Answer: (Imam
Wahbah az-Zuḥaylī, may Allah have mercy on him) It has no basis, because whatever is lawful in Dar al-Islam is lawful in Dar al-Ḥarb, and whatever is unlawful is Dar al-Islam is unlawful in Dar al-Ḥarb. It is because of ‘fiqh of minorities’ that some people in recent times have tried to facilitate matters, and thus declare usury[1] and other matters lawful.
Translated from the book Fatāwā al-ʿAṣr (Beirut: Dār al-Khayr, 1426/2005), p.227
[1] For more on this matter please Imam Muhammad at-Taʾwīl’s book on usury and bank interest, which has been translated into English and will be published in the near future, if Allah so wills.
Thoughts on how Islam in the Anglosphere is only about identifying as a Muslim, and therefore not about objective standards and criteria. This is postmodernism in action.
Yet again, the lunatic left and Anglosphere Muslims are in hysterics over the supposed "Muslim" ban, even though it is nothing like what was proposed just over a year ago.
1) This is the full text of the executive order and this is how it will be implemented by the Department of Homeland Security. There is no specific mention of Islam or Muslims but rather seven countries that have Muslim majority populations. Reading the president's own statement would also be helpful. (Curiously, the full text of the executive order is not on White House website. Could this be the reason?)
2) Please watch this video. Virtue signalling is not the same as actually being virtuous.
3) Please read this article, which is packed full of information. The seven countries on the list were actually selected by the Obama administration under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.
7) This is not an argument. Such a statement implies that all Muslims are so psychopathic that the mere act of banning them from entering a country turns them into terrorists. Sounds a bit "Islamophobic", no? You have to stop and look at the complete idiocy of leftist logic. If it is perfectly normal for any Muslim to turn to terrorism when offended, would it not be better to keep them out? If Trump is "literally Hitler", why would anyone protest for the right to enter the country he leads? How come no one is fleeing the United States? What happened to all those American, "anti-racist" celebrities who promised to leave the United States if Trump became president, and migrate not to Mexico or Venezuela or Morocco but to majority white, Christian countries like Canada and New Zealand? And so on and so forth. It's not about logic, it's about emotion.
In conclusion, you can't take the left seriously and you can't take the mainstream media seriously. They are just toying with people's emotions for the sake of their agenda.
UPDATE (07/19/2019): The video below has been removed from YouTube, so I have added the video above, which more or less covers the same points.
The video above is a brief summary of the ideology known as cultural Marxism, which appears to be the dominant ideology of the globalists as they seek to establish some form of global governance. As opposed to classical Marxism, which pits the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, cultural Marxism pits minorities (who are understood to be "oppressed" and "under-privileged") against the majority (who are understood to be the "oppressors" and "privileged"). In Europe and the Anglosphere, the majority is represented by white people, traditional families, heterosexuals, those who are not transgender (now called "cisgender") and, of course, Christians.
Therefore, non-white people, and especially blacks (e.g. Black Lives Matters) are used to demonise and attack whites. Homosexuality and transgenderism are promoted heavily on TV and in motion pictures. And you can guess what religious group is being used to attack and undermine Christianity. That would be Muslims, obviously, as they make up the dominant minority religious group. The current European migrant crisis, in which mainly Muslim men from Africa, the Arab world and the Indian subcontinent are flocking to the European Union in droves, fits into this plan well as it undermines both Christianity and white European culture in general, even though migrating to Europe is not what Muslims have been commanded to do.
While the video above concludes that the outcome of cultural Marxism will be the marginalisation of traditional European culture, one could take it further and see that cultural Marxism ultimately seeks to destroy the family, because the family is the main barrier between the individual and the state. If the family can be broken, especially by removing fathers from the picture, people are forced to turn to the state as provider and caregiver. This is exactly what has happened to blacks in the United States since the expansion of the welfare state:
The welfare state destroyed what the transatlantic crossing, slavery, the civil war, the Great Depression, and two world wars could not: the black family:
Tragically, Muslims in the Anglosphere and especially the US are following down the same path, believing that they are loved and respected by those in power when in actual fact they are being used and exploited (through political correctness, promotion of victim mentality etc.) for much greater political and ideological ends. The video below is a more detailed explanation of cultural Marxism:
Please note what the speaker says about Wikipedia's page on cultural Marxism. It used to exist, but is now called 'the cultural Marxist conspiracy theory' and is merely a short paragraph on the page about the Frankfurt School. This was also explained by Vox Day, and thus he went on to set up Infogalactic, where the original page can now be found. Wikipedia has thus itself become a tool of cultural Marxism.
Another thing we can glean from this video is that if cultural Marxism were active in the
Muslim world, for example, it would seek to undermine Islam and would be
promoting minority religions in the process, most likely Christianity.
Cultural Marxists, being ardent atheists, couldn't care less about any religion or its adherents. To them, religion, nationality, gender, race etc. are all social constructs and thus wholly arbitrary, and therefore there are no objective standards.
What is indeed very sad is that Muslims are supposed to be conservative. To give a few examples, (in addition to being religious):
In other words, apart from the occasional anti-war march (which, oddly enough, only take place when the American president is a Republican), we have nothing in common with the progressive left. They are nice to Muslims and they use sweet words, but this is only because it suits the ends of their sick ideology. Are any leftists protesting now as Hillary Clinton and her cronies threaten war with Russia? Do Muslims in the Anglosphere and especially the US even care (or do they even know?) that Hillary and her cronies are responsible for destroying large parts of the Muslim world, such as Libya, Iraq and Syria? Apparently not. And with nuclear war between the United States and Russia becoming increasingly likely (may Allah protect us all), followers of "AmerIslam" don't seem too worried about the prospects of glowing green for the next millennium and being visible from Alpha Centauri. But this is the effect of cultural Marxism: it mesmerises and brainwashes. Why are Anglosphere Muslims being brainwashed and herded like cattle? It's not hard to understand when one realises that they have detached themselves from the authorities and therefore do not listen to them. It's also easy to be brainwashed if you believe that your passions and desires will be fulfilled, e.g. the higher standard of living that is to be found in the United States and the Anglosphere compared to most Muslim countries.
The video above mentions brainwashing but also talks about religion in general, in addition to Christianity. Christianity is the main target because it is the dominant religion of the capitalist west, not because it is Christianity per se. Religion is an obstacle for cultural Marxism because, like the family, a religious community is a major source of support for the individual, and the objective of Marxism is for every individual to depend on the government. This means that if Muslims were to become the majority religious group in any Anglosphere or European country, they would then be targeted because they would be an obstacle to that objective. In essence, it's a trap. Muslims in the Anglosphere and Europe are being used as and treated like "useful idiots".
Assalaam alaykum, I would like you to advise me in a fiqhī[1] matter. I am
a Syrian citizen residing in France and everyone knows that the French government has
declared war, openly and unequivocally, against my country Syria and its people,
and the one in charge of our beloved country has declared that France is at war
with our beloved country. I have a commitment with the French government in that
they give me the right of residence and there is an agreement between me and
them, based on the fatwā of my
master, the Sheikh, the late martyr, Muḥammad Saʿīd Ramaḍān al-Būṭī. I
am in France and I do not have any profession or manual vocation. I am not
proficient in anything but trade, and by Allah’s grace, I am successful in
commercial matters. The issue is that the French government is at war with my country,
so is it permissible for me to co-operate with them or take a loan from the
bank in order to help my commerce with the knowledge that I am dealing with them
as Allah has commanded, i.e. to treat them well, and not take them as allies? Please benefit me and may Allah reward you with every goodness.
Answer (from Sheikh Muḥammad Tawfīq
Ramaḍān):
Wa alaykum Assalaam,
It is within your capacity to return
to your country in order to guarantee that you are far from the violations
of the Revealed Law that you are exposed to over there. This is with respect to
you, let alone your family if you have a family and your children if you have
children.
How the left plays blacks, and lessons for Muslims
In this short video, Prof Sowell again explains, with a concrete example, how government planning (which may or may not have good intentions) ends up hurting the people it purportedly aims to help. The example here is that of Wards Cove Packing, a company that was taken to court and charged with discrimination for having more whites working in its higher positions and and more non-whites working in its lower positions. Despite perfectly reasonable explanations (i.e. location of the company, the fact that lower positions are mainly seasonal etc.) the case was successful. The result (or the 'unintended consequence') was that lawyers ended up advising companies not to hire blacks (or non-whites) in lower level positions unless they could hire blacks in higher positions first. In other words, or as Prof Sowell puts it, if you can't find any blacks to be engineers or managers, don't hire any blacks to be janitors or assembly line workers, because it will look bad. It will look like discrimination.
Prof Sowell then discusses the various countries that he mentions in his book, most of which he visited, including Malaysia, India, Australia, New Zealand and Fiji, to look at their governments' preferential policies. After that, he discusses differences in skills depending on where people come from. Germans, for example, are excellent at making pianos, regardless of where they live. Therefore, why do we expect different groups to do the same?
His favourite book is A Conflict of Visions, because in there he explains how people broadly fall into two categories of thinking, and thus if someone holds a certain view on one issue it is easy to predict what view they will hold concerning an entirely unrelated issue. For example, if someone is pro-abortion, they will most likely fall to the left ideologically, and therefore you can easily guess what their position will be regarding gun control or the welfare state.
The last segment of the video is the most interesting because therein he discusses what happens to those who go against the groupthink of the minority or group that they belong to, and this can apply to women, blacks, Muslims and so forth. These people are inevitably labelled as traitors, but in his case, Prof Sowell is not labelled as a traitor by all blacks but by the small class of black intellectuals and "community leaders" who portray themselves as spokesmen on behalf of their entire group. These people have huge invested interests in the various government programmes, and other deals, that are in place and therefore people like Sowell need to be demonised or at least ignored.
In the final minute, Prof Sowell draws the distinction between people like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, who puts their lives on the line and indeed died for the cause that they believed in, and the black leaders of today, who are, as Prof Sowell accurately puts it, professional hustlers. Right at the end, he even draws a comparison with religion. For example, the first Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire and it was clear that trouble was all they were going to get out of pursuing their cause. However, once Christianity became a state religion, the movement changed and you had an entirely different type of people leading it.
Prof Sowell also elaborates on it here, i.e. professional hustlers and how they benefit from the victim mentality:
In conclusion, we should learn and understand that just like the blacks, Muslims in the Anglosphere and particularly in the United States have a) governments who want to use them and take advantage of them as their own "pet minority" and b) professional hustlers (who often seem to be called 'reverend') who benefit from the status quo and have a vested interest in government programmes and other arrangements. But unlike blacks, who are a race, Muslims have to justify why they are living in such countries. If it is simply for a luxurious lifestyle or to "islamify" these countries from the top down, there will never be any help or success from Allah.
Assalaam alaykum, what is your opinion, my sheikh Muḥammad al-Faḥḥām,
about a young lady travelling to Germany for the sake of
marriage in view of the fact that that most young men have ended up over there
and if the intention is to return to a Muslim country? May Allah reward you in
your work and in your life.
Wa alaykum Assalaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh. Travelling
to such places is unlawful due to a number of considerations, the most
important of which are:
Those who have been induced to migrate are a political sheet
of paper to be played on for the sake of bringing benefit to Germany, which is fundamentally
a country tied to the plans to break up the Arab countries.
Secondly, it is an octopus that wants to enslave the Muslim
Arab minority.
Thirdly, there is a precise plan to shut off those who
arrive there by terminating the link between parents and children in order to
remove them from being firmly established upon the religion, so that after one
or two decades the children become secularists or indeed libertines, believing that
it is permissible to do whatever you desire.
Fourthly, it is extremely unlawful for a Muslim woman to
travel to their countries for several reasons, the first of them being the lack of
a maḥram, and if there was one he
would not be allowed to constantly accompany her and take care of her, so be
very wary of this matter, for it contains the loss of one’s roots and assisting
the enemies of the religion and these countries in the carefully studied Jewish
plans.[1]
By Allah, anyone who partakes in this is a sinner, a sin that will take him to
an evil outcome that will only end in Hell. O Allah, choose what is best for us
and make us pleased with it, O Lord of all creation.
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".
