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 

Tuesday, 29 September 2015

The Muslim Boy Who Cried "Clock"

And the "Islamophobia" agenda

Before getting into the matter at hand, I would advise readers to refer to Imam Muhammad Saeed Ramadan al-Bouti's article entitled 'Fatawa that Appear Islamic But Actually Serve the West' in order to get a fuller picture of the political agenda and party politics that lurks behind a great deal of Muslim activity in the Anglosphere and Europe. In short, it is the Muslim Brotherhood top-down approach, which is to put Muslims in influential positions, such as the media, academia and government, and slowly but surely impose Islam (or what they think Islam is) from above.

Yes, they are blissfully ignorant of the fact that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and him and grant him peace, never tried to spread the faith in such a way. His way is the opposite, which is to invite people to Islam at the grassroots. Inviting implies voluntary will and therefore there is none of this bitterness and resentment that the wider population rightfully expresses, which is that they are not Muslims, they don't live in Muslim-majority countries, so why should they be made to obey branch issues of the Revealed Law, from page 3 of the Sun newspaper to drawing cartoons?

It is not the duty of the law, especially in Anglosphere countries, to protect citizens from insult and abuse. (As a side note, Muslims should really read the book How We Invented Freedom by Daniel Hannan in order to comprehensively grasp Anglosphere culture and jurisprudence.) If the law were to attempt to do so, tyranny would be the inevitable result. Does it not occur to Muslims in the Anglosphere, when they ask for legal protection after legal protection, that they too can be beaten with the same stick? What if Jews and homosexuals claimed to be offended by certain verses in the Qur'an? By the very same logic, the Qur'an would have be to be banned, or at the very least those verses would have to be banned or prohibited from being quoted in public. Why can't Muslims just take full advantage of free speech, get a stiff upper lip, grow thicker skin and boldly preach the faith? If this strategy (if that's what indeed it is) persists, preaching Islam will eventually be outlawed in these countries, which would in turn defeat any justification that Muslims have for abiding there. When preaching the faith to atheists, Christians, Jews or whoever, or by simply living amongst them, you have to be prepared for the fact that they too will preach their faith. It's not bullying. It's not harassment. There's no need to run crying to the authorities. Preach your faith and thank Allah that you have someone in your workplace who challenges you.

Anyway, once the above is understood, the Ahmed Mohammed story, in a which a Muslim boy in Texas supposedly did nothing but bring a homemade clock to school in order to impress his teachers and was subsequently arrested on suspicion of bringing in a hoax bomb, can be seen for what it really is: a political move that is part of the larger political agenda. Stefan Molyneux sums it up very nicely at the top, and one can also look at these short videos:

As for certain people simply not liking Islam, or hating it passionately, this is something that Muslims have to wake up to and accept because Allah has told us about this in the Qur'an. Please have a look at Surat al-Baqara 2:120, Surat Aal Imran 3:186 and Surat Muhammad 47:9. Islam is not a big, white, fluffy teddy bear that is supposed to be loved and adored by all and sundry.

In conclusion, stories like this and others that have been referred to above should serve as a reminder that Islam in Dar al-Kufr, and especially the Anglosphere, with very few exceptions, is rapidly being exposed for the fraud and farce that it truly is.

And with Allah is every success.

Ahmed Mohamed: Next Stop Qatar

Related Articles:
Muslims and Infrastructure

Friday, 18 September 2015

Dhūl Ḥijjah, the Day of ʿArafah and Fasting

Dhūl Ḥijjah, the Day of ʿArafah and Fasting

By Imam Wahbah Az-Zuḥaylī, may Allah have mercy on him[1]

…As for the ten days of Dhūl Ḥijjah, al-Bayhaqī has related on the authority of Jābir, who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “By the dawn, and ten nights” [al-Fajr 89:1-2], {The ten is the ten of the sacrifice, the day is the Day of ʿArafah and the even (shafʿ)[2] is the Day of the Immolation (yawm an-nar).}

Ibn ʿAbbās explained “By the dawn” to be the dawn of the daytime “and ten nights” to be the ten of the sacrifice. Regarding “is there not in that an oath for the intelligent?”, he said, ‘those who have discernment’.

Masrūq said, ‘The ten is the ten of the sacrifice which Allah, Mighty and Majestic, promised Mūsā, peace be upon him, and we have completed them with ten.’

Al-Bukhārī and al-Bayhaqī have related on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he said, {There are no days more beloved to Allah in which to do good deeds and none better than these ten days.} They said: ‘And not even to strive[3] in God’s way?’ He said: {Not even to strive in God’s way, except for a man who strives with his life and his wealth and then doesn’t come back with anything.}’

Ibn ʿAbbās added, ‘Therefore, increase therein in tahlīl,[4] tamīd,[5] takbīr[6] and tasbīḥ.’[7]

Al-Bayhaqī has related on the authority of Ibn ʿUmar, who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, {There are no better days according to Allah, and there are no days that I love to do good deeds in more than these ten, so increase therein in tahlīl, takbīr and tamīd.}’

Al-Bayhaqī has related on the authority of some of the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, would fast the nine days of Dhūl ijjah, the day of ʿĀshūrāʾ and three days of every month: the first Monday of the month and two Thursdays.

Al-Bayhaqī has also related in his Shuʿab on the authority of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘{The master of the months is the month of Ramaḍān, and the greatest of them in sanctity (ḥurmah) is Dhūl Ḥijjah.}’

And there is al-Bayhaqī’s narration on the authority of Abū Hurayrah, who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, {There are no days in this worldly life in which Allah loves to be worshipped through deeds more than these ten days; fasting every day therein is equivalent to fasting a year and standing in every one of its nights is equivalent to standing in the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr).}’ This ḥadīth is proof that fasting every day of the ten days of Dhūl Ḥijjah[8] is equivalent to fasting a year.

In another narration of al-Bayhaqī, it is on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, {There are no better days according to Allah, and there are no days in which good deeds are more beloved to Allah, Mighty and Majestic, than these ten days, so increase therein in tahlīl, takbīr and the dhikr of Allah, for indeed they are the days of tahlīl, takbīr and the dhikr of Allah. Fasting one of these days is equivalent to fasting a year and good deeds therein are multiplied seven hundred times.} This ḥadīth is proof of the Sunnah virtue of fasting the ten days of Dhūl Ḥijjah.

Fasting the Day of ʿArafah, Muḥarram and ʿĀshūrāʾ

The Prophetic Sunnah has emphasised fasting the Day of ʿArafah (al-Waqfah), Allah’s sacred month of al-Muḥarram and ʿĀshūrāʾ because of the virtues and distinctions that lie therein. As for fasting the Day of ʿArafah and commending it, this is due to the Exalted’s statement: “and the witness and the witnessed” [al-Burūj 85:3]. It has been related from Abū Hurayrah, marfūʿan[9] and mawqūfan,[10] that the witnessed is the Day of ʿArafah.

Al-Bayhaqī has related in his Shuʿab, on the authority of Abū Hurayrah, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, {The best of days according to Allah is Friday, which is the witness, while the witnessed is the Day of ʿArafah and the Promised Day is the Day of Resurrection.}[11]

Muslim has narrated on the authority of Abū Qatādah that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, {For fasting the day of ʿĀshūrāʾ, I expect that Allah expiate the sins of the year that preceded it.} In another narration, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, informs us, {Fasting the Day of ʿArafah is expiation for a year, as well as the one that follows it, while fasting the day of ʿĀshūrāʾ is expiation for a year.}

ʿĀʾishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said, ‘There is no day in the year that I love to fast more than the Day of ʿArafah.’[12]

Al-Bayhaqī has narrated in his Shuʿab on the authority of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, on the authority of his father, on the authority of his grandfather, who said, ‘The supplication that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, made the most on the Day of ʿArafah was: {There is no god but Allah alone, He has no partner. He has the Dominion and He deserves all Praise, and He has power over everything.}’[13]

Al-Bayhaqī has also narrated in his Shuʿab on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, who said, ‘The specific days (al-ayām al-maʿlūmāt)[14] are the ten days and the designated days (al-ayām al-maʿdūdāt)[15] are the days of tashrīq.’[16]

Related Posts:

[1] (tn): Translated from the Imam’s book Uṣūl al-Īmān wa al-Islām (Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, 2008), v.1, p.485-487
[2] (tn): Sūrat al-Fajr 89:3
[3] Ar. jihād
[4] (tn): i.e. saying la ilāha illa Allah
[5] (tn): i.e. saying al-ḥamdu lillāh
[6] (tn): i.e. saying Allahu akbar
[7] (tn): i.e. saying subḥān Allah
[8] (tn): apart from the day of ʿĪd, which is the 10th
[9] (tn): i.e. its chain of transmission is traceable back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace
[10] (tn): i.e. attributed to a Companion and the Companion did not attribute it to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace
[11] (tn): Please refer to al-Burūj 85:1-3
[12] Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in as-Sunan al-Kubrā
[13] Ar. La ilaha illa Allah, waḥdahu, la sharīka lah, lahu al-mulk, wa lahu al-ḥamd wa huwa ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr
[14] Please see al-Ḥajj 22:28: “…and invoke Allah’s name on specific days…”
[15] Please see al-Baqarah 2:203: “Remember Allah on the designated days…”
[16] (tn): i.e. the three days that follow the ʿĪd of the Sacrifice

Thursday, 10 September 2015

The Absurdities of the EU

This video summarises them wonderfully

Office trunks: a symbol of Euro-immoblism

This short video succinctly demonstrates how, as always, big government leads to stunning waste and abuse. The EU, like the Soviet Union and countless other bureaucratic fantasies before it, has inevitably come to this.

Related Posts:

Saturday, 5 September 2015

Migrants and Refugees

A few articles and videos worth sharing

These articles provide a rather unique perspective, which is sympathy for the refugees and migrants who have made such a harrowing journey while realising that the only practical way to stop the crisis is to stop the boats and thereby stop the nasty business of people smuggling, which is what the Australians did a few years ago

But this article asks a very important question: why aren't the Islamic Gulf states taking Syrian refugees?

It is indeed sad and abhorrent that Muslim refugees have to look outside of Dar al-Islam for refuge. Why are Europeans seemingly more welcoming? I don't want to talk about heartlessness but rather basic economic fact. It's like this:

1) Migrants  are of two kinds: migrants for jobs and migrants for welfare. Refugees are fleeing war, persecution, natural disaster etc., but wherever they end up, they will either be working or on welfare. It should be obvious that those who work (or even set up businesses) are a boon to the local economy; they provide goods and services that are in demand and if they set up businesses they will also provide jobs.

2) Providing goods and services and creating jobs has nothing to do with nationality or whatever funky writing one has on one's passport. Ink and pages is nothing but ink and pages. A car manufacturer benefits those who need cars. A barber benefits those who need haircuts. An Arabic teacher benefits those who want to learn Arabic. A doctor benefit the sick. There seems to be this fantasy in the Arab world (and maybe elsewhere) that a British passport holder will always benefit the British economy, with every transaction he makes, wherever in the world he may be. A Saudi passport holder will always help the Saudi economy; a Kuwaiti will always help the Kuwaiti economy etc. Therefore, if a migrant worker in a Gulf country sends money home (money that he has earned through voluntary trade), this is something to be horrified at,  but if a citizen of a Gulf country spends his holiday in America or Europe and presumably spends money earned in his home country, this is perfectly acceptable and draws no attention whatsoever, let alone criticism.

3) Goods and services are one and the same. If an English teacher in Morocco earns money and then goes back to the United Kingdom for a holiday with that money (or transfers that money home), that's not "foreigners taking money out of the country". That's a worker doing what he wants with his money, money that he earned from a voluntary, lawful transaction. Every time a Moroccan, Egyptian, Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti etc. buys a Ford Taurus, a Toyota Corolla, an iPhone, an MacBook etc, this is Saudi/Qatari/Kuwaiti etc. money going out of the country, is it not? In the case of the teacher, they get a service in return. In the case of cars, phones and laptops, they get goods in return. There's a word for this in English: trade. I don't think it's such a hard concept to grasp.

4) Illegal workers are never a harm to a country's economy. Because of their legal status, they can't claim welfare or engage in any other sort of parasitic activity. To get by, they have no choice but to provide goods and services that people demand, from cleaning and waiting tables to stacking shelves and fixing cars. Whatever they do, they have to meet people's demands or they can't stay. Their legal status is just ink and paper, like their passports. It has no bearing on reality. 

This is the basic economics of the matter. As for the more detailed economics, for example how skilled labourers from various Muslim countries could actually help Gulf countries diversify their economies, that's for another discussion.

As for the religious side of things, I think it's quite obvious. Why should Muslims look at other Muslims as if they were foreigners? Ideally, any law-abiding Muslim should feel welcome anywhere in Dar al-Islam. Faith is supposed to be thicker than blood.

And with Allah is every success.