreams (aḥlām) and distinguish them from a vision (ruʾyā)[1]?
And what is your opinion on referring to the book Tafsīr al-Aḥlām[2] by Ibn Sirīn?
In the name of Allah; praise be to Allah
and blessings and peace be upon our master, Muḥammad, the Messenger of
Allah. To proceed:
Visions are of three categories:
The first are one’s own thoughts and
imaginings, and these are the images of the inner mind that a sleeping person
sees and they are connected to events that happened while one was awake, before
they went to sleep.
The second are confused dreams (aḍghāth al-aḥlām),[3]
and these are dreams that are unclear and incomprehensible. They have no
connection to any meaning or sound illustration, and no story of what’s
happening is manifested whatsoever.
The third are true visions, and these are
the visions that the sleeping person sees that are independent of any
connection to one’s thoughts and imaginings before sleep. They are the ones that
are more and more truthful the closer they are to the crack of dawn (fajr),
and the person who is more truthful in speech will have more truthful visions,
as is found in the authentic ḥadīth: {The most truthful of them in visions is the most truthful of
them in speech.} Related by al-Bukhārī, Muslim and Ibn Mājah.
As for relying on Ibn Sirīn’s book, there is no
harm in using it to gather information only, because the foundation of dream interpretation
is knowing the individual and his comportment and knowing the names, agnomens
and attributes that are extracted from the vision, in addition to the condition
that the interpreter be loving and favourably disposed,[4]
so that he interprets it in the best and most optimistic way possible.
Trousers are normal clothes nowadays; they’re not exclusive
to one nation from amongst all the others. However, it is not stipulated that
they be like the thawb, and they should not hang down on the ground. [This translation is now available from the English Naseem al-Sham site]
[1]
(tn): i.e. the garment that covers the lower half of the body
Exposing the fraudulent ruling of the European Council for Fatwa and Research
السؤال:
صدر عن
المجلس الأوروبي للافتاء والبحوث جواز شراء البيت بقرض ربوي في البلدان غير
الإسلامية استناداً إلى القاعدة الفقهية الضرورات تبيح المحظورات واستناداً إلى
قول الأحناف بجواز التعامل بالربا بادار الحرابة ودار الحرابة عند الأحناف البلاد غير الإسلامية كما ورد في الفتوى.
الجدير بالذكر أن كثيراً من المسلمين يعملون بهذه الفتوى وخصوصاً في أمريكا
والبلاد الأوربية. فما مدى صحة هذه الفتوى التي وافق عليها بعض العلماء
المعروفين على مستوى العالم الاسلامي ومن الذي يتحمل الذنب: العامل بالفتوى أم الذي أصدرها من علماء هذه الأمة؟
الجواب:
هذه
الفتوى التي راجت نقلاً عن المذهب الحنفي، كذب وافتئات عليهم. فالحنفية لم
يقولوا إن كل بلاد الكفر دار حرب. لو كان كذلك لوجب على المسلمين قتالهم جميعاً،
وحاشا أن يقول مسلم ذلك.دار الحرب هي التي أعلن إمام المسلمين الحرب عليها.
فيكون عندئذ ما يصلنا من أموالهم أثناء الحرب غنيمة لنا، وما يصلهم من أموالنا
غنيمة لهم. إذن فالتعامل الربوي محرم على المسلم في كل زمان وفي كل مكان. وعندما
تجد نفسك في دار الحرب تقاتل من يقاتلونك من الحربيين، فلكل حادث حديث ولكل
مشكلة حل.
The European Council for Fatwa and Research has declared it permissible to purchase a house using an interest-based loan in non-Islamic countries based on the juristic principle that necessities permit forbidden
matters (al-ḍarūrāt tubīḥ al-maḥẓūrāt)[1] and based on the statement
of the Ḥanafīs that it is permissible to deal in interest in Dar al-Ḥarb
(the Abode of War), and according to the Ḥanafīs Dar al-Ḥarb is non-Islamic
countries, as is mentioned in the fatwa.
It is worth mentioning that many Muslims act upon this fatwa, especially
in America and in European countries.
Thus, to what extent is this fatwa, which has been agreed upon by some
scholars who are well-known in the Muslim world, valid and who bears the sin:
the one who acts upon the fatwa or the scholars from this Ummah who issued it?
Answer (from Imam Muḥammad Saʿīd Ramaḍān al-Būṭī, may Allah have mercy
on him):
This fatwa that has circulated and been attributed to the Ḥanafī madhab
is a lie and an act of oppression against them, for the Ḥanafīs do not say that
every land of disbelief (kufr) is Dar al-Ḥarb. If that were the case
then it would be obligatory upon the Muslims to fight all of them, and may a
Muslim be far from saying such a thing. Dar al-Ḥarb refers to a country that
the Imam of the Muslims has declared war against, and thus whatever of their
wealth that reaches us during that time is war booty for us and whatever
reaches them of our wealth is war booty for them. Therefore, dealing in
interest is impermissible for a Muslim in every time and in every place. When
you find yourself in Dar al-Ḥarb you fight the combatants who fight you. Every
event has a discussion and every problem has a solution.
By
Imam Wahbah Az-Zuḥaylī, may Allah have mercy on him
Linguistically,
ḍarūrah, as Al-Jurjānī has said in his Taʿrīfāt, is derived from
the word ḍarar[1],
and it is something that befalls one and cannot be repelled.
Terminologically,
it has many approximate meanings, including what has been stated by Al-Jaṣāṣ,
Abū Bakr Ar-Rāzī: ‘It is fear of harm or the destruction of oneself or some of
one’s limbs as a result of not eating.’[2]
There
is also the expression of some contemporaries: ‘A ḍarūrah is more difficult to repel
than a ḥājjah, for a ḍarūrah is that which if one goes against it
the consequence is danger, such as being forced to seek refuge and fearing that
one will die of starvation. It is not a condition that destruction[3]
be realised by refraining from that which is prohibited. Rather, it suffices
that refraining would lead to unbearable weakness, or some harm to one’s
health.’[4]
The
outward purport of this definition of ḍarūrah is heading towards the
necessity of food and medicine, and other things can be analogically deduced from
that. Its general rule is that it is everything that would lead to harm or
danger to one’s person if one were to go against it, and so forth, and could
possibly lead to destruction.
As
for ḥājjah, it is more general than ḍarūrah, and it is that which
if not responded to will lead to distress and difficulty, or some hardship or
adversity that will not lead to destruction.
As
for maṣlaḥah, it is the benefit that the Wise Lawgiver intends for His
slaves by preserving their Dīn, their lives, their intellects, their
lineage and their wealth according to a specific sequence that they have in
relation to one another.[5]
The
difference between ḍarūrah and ḥājjah is from two angles:
The
first is that ḍarūrah is based on an action that must
be done in order for one to fulfill their responsibility, and a person simply
can’t leave it off. As for ḥājjah, it is based on expansion and
facilitation with regards to something that a person can leave off.
Thus,
the furnishing of man’s needs falls under the category of ḍarūrah, such
as clothing, shelter and refuge are from necessities (ḍarūrīyāt). Thus, the guardian of a minor
must fulfill these needs for him, even if he has to sell real estate belonging
to the minor. As for getting the minor married or teaching him, these merely
fall under ḥājjah, and as a result of that, the Ḥānafīs hold that
marrying off a young girl can only be done by means of the father or the
grandfather and with a dowry that is similar to that of other women like her
and she is married to someone who is suitable.
The
second is that the exceptional rulings that are affirmed by ḍarūrah
are by and large rulings of temporary permissibility for something that is
forbidden and its prohibition in the Revealed Law is clear and text-based.[6]
As for the rulings that are based on ḥājjah,
in most cases they do not contradict a clear text. Rather, most of the rulings
of the Revealed Law that are found in their regard contradict analogy[7],
due to them being based on ḥājjah. Thus, they contradict general
principles as opposed to a text, and in most cases the ruling is fixed therein
and it bears the attribute of permanence and constancy. The one in need
benefits from it as well as others.
The
rulings that are established for ḥājjah can be like the rulings that are
established for ḍarūrah and thus temporarily permit something that is
forbidden and contradict the forbidding text, such as instances of special ḥājjah
that fall under the category of ḍarūrah.
[Translated
from Qaḍāyā Al-Fiqh wa Al-Fikr Al-Muʿāṣir (Damascus: Dar Al-Fikr, 2008)
v.2, p.100-101]
[2]Aḥkām Al-Qurʿān, 1/150 and what follows. See also Kashf
Al-Asrār by Al-Bazdawī, 4/1518, Al-Qawānīn Al-Fiqhiyya by Ibn Juzay,
p.173, Ash-Sharḥ Al-Kabīr by Ad-Dardīr, 2/115, Qawāʾid Az-Zarkashī (Al-Manthūr fī Tartīb Al-Qawāʾīd
Al-Fiqhiyya) manuscript 137, no.8543, Al-Maktaba Az-Ẓāhiriyya in Damasus, Al-Mughnī
8/595, Mughnī Al-Muḥtāj 4/306
The unmentioned consequences of remaining in the EU
In this remarkably concise speech, author Frederick Forsyth makes it clear that remaining in the EU, i.e. after the referendum, would not mean that the status quo would continue. Serious concessions will have to be made. As things stand, the United Kingdom is not a fully committed member; it's not a part of the Eurozone and it's not part of Schengen, which are the two pillars of the European Union. If the UK votes to remain in the EU, it will be understood as a vote to "be at the heart of Europe", and thus the United Kingdom will inevitably have to sign up to both.
However, Forsyth brings up a third pillar (and thus future concession) that the European Union is currently working towards, and that is corpus juris, i.e. the unification of the criminal codes in all jurisprudences right across the continent. Corpus juris is based on the Napoleonic Code and is thus radically different from Anglosphere, common law.
While the shock and horror following Donald Trump's statement on Muslim immigration to the US continues, there are a few points that are being ignored or played down at best:
3) Syed Farook, who committed the latest atrocity along with his wife, was a US citizen, which means that Daesh have infected and brainwashed people who don't even need visas to enter the US. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that Farook and his wife were planning something much bigger.
5) The opportunity to crush and deal Salafiyyah and the Brotherhood a fatal blow came and went after the attacks of September 11, 2001. After years of promoting Sunni Islam (what they call "traditional Islam") in the US and Anglosphere in the 1990s (see here and here), prominent figures of western Sunni Islam did a complete 180-degree turn and decided to embrace Salafiyyah and the Brotherhood under the banner of unity. They should have made it crystal clear that is what this false theology and fiqh leads to, i.e. murder and mayhem, death and destruction, but they did the exact opposite, and therefore "they have done precisely nothing to help America rid this country of their lethal coreligionists". You reap what you sow. There is no proof that Orthodox Muslims should unite with cults and people of innovation when threatened by the disbelievers. In fact, the opposite is true. Imam Salah ud-Deen al-Ayubi, may Allah have mercy on him, took an army past the Crusaders in Palestine and removed the Fatimids from power in Egypt first. The internal enemy always has to be dealt with first, not embraced.
As as side note, fiqh of minorities and uniting with cultists and innovators has led to a new form of Islam in the Anglosphere, and especially in the US. We should note that the Jews, the Ummah that most resembles us, are broken down into three groups: orthodox, conservative and reform. Conservative Judaism in Israel, Germany and the UK is known as Masorti, which is Hebrew for "traditional". "Traditional" Islam is the forerunner, and Allah knows best, of what will eventually become Conservative Islam, an "Islam" that pays respect to classical scholarship but believes that the rules and principles of the religion are subject to "the age we live in". Therefore, expediency can be used as an excuse to create fiqh of minorites instead of adhering to the firmly established principle of emigration (hijrah). Fighing cultists with the pen and the sword can be left aside for the sake of "unity".
Are Orthodox Muslims pushing Muslims in the Anglosphere in that direction? No. Actually, "Traditional" Muslims made the threat to "go it alone" as early as 2006:
Whatever we do, as Muslims in the West, we may be approaching the day when we will have to go it alone. If our coreligionists in the East cannot respect the fact that we are trying to accomplish things here in the West, and that their oftentimes ill-considered actions undermines that work in many instances, then it will be hard for us to consider them allies.
But apart from one Mauritanian scholar, who told them to embrace "fiqh of minorities" wholeheartedly? Did they not consider that this would create obvious discrepancies between Muslims in the Anglosphere and Muslims in traditional Muslim heartlands?
The conspiracy between the Islamists and the Progressive Left I would like to thank al-Hajj Abu Ja'far al-Hanbali for bringing these videos to my attention. After watching both of them, a much clearer picture has come into view:
Tommy Robinson's presentation, from what I can see, displays two
major problems:
1) The spread of
Salafiyyah (and the usual sympathy and support for terrorism) in communities
all over the UK along with the majority of Muslims, or Muslim organisations
(who also tend to be Salafi and/or linked to the Muslim Brotherhood), doing
little or nothing to stop it. Please seethis
postfor more details.
2) The complicity
of the government (especially the police and local councils) and the media,
which is by and large progressive and liberal, such as the BBC.
Mr Robinson
repeatedly gives examples of what he calls a "two-tier justice
system", in other words, there is one set of laws for Muslims (and
especially Islamists) and another set of laws for everyone else. The horrific scale of the grooming and raping of English girls, over decades, and the subsequent handling of it by the government and media is one example. Also in the
presentation, please watch from 40:00. On a Remembrance Sunday, around the
corner from a service to mark the occasion, some psychologically
disturbed Muslims had the gall to go out on the streets, burn poppies and bark
like dogs, "British troops, burn in Hell". They obviously didn't have
a fiqh class to attend, some Qur'an to memorise, some poor people to feed or
anything remotely constructive to do that day. They weren't searched before
their so-called protest and they weren't arrested during it, as is the usual
case with the EDL, for example.
The BBC did not
report this incident, the police didn't want to stop it and so when Mr Robinson
tried to stop it himself he was arrested for assaulting a police officer, but
there is video footage showing that he was only taking the black flag down, out
of a Muslim's hand. Forcefully, yes, but he was not assaulting any police
officer. The BBC, as expected, put out the headline "EDL leader assaults
police officer", but nothing of the sort happened, and indeed, when Mr
Robinson produced the video footage in court all charges were dropped. However,
eight weeks later he was re-arrested and charged, unbelievably, with causing
"alarm and distress" to those Muslim protesters.
As Mr Robinson repeatedly asks in his presentation, what would you
do? How would you feel? He also points out many good things that Muslims have
done, such as helping people after psychologically disturbed Muslims have thrown
beer kegs and bricks through their windows. He also mentions that 50% of
Muslims in the UK state that they don't feel represented by
"mainstream" Muslim organisations, such as the Muslim Council of
Britain, which is a Brotherhood front organisation. This is a positive statistic,
as it means that the grip of the Brotherhood and Salafiyyah is not that strong.
To understand more about the Brotherhood and how they operate in the
Anglosphere, have a look atthis documentary.
Muslims are thus duped into thinking that the government and the media are on their side, but they're not. The truth is that Muslims are being duped, manipulated and exploited from both sides, from the Islamists on the one hand and the progressive left government and media on the other, and both seek to stir up resentment and hatred. For example, as Mr Robinson deftly points out, it is local councils that ban the cross of St George from being displayed on taxis or demand that Christmas be renamed "winter festival", and they do so on the pretext that Muslims might be offended, but no Muslim has ever raised the issue, let alone claimed to be offended by it. Nonetheless, the result is that many Christians direct their ire at Muslims.
Muslims in the UK, and the Anglosphere in general, do not want to fall into the same trap that blacks in the United States have fallen into, i.e. believing thatthe progressive left actually care about themand that the political route (i.e. getting blacks into government and positions of influence),as opposed to the economic route (i.e. starting businesses and creating jobs), is the way out of their woeful condition.
Therefore, the way forward is to squash Salafiyyah, ignore "mainstream" Muslim organisations (they are mostly Brotherhood fronts and they have no real knowledge of Islam), ignore the BBC and other progressive mouthpieces like the Guardian (they're narcissists and they care about their egos first and foremost), stop whinging to the government about being offended, and squash reprehensible aspects ofculture, such asforced marriages, honour killings, rape and rape gangs, acid throwing, paedophilia etc. These things are sick and disgusting, and those who find them to be sick and disgusting are not racist or "Islamophobic".
Over the next 10 days, 140 world leaders – including Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and David Cameron – will descend on Paris to join 40,000 delegates at the UN’s COP21 climate conference.
Here is why they might just as well not have bothered.
So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming.
As they have been for the last five decades, during which time their population has increased roughly five-fold. So why does the IUCN still classify them as “vulnerable”? Because the environmentalists needed a cute, fluffy white poster-child for their “the animals are dying and it’s all our fault” campaign, and the snail darter and the California delta smelt just didn’t cut it. So various tame conservation biologists came up with all sorts of nonsense about how polar bear populations were dwindling and how the melting of the ice floes would jeopardize their ability to feed themselves etc. How can you tell a conservation biologist is lying? When his lips move.
3. Antarctica is growing.
According to the greenies, this just wasn’t meant to happen. But it is. Even NASA admits this.
4. The Maldives aren’t sinking
Or, if they are, their government is responding in a very odd way. Just a few years back, they were staging photos of their Cabinet meeting underwater to symbolize how threatened they were by “climate change” – a problem that could only be cured, apparently, with the donation of large sums of guilt money from rich Western industrialized nations. But a few months ago they completed work on their 11th international airport. So that all the climate refugees caused by global warming can escape quickly, presumably.
5. Ocean acidification is a myth
If I were an eco-Nazi I would seriously think about killing myself at this point. Ocean acidification was supposed to be their Siegfried Line – the final line of defense if, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, “anthropogenic global warming” theory proved to be a busted flush. But it turns out that ocean acidification is as big a myth as man-made climate change. a) it’s based on dubious, possibly even fraudulent, research and b) if anyone’s acidifying the ocean it’s those wretched bloody coral reefs…
6. The alarmist climate scientists are talentless low-lives who cannot be trusted
Possibly there are exceptions to this rule, somewhere. But just look at NASA GISS, NOAA and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia/Hadley Centre at the Met Office – three of the main organizations responsible for maintaining the world’s temperature data sets.
NASA has been caught red handed turning cooling trends into warming trends. NOAA is currently under Congressional investigation for its mendacious, politicised attempts to pretend that the “Pause” in global warming doesn’t exist. The CRU was ground zero of theClimategate scandal. The Met Office is a joke. Yet these shysters have the gall to demand that the world’s leaders take urgent action on the basis of their dodgy data.
7. Winter Is Coming
Sunspot activity is diminishing in a manner worryingly similar to that experienced during the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) when ice fairs were staged on the River Thames and the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) which gave us Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow and the Year Without A Summer. Some scientists are predicting the imminent return of a Little Ice Age.
8. CO2 is greening the planet
The Sahel region in Africa is getting greener and more fertile. This is something we should be celebrating, not trying clumsily and expensively to prevent.
9. There has been no increase in “extreme weather events”.
Who says so? The IPCC in its most recent Assessment Report. Droughts, heatwaves, heavy rain events, cyclones, storms: they just haven’t increased in the alarmists assured us they would.
10. People are losing interest in global warming.
A) they don’t believe it’s a real threat, b) they keep being reminded of things that ARE real threats
11. $1.5 trillion is a lot of money to pay every year for a problem that doesn’t exist
This, according to Climate Change Business Journal, is how much it costs every year to “combat climate change.” $1,500,000,000,000 may not sound like a lot of money when the world’s polar bears, not to mention “the children of the future” are at stake. But you’d be surprised: spend $1,500,000,000,000 here and $1,500,000,000,000 there and pretty soon you’re talking serious money.
12. It will make (almost) no difference
If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they will make in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C.
Oh – and that’s the optimistic scenario, calculated by Bjorn Lomborg, assuming that countries like, say, China don’t lie or cheat about how much CO2 they’re burning secretly.
His more pessimistic – ie more realistic – scenario is that the best we can hope for is a reduction in global warming by the end of the century of 0.048 degrees C.
This temperature reduction – five hundredths of one degree – is so small as to be almost immeasurable. But if you want to know what it feels like, Willis Eschenbach has done the calculations. It’s the equivalent of walking five metres higher up a mountain. Or, if you prefer, climbing two flights of stairs.
