-
Gaza: The War of Jewish Illusions and Dreams of a Greater Jewish State
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمGaza: The War of Jewish Illusions and Dreams of a Greater Jewish State
(Translated)https://www.al-waie.org/archives/article/19388
Al Waei Magazine Issue 455
In its 39th Year, Dhul-Hijjah 1445 AH, Corresponding to July 2024 CE
Dr. Muhammad GilaniNo one can believe that the war waged by the Jewish entity in Gaza, Rafah and northern Palestine is merely a response, revenge and retaliation for the Al-Aqsa Flood operation launched by Hamas on 7 October, 2023. Despite the sympathy that the entity received at the beginning of the war, the international community, represented by states, institutions, unions, universities, and individuals, turned to accusing the entity of acts of genocide. It was practically condemned for committing war atrocities and genocide, whilst killing children, women and the elderly. It was condemned for demolishing schools, hospitals, and masajids. These acts and crimes could not merely be a reaction to the Al-Aqsa Flood operation. The enemy’s prime minister was then accused of being a war criminal and compared to the Nazi Hitler and the Serbian Milosevic. To this day, the entity still refuses, and evades all attempts, to stop the criminal war. What are the real reasons behind this brutal war and heinous crime? What are the expected outcomes?
1- Motives and Causes
The establishment of a Jewish entity in Palestine dates back to the British Foreign Minister’s Balfour Declaration. The declaration stipulated granting the Zionist Jewish movement a national homeland in Palestine, in partnership with the people of Palestine. It set out the condition that there must not be any kind of discrimination against the original citizens of the people of Palestine. The League of Nations adopted the Balfour Resolution and recommended that the British mandate should work to facilitate the immigration of Jews to Palestine. Britain sought to encourage Jewish immigration and facilitate travel and settlement operations in Palestine. It added the Hebrew language to the documents that were issued by the Palestinian government. Then World War II and the panic among European Jews were exploited, through massacres that were promoted to push Jews to immigrate to Palestine. This was the nucleus of a single state that Britain wanted. That state would include Jews and Palestinians, whilst providing political leadership for the Zionist movement. Before beginning the work of officially establishing the entity and submitting it to the United Nations, America presented another solution to the issue of establishing a single Jewish entity, which is that of two states. The Macdonald White Paper, which was carried by the United Nations Resolution No. 181, stipulated the establishment of two entities in Palestine, one for the Jews on an area of 42% of the territory of Palestine, and an entity for the Palestinians on an area of 56%. The remaining 2% of the area was to be an international territory, and included Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and Bethlehem. While the Jews and the Zionist movement accepted this decision as a first stage for their state, the Arabs, including the Arab League, rejected it. The main reason for the Arabs’ rejection of the partition decision was due to their dependence on Britain, the architect of the first project for a single state. Britain saw the American two-state solution project as a threat to its interests and influence in the region.
2- The First Displacement
A new entity was created in Palestine, known as the State of ‘Israel’, through military occupation, and with the complicity of Britain and the countries subordinate to it, which were Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine. A United Nations’ resolution established the State of ‘Israel’, with the recognition of the modern entity, by the major powers and the United Nations. It included most of the lands of Palestine, with the exception of Gaza and the West Bank of the Jordan River. As for Gaza, it was administratively annexed to Egypt, which was ruled by King Farouk under British influence. The West Bank of the Jordan River was annexed to the Emirate of Transjordan, under British influence and occupation. It then became called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Jewish entity displaced more than 750,000 people of Palestine to the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, so that the Jews in occupied Palestine became the vast majority. The people displaced in 1948 were called “refugees.” The Refugee Relief Agency was created specifically to take care of the affairs of the displaced in refugee camps. The Jews realized, from the beginning, that the demographic composition of Palestine would change in favor of the Palestinians within a few decades. They realized that the number of Palestinians in the Jewish entity would likely exceed half by the year 2050 CE. This great and rapid change has always been a source of anxiety and terror for the Jews. Their leaders expressed it explicitly during the Gaza War by saying, “‘Israel’ is fighting a war of survival.”
3- The Second Displacement
In 1967 CE, the Jewish entity was able to occupy the rest of Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It resulted in a second displacement process, as more than 250,000 were displaced from the West Bank and Gaza, including the refugees of 1948 CE. The displaced people, after the June 1967 war, were called “displaced people” to distinguish them from the refugees of 1948 CE. The vast majority of the displaced were displaced to Jordan. After the Oslo Accords in 1993 CE, the administration of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was officially handed over to the Palestinian Authority, although in principle these areas are still subject to the control of the occupation, whether the occupation army is present there permanently, or intermittently. Then Hamas was able to rise to power through elections in Gaza, whereupon Hamas gained control of influence in Gaza. In 2005, the Jewish occupation decided to withdraw its forces from Gaza unilaterally, and without any agreement. However, officially and practically, the entity remains the occupier of the Gaza Strip, even when it does not have an army there.
The occupation has built semi-permanent settlements in the West Bank, where more than 700,000 Jews have been settled. These settlements are not subject to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Thus, the Jewish entity was able to create two displacements of the people of Palestine from the lands of Palestine. The number of displaced Palestinians outside the lands of Palestine now exceeds three million. By forcefully seizing the property of the people of Palestine in the West Bank, and building settlements on them, the area of the rest of the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority has become less than 20% of the original area.
Local and international political circumstances, especially the Anglo-American struggle for influence in the region, which have prevailed since the establishment of this entity, have necessitated the continued presence, even if partially, of Palestinians on the land of Palestine, which the entire Jewish entity from the sea to the river, considers to be the state of ‘Israel’. So, not all the Palestinians were displaced at once.
4- The Third Displacement
There has now been talk again about a third displacement of Palestinians, according to which the vast majority of those remaining in Palestine will be displaced, whether those under occupation since 1948 CE, or those under occupation since 1967 CE. The Jewish entity does not stop striving to achieve its goal of completing the construction of their state on the entire land of Palestine, and displacing the remaining Palestinians from it. On 7 October, 2022, Haaretz published an article under the title, “Nakba Scenario 2023: The Expulsion of 200,000 Arabs from ‘Israel’ Within Two days.” The article stated, “The leaders of Likud and the Jewish forces do not hide their plans regarding the displacement of the Arabs of ‘Israel’.” Ben Gvir also pledged that he would form a “national body to encourage immigration” that would work to “remove Israel’s enemies from the Land of Israel.” Dr. Michael Ben Ari also announced that he would work to encourage the immigration of “the Arabs of Umm al-Fahm who dance on the rooftops when Jews are slaughtered.” Haaretz published a plan for the displacement operation, stating that the IDF has a mechanism to displace more than 200,000 people within two days. The plan begins by initiating battles in Syria and Lebanon, and then the Jewish entity is to be exposed to attacks from Hezbollah with missiles and drones.
As the Jewish army moves and passes through Arab villages, the cars and vehicles of the Jewish army are exposed to Molotov cocktails and stone throwing by Arab citizens. Jewish forces carry out forced displacement, under the pretext of removing obstacles to the military actions of the Jewish occupation army. Within two days, 200,000 Palestinians will be displaced to the West Bank. The scenario stated that the site of displacement would most likely be in the Jenin camp. What was published in Haaretz is not necessarily accurate. However, it reveals the thinking and intentions of Jewish leaders in occupied Palestine, and that displacement is an ongoing goal. It is not unlikely that Jordan, which was created as the emirate of Transjordan, will eventually be a site for the displaced, which means a transitional emirate, or an emirate of displacement. In the special session of the United Nation’s Security Council on 6 January 2023 CE, the Jewish entity’s ambassador’s claim that Jordan was occupying the West Bank, was the beginning of the Jewish entity’s intentions and motives being revealed publicly and officially. This was followed by a minister in the entity’s government highlighting the map of the Jewish entity, which includes a large part of Jordan.
America’s declaration repeatedly that it does not approve of the forced displacement of more than a million Gazans out of Gaza is nothing but a clear demonstration of the entity’s motives for this war. The most important of the motives is emptying Palestine of its people, and establishing the entity’s occupation over all of the land of Palestine, and considering it purely Jewish. Despite America’s announcement of its rejection of “forced” displacement, Biden, in his first visit to the entity after 7 October, 2023, had publicly stated that he stands behind the Jewishness of the state when he said, “I don’t believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist.” In addition, America itself declares that it opposes forced displacement, but not absolute displacement. There is no doubt that the choice of words and expressions are tools of political deception.
The issue of the third displacement of Palestinians is not just propaganda. It is the result of serious planning, especially since Jewish leaders know that America is in the process of building a new Middle East. This is after America was able to uproot English influence from Iran and Iraq, and was able to find a strong influence in Saudi Arabia, whilst bringing Turkey to its side. Hence, the Jews see that time is not on their side. They must do what is necessary to preserve the Jewishness of their state. They must get rid of an imminent danger represented by Gaza and the West Bank in its flanks, and the Palestinians of the interior, within its heart.
5- The Two-State Solution: The American Vision
After the June War of 1967 CE, the United Nation’s Security Council issued Resolution 242, drafted by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon. It stipulated the withdrawal of Jewish forces from some of the lands they had occupied, without specifying these lands and the time required for withdrawal. Nothing was achieved from implementing that decision. In 1969, America presented an alternative to Resolution 242, with what was later known as the Rogers Plan. It included the re-proposing of the two-state solution. However, this proposal clashed once again with the stance of Britain and its agents in the region. America came back and proposed the two-state solution again after the 1973 War, when it was then able to get Egypt out of confrontation with the occupying state.
Once again, America saw that the conditions were appropriate to impose a two-state solution, one state for the Jews and the other for the Palestinians. American officials, led by President Biden, stated that after the end of the war, which they called the “day after,” they must work directly on the two-state solution. The occupying state has always rejected the two-state solution, and considers the establishment of a Palestinian state an existential threat to the Jewish entity.
America had not previously defined the features of these two proposed states, specifically in terms of identity and borders. However, now it has begun to declare that it agrees with the Jews that their state should be Jewish, meaning that its citizens are only Jews, versus another state whose citizens are Palestinian. The Jewishness of the state has become a basic demand of the occupying entity. This has been declared and discussed in various ways, in a clear and unambiguous manner, especially since the demographic composition of the occupying entity in twenty to thirty years will favor the Palestinian identity. Biden has reiterated the emphasis on a democratic Jewish state, and even linked the stability of the Middle East to the existence of a recognized Jewish state. His Secretary of State also repeated this many times. This means that the war on Gaza has created a fertile medium for announcing some of what was previously hidden. The Jewish entity has also begun to reveal the borders of their state, which they want, little by little. The talk about the displacement of Palestinians from the part occupied in 1948 was explicitly discussed in the Haaretz article, which was previously discussed under point 4 of this article. The talk that was repeated excessively during the war on Gaza about the displacement of the people of Gaza to the Sinai Desert, and the displacement of the people of the West Bank to eastern Jordan is nothing but a clear indication of the plans of the Jews. The plan seems to have no real forces standing as an obstacle before the Jews to prevent the implementation of these plans in practice. Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, was reported to have said, “I fear that the people of the West Bank will be displaced to eastern Jordan,” according to what Ammon News reported on 15 May 2024. I do not think that Abbas’s fear is unfounded. As for America, when it announces its rejection of displacement, it adds the word, “forced displacement” to interpret whether the displacement was forced, or voluntary, according to what it deems appropriate. Also, when America talks about the re-occupation of Gaza and American rejection of it, America adds to it the phrase “long-term occupation.” It lets the interpreters interpret whatever they want, though the meaning is in the heart of the speaker, not the interpreter.
The talk that is sometimes repeated in Jordanian and Palestinian circles is that Jordan is an alternative homeland to Palestine. This is nothing but a systemic leak indicating that this matter is being discussed in the corridors of global intelligence, and those steering the course of events.
The bottom line is that the Jewish entity today categorically rejects the so-called two-state solution, as long as their state has a large number of Palestinian Arabs, whose percentage will exceed 50% by the year 2050. It rejects the presence of Palestinians in two geographical units, Gaza in the western flank of the entity, and the West Bank in the eastern flank of their entity. They consider this presence a threat to their existence. Hence, Netanyahu’s justifications for the ongoing war, despite the size of the losses, as a decisive war related to the existence of the Jewish entity. Perhaps, this view of the Jews regarding the urgent need to preserve their entity, and not allow the presence of the people of Palestine, neither inside the state nor on its flanks, is what makes America extend a rope to the entity in its war. It has granted the Jews weeks and months to achieve what it aspires to, so perhaps it will succeed in implementing a two-state solution.
Between America’s insistence on the necessity of a two-state solution, and what has begun to be circulated in the corridors of the United Nations, and international trends regarding recognition of the State of Palestine, as happened before in Norway, Sweden, and Ireland on 20 May, 2024, there is no doubt that all this clearly indicates America’s strategy related to the issue of the Jewish entity and Palestine. On the one hand, regarding the Jewish entity, America wants it to be a fully-fledged state, with clear borders, a specific identity, and a specific purpose for its existence, and to be an integral part of the Middle East region that America seeks to create. As for the other state, which is the State of Palestine, there is no doubt that America considers its establishment and legitimization in international organizations, after determining its borders and geographical location, as an end to what has been known as the Palestine issue, since the establishment of the Jewish state on the land of Palestine. This is so that the State of Palestine becomes the state of all Palestinians, whether within the bowels of the Jewish entity, or in countries of displacement such as Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, or on the borders of Gaza and the West Bank, or in countries of migration outside the Arab world. This means that this state must be established as the state of the Palestinians and accepted by the people of Palestine, especially the influential parties such as the Palestinian Authority and the organizations under it, such as Fatah amongst others, as well as the resistance in Gaza and the West Bank, represented by Hamas, al-Jihad and other arms of the resistance, in addition to the general Palestinian public. Consequently, the refugee status of Palestinians in camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank and in various parts of the world is canceled.
Do the people of Palestine accept the establishment of the State of Palestine in exchange for full recognition of the Jewish entity’? Until this moment, there is no indication that this solution is not accepted by the people of Palestine, represented by all groups, whether from the resistance or the Palestinian Authority. Instead, all Palestinian factions welcomed the decisions of countries that decided to recognize the State of Palestine, without specifying the borders, identity, and independence of this state.
As for the Jews, they still insist on not accepting the existence of an entity for the Palestinians, in a state called Palestine. It is most likely that the Jews mean by this a state established on the land that the Jewish state has been working to annex by force, and displacing its people from it by force, that is, in Gaza and the West Bank. However, the Jewish entity will not resist the establishment of a Palestinian state in Jordan in its entirety, or in the remaining part of the West Bank, after cutting off the largest part, on which many settlements were built, especially if this land is tightly linked to Jordan, through a federal or confederation. In both cases, the proposed Palestinian state does not have any form of power.
The bottom line is that what America seeks is to confirm the legitimacy of the Jewish entity, and make it an integral part of the new Middle East order. Likewise, it seeks to create an entity for the Palestinians in the form of a state that is capable of absorbing the people of Palestine in refugee camps, thus ending the refugee issue, and the accompanying right to return to the land of Palestine. The demand for return in such a solution will be interpreted, or transformed, to a demand a return to the State of Palestine, that the people of Palestine accepted. This is whether the state was on what remains of the West Bank, or was part of a confederation with Jordan, or was Jordan transformed into an alternative homeland. The two-state solution in this form, one very strong Jewish state and the other state, that is very weak and deprived of will, will be a disaster for the people of Palestine. It will be a disgrace to all Muslims. It will be a disaster worse than the disaster of the occupation itself.
Recognizing a Jewish entity on all of the land of Palestine, or the largest part of it, will be exploited by the Jews, with their known deceit, greed, and fraud. They can then declare that the presence of the Palestinians in the land of “Israel” was not legitimate to begin with, and that the Palestinians were occupiers of the land of “Israel,” which was called Palestine! Such a scenario was proposed by one of the war ministers of the occupying entity, when he claimed that through its annexation of the West Bank, Jordan had occupied West Bank and the Jews had returned, to liberate it from the Jordanian occupation. It is possible that Jews will demand compensation from the Jordanian side and from the Palestinians, represented by their state. This is not far from what the Jews would do.
6- America and the New Middle East Project
America knows very well that the recognition of the Jewish entity by the Arab countries, including Palestine, when it is established, will not provide the entity with a natural stability, amidst countries of Arabic language and race, who believe in Islam, whilst the entity is Jewish in race, religion, and Hebrew in language. There must be a new political order with a geopolitical outlook to enable this. This is what America says and means when Biden declares, “And with this deal, ‘Israel’ could become more deeply integrated into the region, including, it’s no surprise to you all, including a potential historic normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia. ‘Israel’ could be part of a regional security network to counter the threat posed by Iran. All of this progress would make ‘Israel’ more secure.” Building the Middle East region is a strategic goal for America for many reasons. The most important reason is making the Jewish entity part of a political region, in which America works to maintain its own strategic balance. In addition to the Jewish entity, America is working to make Iran and Turkey part of the Middle East region. Each of them has an important role, as suggested from the Baker-Hamilton report, shortly after America’s occupation of Iraq. It revealed an important role for Iran and Turkey within the Middle East order, especially since Iran, since the 1979 revolution, has become isolated in the region, with no link to any region, which constitutes a burden on the leading state in the world, America, in terms of establishing its own policy. Likewise, Türkiye was unable to join the European Union, so it also remained isolated in the region. Hence, America seeks to build a new Middle East in which there will be the Arab countries of Asia and North Africa, in addition to the Jewish entity, Iran, and Turkey. Perhaps the two limited operations, that took place between Iran and the Jewish entity, are only a prelude to making the two states part of the region to be created. This is besides the attempt to include Türkiye in the negotiations taking place between the entity on the one hand, and Hamas on the other. Add to this the importance of strategic balance in the Middle East, which cannot be achieved naturally, as long as there is only one state that possesses nuclear weapons of mass destruction, such as the Jewish entity state. Therefore, America has always sought to provide cover for Iran to possess nuclear capabilities, and has always prevented the Jewish entity from striking nuclear facilities, until Iran possesses nuclear weapons. Then the use of nuclear weapons to extend influence over the region becomes impossible because of the strategic balance. Something similar happened when America enabled Pakistan to obtain nuclear weapons, after India had obtained them.
The point is that America, in its current political actions in the Middle East, is moving the chess pieces, and developing actions, based on a clear vision of the political map for the Middle East. Its map guarantees absolute American hegemony over the region, and excludes the influence of any other country, such as Britain. America worked diligently to achieve its desired hegemony, and worked to untie knots in its path, knot by knot. It expelled British influence from Iran in 1979 CE, created influence in the Republic of Iran, occupied Iraq and removed the long-standing British influence from it. It consolidated its influence in Saudi Arabia, since the arrival of King Fahd and then Salman and his son. It contributed to breaking the strength and fervor of the people in Syria, which had been an insurmountable obstacle to recognizing the Jewish entity, as stated in a report by Kissinger shortly after the 1973 war. It was able to establish military bases in the Gulf States that have strong British influence, and worked to divide Sudan, the country with the largest land mass in the region. It has been working hard to extend its influence in North Africa, and remove British and French influence from it. Untying these knots one by one was necessary and important for building a new Middle Eastern region. Perhaps America began to see that the ongoing war in Gaza would lead to untying of the last knot in the process of building the region, which sheds light on the intense political and military interest in the course of events, day by day and hour by hour. The region has not been devoid of American politicians, even for a single day, since the inception of the war.
7- What’s Next?
Since the beginning of this article, the most important, most sensitive and influential factor in the course of events has not been addressed. It is the factor of Islam as a doctrinal belief rooted in the region, that the peoples of the region believe in, and the hope that Islam will return to being the driver of events, rather than merely reacting to the events. The reason for delaying this important part of the article until the end is that political actions and subsequent military actions, as well as challenges to international plans, cannot be carried out simply because the Arab, Turkish and Iranian peoples believe in this ideology. They cannot be carried out without the ideology of Islam having sole sovereignty over the course of matters and events. This is the ability to address the events on the one hand, whilst developing practical actions and plans on the other hand. The current events in the region, since the destruction of the entity of the Islamic Khilafah (Caliphate) in 1924 CE, until now, are all taking place completely away from the role and ideology of Islam. However, Islamic values, and what results from absolute belief in Allah (swt) and the Islamic Aqeedah, appear clearly and evidently among the members of the Ummah, especially when their horizons become narrowed under trials. This was clearly demonstrated in the Gaza war, with patience that astonished the kuffar, before astonishing the Muslims, and a firm determination, that is unyielding before iron. As for the political aspect, and confronting the plans of America and its agents, the issue is very different. Islam, as a comprehensive belief and comprehensive ideology, has nothing to do with that until this moment. This is even though, under the roaring waves in the region, there is a wave moving strongly and steadily towards the restoration of Islam as an ideology, accompanied by a comprehensive system and a clear method for it to become the fundamental driver of events. This wave is the work for the resumption of the Islamic way of life, and restoration of the political system of the Khilafah, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) left behind as a comprehensive, clear, strong, and influential system, before he (saw) passed on to the Companionship of Allah (swt), the Supreme. He (saw) said,
«تَرَكْتُكُمْ عَلَى الْبَيْضَاءِ لَيْلُهَا كَنَهَارِهَا لَا يَزِيغُ عَنْهَا بَعْدِي إِلَّا هَالِكٌ»
“I left you upon the whiteness of righteousness, its nights are like its days. No one will depart from it after me, except that he is ruined.” He (saw) said,
«وَسَتَكُونُ خُلَفَاءُ فَتَكْثُرُ»
“There will be Khulafa’a (Caliphs) and they will be many,” and he (saw) said,
«ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ»
“Then there will be a Khilafah on the Method of Prophethood.”
The system of Khilafah, that succeeds in authority after the Messenger (saw), which the Muslims followed, starting with Abu Bakr (ra) and ending with the last Khilafah of the Muslims, began to loom on the horizon, once again. Its light shines from among the accumulated darkness. There is no doubt that the emergence of the Second Islamic Khilafah on the Method of the Prophethood will completely turn the scales around. Recognition of the Jewish entity in Palestine will be swept away, and returned to the darkness of the seas. The nationalist borders imposed and established by Britain and France, and rearranged by America, will be completely erased from the map of modern history. Reliance on Western colonialist tools, such as the World Bank amongst others, will become a relic of the past, amongst much, much more. The concern of America and its allies will not be whether the Jewish entity remains or disappears. Instead, their greatest concern will be to prevent the Muslim armies from returning to the jihad of conquests, that was stopped a long time ago. Yet, these tyrants never forgot that.
The return of Islam to ruling and management of the affairs of Muslims, all Muslims, has become a demand for all Muslims after they saw, witnessed, and were afflicted by what befell them during the absence of their powerful entity. By the mercy of Allah (swt), Hizb ut-Tahrir rose up within the Ummah, raising the Rayah banner of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and carrying the banner of the Khilafah on the Method of the Prophethood. It is not harmed by those who let it down, nor is it deterred by the injustice of the rulers, the reluctance of the trembling fearful, and the hesitation of the hypocrites. Instead, it marches blatantly in defiance of injustice, harassment, imprisonment, torture and martyrdom. All that remained of the path the Hizb has traveled upon since 1953 CE is the declaration of the Khilafah on the Method of the Prophethood. I ask Allah (swt) that this will happen soon, and that is not difficult for Allah (swt).
[وَيَمۡكُرُ ٱللَّهُۖ وَٱللَّهُ خَيۡرُ ٱلۡمَٰكِرِينَ]
“And Allah plots, and Allah is the best of planners.” [Al-Anfal:30]
-
Rioting for Rights
News:
Bangladesh crawls back to normalcy after more than a week of violent clashes that killed nearly 200 people. Most of the country remained without internet access, but thousands of cars were on the streets of the capital Dhaka after authorities relaxed a curfew for seven hours. (Independent.co.uk)
Comment:
The recent clashes in Bangladesh may seem to have come to an end but the actual deep rooted disease is still there and will certainly cause a relapse sooner or later. The Quota system was introduced by the British and was a means of luring the poor and needy people to do what they doubted or even taking the society in a certain direction like job quotas for women, which worked well to attract women to get out of their homes and help the country with their earnings. India, Pakistan and later on Bangladesh designed and applied their own quota systems according to the will of the Government. Bangladesh reserved 56% of seats in quota, of which 30% are for the children and grandchildren of the freedom fighters. Now these freedom fighters are the people who fought against the forces of West Pakistan. So one can say it is a reward of loyalty to the existing State of Bangladesh. Ironically these freedom fighters are the people who fought against the State of that time, East and West Pakistan combined.
Students’ demand of removing the quota for the freedom fighters was dealt poorly by the Premier, Haseena Wajid, who while addressing their demands mockingly commented as “Who should we keep the quota for”? Razakars? These were the volunteers who fought against the people of East Pakistan in 1971, that itself was a tragedy we shy away from. Maimun bin Siyah asked Anas bin Malik: “O Abu Hamzah, what makes the blood and wealth of a Muslim forbidden?” He said: “مَنْ شَهِدَ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَاسْتَقْبَلَ قِبْلَتَنَا وَصَلَّى صَلاَتَنَا وَأَكَلَ ذَبِيحَتَنَا فَهُوَ مُسْلِمٌ لَهُ مَا لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ وَعَلَيْهِ مَا عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ””Whoever bears witness to La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah) and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah [SAW], faces our Qiblah, prays as we pray, and eats our slaughtered animals, he is a Muslim, and has the same rights and obligations as the Muslims.” (Sunan an-Nasa’i 3968)
The hadith above clearly states the recognition and sanctity of a Muslm, and no other can better recognise it than another Muslim. When Allah and his messengers have forbidden something for us then how can our Governments use our people against each other. No ruler of the Muslims has the right to order the killings of its young men and training and paying other young men for that. And the young men need to understand that their fight is against the ugly system left by the colonisers, and followed by their existing puppets in power. It’s been 75 years after the creation of Pakistan that Muslims of the Subcontinent have been fighting the invisible enemy within.
It was the emergence of the East India Company that destroyed the unity of the people of the subcontinent by removing the harmony among them and replacing it with greed and benefit. Thus Bengal, which was a major production hub, fell prey to the East India Company. The rulers like Siraj ud Daula fought fearlessly against the British and embraced martyrdom and then were replaced by the rulers like Haseena Wajid, with the help of traitors like Mir Jafar. People of Bangladesh have suffered enough. Bengal famine, Rohingya crisis, bloody separation from West Pakistan, and now being under constant oppression. This deterioration will be reversed once the Ummah gets rid of the traitors ruling on them and Khilafah on the method of Prophethood is established, that will take care of the affairs of Muslim Ummah and will remove the weeds like Haseena from the fertile land of the East as well as rest of the world. Quota system is a small fraction of their crime and brought the people of Bengal on roads. A State that once was glorious shall be glorified again by the light of Islam and the youth instead of fighting each other in the streets will be opening the doors of the world to Islam through Jihad. To reach this level of glory, Muslim youth must stand united in the face of oppression and work for the establishment of Khilafah that shall become their saviour in both worlds.
[يَسۡتَبۡشِرُونَ بِنِعۡمَةٖ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَفَضۡلٖ وَأَنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُضِيعُ أَجۡرَ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ]
“They receive good tidings of favour from Allah and bounty and [of the fact] that Allah does not allow the reward of believers to be lost” [Aali Imran: 171]
Ikhlaq Jehan
-
The Mali-Niger-Burkina Faso Tripartite Union
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
The Mali-Niger-Burkina Faso Tripartite Union
(Translated)Question:
On Saturday, 6 July 2024, the leaders of the military juntas of Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali announced at a summit in Niamey, the capital of Niger, that they had signed a confederation agreement. Is there an international force behind this announcement? If so, who is the country to which they show their loyalty? Or is this confederation established on their own accord? Thank you very much.
Answer:
To clarify the answer, we review the following matters:
1- These three countries, after the coups that took place in them between 2020-2023, have become loyal to America and obey its command! We explained it in the answers to the questions: 1/9/2020 regarding the Malian coup led by Assimi Goita, 7/2/2023 regarding the Burkina Faso coup led by Ibrahim Traoré, and 15/8/2023 regarding the Niger coup led by Abderrahmane Tchiani… and the three regions are Islamic countries:
a- As for Mali: it is an Islamic country. Islam reached it in the eleventh century, and the dominant religion in Mali is still Islam. About 90% of Malians are Muslims, about 5% are Christians, and about 5% are other religions… and the capital is Bamako.
b- As for Burkina Faso: it is a country in West Africa, and it is an Islamic country. According to the 2006 census, more than 60.5% of its population are Muslims, and about 23% are Christians, and then other traditions. Its area is 274,200 km2, its population is 21,510,181 people, and it depends on agriculture for its economy. The city of Ouagadougou is considered the most important city in the country and is the capital.
c- As for Niger: it is located in West Africa and was given the name Niger in reference to the Niger River that runs through its territory. It is bordered to the south by Nigeria and Benin, to the west by Burkina Faso and Mali, to the north by Algeria and Libya, while it is bordered by Chad to the east. Niger’s total area is about 1,270,000 square km. Niger is an Islamic country. Islam is the religion of the vast majority in Niger, amounting to more than 99.3%. Islam spread into what is now Niger in the 15th century through the expansion of both the Songhai Sultanate in the west and the influence of trans-Saharan trade from the Maghreb and Egypt. The capital is Niamey.
Thus, the coups that took place in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso between 2020 and 2023 were pro-American and supported by it.
2- On 16/9/2023, the three countries established the “Coalition of Sahel States” in order to create a joint defense force against the potential threat of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) military intervention in Niger: (The Malian president, Colonel Assimi Goita, and the Nigerian president, General Abderrahmane Tchiani And the Burkinabe, Captain Ibrahim Traoré, had signed, in September 2023, a charter, about which the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mali, Abdullah Diop, said in a statement at the time: “It will be a combination of military and economic efforts between the three countries”.
The joint charter signed by the leaders of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, on 16/9/2023, stipulates the formation of the “Coalition of Sahel States.” The charter establishing the coalition consists of 17 articles, the first article stipulates that it will be called the Liptako-Gourma Charter, and that “the contracting parties agreed among themselves to establish the Alliance of Sahel States, abbreviated as “AES”. While the second article stipulates that the goal of this charter is “establishing an architecture of collective defense and mutual support.” The founding charter also stipulates in its Article 6: “Any attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of one or more contracted parties will be considered an aggression against the other parties, which entails an obligation to mutual assistance, including the use of armed force to restore security.” Article 11 of the Charter stipulates: “The alliance is open to the membership of any other State that shares the same geographical, political and socio-cultural realities and accepts the goals of the alliance.” (Al Jazeera Center for Studies 25/6/2024).
It is clear from Articles 6 and 11 of this alliance formed by these three countries that the purpose of its establishment is to confront possible foreign military intervention, especially French, through the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and to stand militarily with one of them in the event that it is subjected to a French external military strike. The other goal is to create a division within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), as understood from the eleven articles, and to encourage the countries falling under this group to join this alliance.
3- On 6/7/2024, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso announced the establishment of a confederation. The confederation agreement signed between these three countries on 6/7/2024 in Niamey, the capital of Niger, complements the Sahel Alliance agreement signed at the first meeting. (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, located in the African Sahel region, announced today, Saturday, their unification within a “confederation.” The three countries said, in a final statement during their first summit on Saturday in the Nigerien capital, Niamey, that their presidents “decided to cross an additional stage towards a deeper integration between Member States. For this purpose, they adopted a treaty establishing a confederation between Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger under the name of the Confederation of Sahel States. (UAE’s Al-Ittihad 6/7/2024).
4- Despite the absence of direct American statements, all indicators show that America is behind the establishment of these countries of the “Confederation of Sahel States” and that, “on the one hand, it wants it to be a fortress that protects its agents in these countries from the sanctions of the ECOWAS group, especially since the three countries are landlocked and lack any access to the sea, hindering their trade. And on the other hand, it wants this to be a counter alliance to ECOWAS, which is controlled by France and Britain. Indeed, the establishment of the confederation created a storm of criticism for it within the ECOWAS group, and it began to demand reform, and this was evident in the statements of the Senegalese president, meaning that the transfer of countries from ECOWAS towards the “confederation.” became possible.
5- Therefore, this confederation is not spontaneous, but was created by America between these three countries loyal to it in order to preserve its colonies and to prevent the intervention of Europe, especially France, and the return to its colonies. The steps that these countries took before the union confirm this, including:
A- Burkina Faso and Niger announced their withdrawal from the G5 Sahel task force in November 2023. Mali also withdrew from the G5 Sahel task force in May 2022. (Burkina Faso and Niger announced, on Saturday, their withdrawal from the G5 Sahel group, a year and a half after Mali’s withdrawal from the African group. According to a joint statement by the governments of Burkina Faso and Niger, published by the official Burkina Faso news agency, “the decision is sovereign, and comes after an in-depth evaluation of the group and its work.” The statement added: “The G5 in the Sahel cannot serve foreign interests at the expense of the interests of the peoples of the Sahel, let alone accept the dictates of any force, whatever it may be, in the name of a misleading and childish partnership that denies the right to sovereignty of our peoples and countries. Therefore, Burkina Faso and Niger have clearly shouldered the historical responsibility of withdrawing from this organization…” (Anadolu Agency, 3/12/2023). (The military junta in Mali announced in a statement on Sunday, the country’s withdrawal from a multinational military force in the Sahel region of West Africa, which was formed to fight jihadists in 2014. The military junta justified the withdrawal decision by not allowing Mali to chair the G5 Sahel group, as Bamako was supposed to host in February 2022 a conference of the leaders of this group. The countries, namely Mauritania, Chad, Burkina Faso and Niger, under the pretext of internal instability in Mali, which witnessed a military coup in which the military junta seized power. (France 24, 16/5/2022).
B- Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso announced their withdrawal from ECOWAS in January 2024 in order to get rid of France’s influence and not allow it to intervene militarily under the pretext of combating terrorism. (Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger decided, on Sunday, to withdraw from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). This was stated in a joint statement issued by the three Sahel countries, which are led by military juntas and interim transitional governments. The statement stated that the three countries will withdraw from ECOWAS which consists of 15 members “as soon as possible.” it added that ECOWAS, which is accused of “being subjected to the influence of foreign powers” and “betraying its principles”, constitutes a “threat” to the three countries… (Anadolu Agency, 28/1/2024)
6- All this indicates that these three countries have withdrawn from all organizations subject to the influence and direction of France in order to get rid of French influence. It is unlikely that these countries would withdraw on their own without American support, or even an American order, as a prelude to the establishment of the confederation that America wanted to tear apart ECOWAS or weaken it and then shake or replace French influence in those three important countries whose total population exceeds 70 million people and which have influential resources for energy and minerals, which were exploited by French companies! This “confederation” and the tone of its leaders threaten to remove more countries from the French sphere of influence in the Sahel region, and these are very fragile governments due to French colonial plunder and the extreme poverty it left behind and due to the severity of the rampant corruption among the rulers, and these new circumstances tempt the military who are in contact with America through calls for “fighting terrorism” and military training and support. In general, it can be said that the intransigence of the leaders of the three countries against France is considered the greatest threat facing France’s influence after it had been safe and stable for decades.
7- Thus, it becomes clear that the rulers of Islamic countries transfer the country’s dependence from one colonizer to another, so they turn their backs on France, which plundered the Muslims’ wealth, and turn to America to also plunder those goods, while the Muslims remain in distress and poverty, as if the Muslims are incapable of ruling their country. If this situation includes all Muslim countries, yet in African countries, it is more intense and deeper, and the more Muslims become aware of their Deen and the more certain they are that adhering to it is the path to their salvation in this world and the hereafter, the Muslims become closer to what pleases Allah (swt), and their hatred for the kuffar colonialist who plundered and plunders the resources of their country, increases, leaving them suffering from poverty and destitution, and increasing the determination and work of Muslims to establish their Deen and resume their Islamic life through the establishment of the Islamic state that unites Muslims, the second Khilafah Rashidah (rightly guided Caliphate) State on the method of the Prophethood, after this oppressive rule in which Muslims live. We are reassured, Allah willing, when we see that Muslims have had enough, and they are now one step away from building the Islamic state, unifying the Islamic countries, and expelling all the kaffir colonial countries from their countries, and even bringing guidance to those countries, that is not difficult to Allah to accomplish. He (saw) says in the Hadith narrated by Ahmad on the authority of Hudhayfah, may Allah be pleased with him:
«…ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكاً جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ ثُمَّ سَكَتَ»
“…then there will be oppressive rule (ملكًا جبرية) for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method.’ Then he (saw) was silent.”
18 Muharram Al Haram 1446 AH
24/7/2024 CE -
The Truth of the Petrodollar Agreement
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
The Truth of the Petrodollar Agreement
(Translated)Question:
Al-Hurra website published, 18/6/2024: (Recently, news sites have widely circulated reports talking about a Saudi-American Agreement in 1974, under which Saudi Arabia would use the dollar in all its oil sales. According to those reports, this agreement and its duration of 50 years, is now over… but the Leader Insight website refuted those reports, stressing, “There is no such agreement”). I would like clarity on the truth of this agreement, if it exists, and the role of oil in maintaining the dominance of the dollar. And will the BRICS bloc affect the dominance of the dollar in the future?
Answer:
In order to clarify the answers to the above questions, we review the following matters:
First: In terms of the news circulating about the expiration of the term of the Saudi-American Agreement to limit the sale of oil to dollars, the social media sites are swarming with the news, but no official statement from the two countries spoke about this, as if they deliberately left it ambiguous! As for the media, they refrained from circulating it at first, then some started talking about it due to the large amount of talk about it. For example, the Russian RT website, published on 15/6/2024 (Olga Samofalova wrote in Vzglyad: “The petrodollar agreement between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States, which was signed in 1974, has expired. This allows Saudi Arabia to sell its oil and other products not only in US dollars, but also in other currencies, as the media confirms). This is an unofficial confirmation from a Russian media source about the existence of such an agreement.
Second: However American media sources deny this matter:
1- What was stated in the question on the Al-Hurra website, 18/6/2024: (…According to those reports, this agreement, which lasted 50 years, has now ended, which heralds the end of the dominance of the American currency. But the Leader Insight website refuted the reports, on Monday, confirming: “there is no such agreement”).
2- Morning Star Newspaper, 17/6/2024, addressed the stories spreading across social media sites about the collapse of the long-term petrodollar agreement between America and Saudi Arabia, and said, “This agreement never existed”.
3- In a blog post on Friday, Paul Donovan, chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, noted that [the fake “petrodollar deal” story has become surprisingly widespread, providing another lesson about the dangers of “confirmation bias.” (Morning Star, 17/6/2024)].
Third: However, neither side officially commented on the recent articles stating that the petrodollar agreement concluded between the United States and Saudi Arabia in 1974 had expired on 9/6/2024. Neither side officially commented in denial or confirmation, but rather the comments were from other media sources or something similar! As we showed above, there are other signs through which it is likely that there is an agreement in this regard between America and Saudi Arabia, and these signs include the following:
1- It was stated in the report of the Comptroller General in America issued in 1978 entitled “The American-Saudi Committee for Economic Cooperation”: (The Comptroller General recommends strengthening the work of the Saudi-American Committee for Economic Cooperation, which was established in June 1974, and opening an office for the US Department of the Treasury in Riyadh to “recycle petrodollar”). The report confirms in its introduction the establishment of this joint committee.
2- After Paul Donovan said in his blog post that [“It is clear that the story of the “petrodollar agreement” that is circulating today is fake news,” he added, “Perhaps the closest thing to a petrodollar deal was the secret agreement between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that was reached in late 1974, which promised to provide aid and military equipment in exchange for the Kingdom investing billions of dollars from the proceeds of the sale of oil in the US Treasury” (Morning Star, 17/6/2024)].
3- After the Morning Star Newspaper reported, on 17/6/2024, that the petrodollar agreement between America and Saudi Arabia, “this agreement never existed,” it said, “Based on a report published by the American Accounting Office, the matter relates to a joint American-Saudi committee that was established to enhance the economic cooperation between the two countries and the decision to establish it was signed on 8/6/1974 between US Secretary of State Kissinger and the Saudi Crown Prince at the time, Fahd bin Abdulaziz”.
4- On 20/10/2020, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas published in its “News Archive” a news item that it had published in the June 7, 1974 issue, in which it stated the following: (President Nixon discussed today with Prince Fahd bin Abdulaziz, Second Deputy Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia and Minister of Interior discussed the possibilities of achieving lasting peace in the Middle East in the wake of the agreements to separate forces on the Egyptian and Syrian fronts with ‘Israel’. They also discussed ways to expand economic, industrial and defense cooperation between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States. Their talks took place in President Nixon’s office in the White House before a luncheon held by the American President at the White House in honor of his guest, who arrived here yesterday for a three-day visit. He stated that prince Fahd seeks to increase American military assistance to his country in exchange for continued Saudi cooperation in supplying the United States with oil).
5- businesstimes.com.sg reported on 18/6/2024: [On 8/6/1974, the American newspaper, The New York Times reported, on its front page: (Secretary of State Kissinger and Prince Fahd Ibn Abdel Aziz, Second Deputy Premier of Saudi Arabia and a half‐brother of King Faisal, signed the six‐page agreement at Blair House across the street from the White House this morning.)].
Fourth: Taking a closer look at the third point above, especially US President Nixon’s reception of Fahd bin Abdulaziz, indicates the great importance of that visit. As well as, the establishment of the American-Saudi Committee for Economic Cooperation on 8/6/1974, which is referred to by official sources, including the report of the American Comptroller General, indicates that there were agreements that were concluded as if this committee was in charge of their implementation, and all of this confirms the existence of an agreement between America and Saudi Arabia, whether it was written and kept secret or were binding and unwritten understandings. Even such understandings between a small agent state and the most powerful state, America, are completely binding on the agent, they do not deviate from it even if it is not written.
All of the above facts support what we believe is the reality of the existence of this agreement or petrodollar understanding, even though this remains secret and is not recognized by official circles, but they do not deny it either.
Fifth: What confirms or suggests this is America’s interest in making the dollar the international currency of the world, this is how:
1- Since the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, which set the price of an ounce of gold at $35, the dollar has become at the highest level of the global monetary system. The same as gold, but because of America’s colonial projects, especially the Vietnam War, and the exorbitant spending on the war, the United States has printed more dollars more that what can be exchanged for gold. By the late 1960s, the number of dollars in circulation had increased, and there were more dollars in the world than gold. This encouraged foreign countries to demand gold in exchange for their dollars, which led to the depletion of American gold supplies. The US gold reserve decreased from 574 million ounces at the end of World War II to about 261 million ounces in 1971. Then US President Richard Nixon abolished the gold standard on 15/8/1971, thus completely separating the dollar from gold, in what was known as the ‘Nixon Shock’.
2- However, this separation between the dollar and gold created a political and financial problem for America, which is that countries in the world no longer have any motive to obtain dollars, and this made America look for other means that push countries to increase the demand for the dollar, thus preserving the dollar’s global status. America found the answer in the world’s urgent need for energy and therefore the main source of energy represented by oil, of which Saudi Arabia was the largest producer at the time.
3- The Nixon administration dealt with this through discussions with Saudi Arabia from 1972 to 1974 to establish the petrodollar, and then the agreement that stipulated that the United States would provide a security guarantee to the Saudi regime, and in return Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer in the world, which possesses the largest reserves oil revenues in the world, by selling its oil in dollars, and Saudi Arabia also agreed to recycle billions of US dollars from its oil revenues into US treasury bonds.
4- Before this agreement, Saudi Arabia used to deal in British pounds in exchange for oil, due to the influence of British agents in ruling Saudi Arabia at that time. When this agreement was concluded on 8 June 1974 between Secretary of State Kissinger and Prince Fahd bin Abdulaziz, it was a prelude to dealing in dollars with Saudi Arabia instead of sterling as the price of oil.
After that, prince Fahd rose to prominence and became crown prince in 1975, during the reign of his brother, King Khalid. He had most of the powers during the reign of his brother, King Khalid, and he continued to do so until King Khaled’s death and he became king on June 13, 1982. He was known for his loyalty to America.
Thus, Saudi Arabia’s dealings with the price of oil were limited to dollars starting from the beginning of 1975, as sources state that after 1974, Saudi Arabia’s sale of oil was limited to US dollars, and this also included OPEC to oil-producing countries, and it became mandatory for every country that needed to buy oil to have a sufficient amount of dollar currency, which was the only currency used in oil transactions, which means that these countries must accept loans in dollars or buy dollars from financial markets, or by any other means. The important thing is that America guaranteed the continued flow of the dollar, and the Federal Reserve Bank guaranteed the continued production of the dollar… especially since the Saudi riyal is linked to the dollar, and therefore there is an incentive for Saudi Arabia to commit to the US dollar to maintain economic stability. [“Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih confirmed that the US dollar will remain the approved currency for sales and trade of his country’s crude oil abroad…” (Anadolu 9/4/2019)].
Sixth: If Saudi Arabia’s accession to the BRICS bloc led by China and Russia, who are America’s opponents, affects Saudi Arabia’s continued restriction of the pricing of its oil in dollars, then this issue is affected by other factors. To clarify this, we review the following:
1- The term BRICS is used to refer to the economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Brazil, Russia, India and China formed the BRIC group in 2006 in order to give developing countries a greater role in international affairs. In 2011, the group’s name was changed to BRICS with the addition of South Africa. It was announced that Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt, the Emirates, Iran, Ethiopia, and Argentina, would be included in BRICS at the G15 Summit, which was concluded on 24 August 2023 in Johannesburg, the capital of South Africa. These countries would join at the beginning of 2024. One of the goals of this summit was to try to get rid of the dominance of the dollar and issue a currency for the BRICS members, but these countries did not agree on that. It sought to encourage dealing in its local currencies among them. That is why it worked to invite Saudi Arabia, the largest oil exporter, to the group. It is worth noting that despite the official Sauditelevision announcement on 2 January 2024 that Saudi Arabia had joined the BRICS, Saudi Trade Minister Majid Al-Qasabi said in a panel discussion on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: [“Saudi Arabia received an invitation to join BRICS, but we did not join officially yet.” (Sky News Arabic 16/1/2024)]. This means that Saudi Arabia was waiting for America’s approval to join BRICS so that its accession would be in America’s interests.
2- The entry of countries affiliated with America, such as Saudi Arabia, into the BRICS group makes this group fragile, and we have seen South Africa’s opposition to issuing a currency for the BRICS. There are no independent countries in the BRICS group except Russia and China, and the rest are agents of the West, especially America. But Russia and China want to appear as if they were able to confront the West and form a counter front, and they always talk about a multipolar world. When America allows Saudi Arabia and other of its agents to enter BRICS, it is in order to influence it from within, just as it previously encouraged its Eastern European affiliated countries to enter the European Union in 2004 to influence it through these countries. Through Poland, which entered the union, it was able to obstruct the drafting of a constitution for it to strengthen its political power and bring it closer to a quasi-federal state, keeping it a fragile union that is vulnerable to fracture and collapse. This is what happened when it tasked Saudi Arabia, which is the largest producer in OPEC and has a strong influence on it, with actively using the necessary methods to create an alliance of some kind between OPEC and Russia to control Russia’s production within OPEC’s limits, in coordination between Saudi Arabia and Russia.
3- And Putin, whose country is a founding member of the group, who is very enthusiastic about issuing a currency for the group, has surrendered to the political reality of the member states and said: “Continuing to expand BRICS would activate the role of the bloc at the international level, and the issue of adopting a unified currency is still complex and needs more discussions.” (Al Jazeera, 24/8/023). Al Jazeera had previously published on 23/8/2023: (The issue of the unified currency of the BRICS group was not formally raised during the summit due to the lack of agreement among the five members and the existence of discrepancies between them… Putin called in a speech via video directed to the group to expand dealing in local currencies…) Thus, Russia did not succeed in finding an alternative currency to the dollar, which is what it wanted to achieve from BRICS.
Seventh: As long as currency is paper, it has no intrinsic value, and the economic problems, economic speculation, political disputes, and even colonial domination will exist. Islam, through the Revelation of Allah (swt), gold and silver were made the basis of money, that is, a material that carries intrinsic value. The Messenger (saw) made gold and silver the currency, and he (saw) made them alone the monetary standard to which goods and efforts are measured, as proven in authentic Hadiths. But the colonizers, using the methods of economic colonialism and financial colonialism, used currency as a means of colonialism, so they converted currency to other systems that were not based on gold or silver, and thus giving rise to these problems. These problems cannot go away unless the Islamic state is established and returns money to gold and silver, whether they are used in circulation, or there is paper money in circulation replacing gold and silver and replacing them at all times. This is the Shariah of Allah (swt) that He revealed with His Knowledge,
[أَلَا يَعْلَمُ مَنْ خَلَقَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ]
“Does He who created not know, while He is the Subtle, the Aware?” [Al-Mulk: 14]
1 Muharram 1446 AH
7/7/2024 CE -
An-Nahdah (Revival) – Introduction
This is taken from the book “An-Nahdah (Revival)” by Hafiz Saalih
An-Nahdah (Revival) – Linguistic and terminological meanings:
The word ‘An-Nahdah’ is an Arabic word derived from the verb Nahada (نَهَضَ) which means Qaama (to stand) however it has begun to be used with an Istilaahi (terminological definition) meaning which indicates a specific reality. This meaning that has been provided in the modern time was not used by the Arabs previously. This is because its linguistic meaning according to what the Arabs laid down differs from this terminological meaning. Therefore the word should not return to its linguistic meaning without a Qareenah (indication/linkage) as its new terminological meaning has become widespread, dominant and it represents the meaning that comes straight to the mind when it is mentioned or heard by social scientists, the majority of educated people and even the general masses.
As for its linguistic meaning then the following was stated in the dictionary ‘Lisaan Al-‘Arab’: Nahada: The departing/rising from a position/placement and standing from it.
Nahada, YanHadu, Nahdan, Nuhoodan i.e. Stood up. Intahada Al-Qawm (the people raised up) meaning: They stood up for battle.
An-Nahdah: The strength (energy) and power (Taaqah and Quwwah). A Naahid place means: Elevated (place).
It is therefore evident that the terminological meaning representing the subject of our study cannot be found within the linguistic meanings mentioned above.
Introduction:
It could come to the mind that the Nahdah represents scientific progress, increased production, the abundance of factories and the use of technology and innovation in the material forms used in life with the consideration that the Nahdah only means progress and the moving of the society and people from one condition to a better one. This understanding reached the point to where some imagined that every land that experiences economic affluence is revived despite this statement being contradictory to the witnessed sensed reality in many of the lands that enjoy economic flourishing, abundance in the material forms of life and affluence in living whilst in reality being from amongst the most backward and declined countries.
For this reason it is necessary to give a definition of An-Nahdah, define its meaning and the manner of achieving it. Is it as some have claimed: the spread of education, the increase of riches or combating illnesses and diseases? And based on this understanding the reasons they claim to be the cause of backwardness i.e. Poverty, ignorance and disease need be cancelled out and removed?
Is the abundance of schools, educational institutes, universities, large numbers of university graduates carrying higher certifications in all disciplines a proof of the revival of the country or that it is upon the path leading to revival?
It can be clearly sensed that many of the backward countries have suffered due to the great number of graduates holding higher certifications. This has reached the point where they have become a burden and strain upon them and a heavy weight, as they have been unable to provide them with a dignified income which has compelled these graduates as a result to leave these lands and seek their Rizq (sustenance) elsewhere. This has made it necessary to implement an education policy to meet the challenge of the large number of graduates in a large number of fields and this is done through putting down a policy based on a specific percentage of passes in addition to a specific number of admissions to absorb those graduates who one day will be standing at the doors of the departments seeking work or a position that will provide them with a living.
The percentage of graduates and those carrying higher certifications in many of the lands that are considered to be backward and are categorised under what they have called third world countries is much greater than the percentage of graduates and those holding higher certifications found in the most progressive countries. Indeed what has happened is that these graduates (from the Muslim lands) have been exported to all corners of the world and particularly to the most revived and progressive states and on top of that many of them have even given up their nationalities in order to live in those foreign lands.
Therefore if we examine for example any land from amongst the lands of the third world (i.e. the lands of our Islamic world) then we would see that which amazes the minds and baffles those of understanding. Take for example Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria or Turkey amongst others and you will find that tens of thousands of the sons of these states hold higher certifications in education and across all areas including medicine, physics, engineering, chemistry, atom studies and technological areas. They have left their lands and gone in search for a source of sustenance and as such many have settled in America, Germany and many other lands from amongst the revived and progressive nations in addition to other lands in the world.
This issue has given rise to many points of discussion and many writers and thinkers have spoken about it under titles such as: ‘The ripe minds have been stolen’ or ‘The flight of the minds to the land of the minds’ or ‘America has bought our minds with money’ amongst other similarly provocative headings and titles. Despite this, these minds and this plentiful number of graduates have been incapable of reviving the Ummah and elevating her.
By taking a simple look at these states we find within them an abundance of raw materials, natural resources and manpower which is beyond words and we can summarise this in the summarized statement: ‘They represent the richest part of the world in terms of what Allah has granted it with and the favours that he has specifically chosen for it’. In spite of this they suffer from extreme poverty and languish under the heavy burden of debts to the point that it borrows more just to pay the interest on the previous loans. They are unable to fulfil what is demanded from them and persist upon demanding revisions to the loan schedule so that one crisis does not end before a new one begins which is even greater and the situation becomes worse than before.
The reason for this does not go beyond one of two matters: It is either the ignorance of those who are responsible for the Ummah’s affairs, in regards to the meaning of Nahdah and the way of achieving it, so they stumble about randomly in their policies and caretaking of the people’s affairs. Or they are merely agents to their masters and traitors to their Ummah whose job is to tame the people and keep the lands a fertile ground, open mine and vast market for their masters who placed them in the positions of authority over the people. They could also be a combination of the two matters combining their ignorance to their servitude and agency to their masters.
In light of this it is necessary to understand what the Nahdah is, the foundations that it is established upon and the path that leads to its achievement.
-
An Introduction to Western Capitalist Thought: Its Origin, Its Essence and Refutation
This is taken from the book “Refutation of the Capitalist Western Thought as an Ideology, Civilization and Culture”
Thought is the intellect and comprehension. It is called thought though it means thinking i.e. the thinking process and passing judgment upon things and matters. It also means the result of thinking i.e. what a man arrives at of judgment, through his intellect or thinking process. What we mean by saying ‘Western thought’ is all of the above. It means the thinking process adopted by the West, its method of judging things and matters i.e. its methodology and its criteria. it also includes the fruits of its intellect and the product of its thinking, with respect to knowledge, thoughts and concepts, manifested as ideology, civilization and culture.
What is meant by the refutation is the demolition of its intellectual structure, invalidation of its rulings and treatments and refuting its arguments. It is the clarification of its error and invalidity, drawing attention to its corruption, within its thinking, its consequence, knowledge, method, basis, civilization and culture. Refuting the Western thought is the refutation of the foundation upon which the Western thought is established. It is not necessary to refute all of its sub-thoughts, or secondary concepts, since ideologies, civilizations and cultures are based on pillars, claims and foundations that are unique to them. The treatments emanating from them also include rulings. Sub-thoughts are built upon them, whilst knowledge is established upon them. Refutation is achieved by destroying the roots and the foundations, whilst demolishing the pillars, consequently destroying all that was built upon it. Thus, it is confirming the invalidity of Western concepts about life and drawing attention to the corruption of Western treatments for all the affairs of life.
This is the refutation of the foundation upon which the Western thought is built. To initiate the refutation process, it is necessary that we clarify the essence of the Western thought, its doctrinal view, its method in spreading the ideology, its philosophy, its treatment, foundation, basis, values and criteria. Before all of that, we will reflect upon the historical context, clarifying the emergence of such a thought and its sources. This would be an introduction to help accessing the nature of the thought upon which this research is done. It allows arriving at the crystallized awareness about its reality, which in tum would assist understanding its features and peculiarities.
Emergence of the Western Thought
Westerners have varying views regarding the history of their thought i.e. stages of the emergence of their civilization and their modern culture, described as ‘Enlightenment’ and ‘Modernism.’ Some of the Westerners categorized history into three ages: Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Modern Age. This comprehensive categorization is predominant. Others, like Morris Bishop in his book, The Middle Ages, assert that the Middle Ages began with the Fall of Rome, categorizing the ages into the Dark Ages and High Middle Ages. Bishop considered “the 29th of May 1453,” the day that Constantinople was opened, as one of the “hinge-dates· of Western history, “to mark the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of modem times.” By the end of the Middle Ages or the medieval period, the age of renaissance, reformation and reason began, as asserted by Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher in his three-volume, A History of Europe, H. A. L. Fisher emphasized that it is not straightforward for the researcher to determine the delineation in history between the Middle and Modern Ages. Amongst the Westerners, there are those who elaborate upon the stages that Western thought passed through, such as Will Durant in his The Story of Civilization, and Roland N. Stromberg in his book, European Intellectual History since 1789, in which Stromberg divided the stages into the Middle Ages, the renaissance period, the reformation period and the Baroque period. According to Stromberg, the philosophy of the Baroque period is that of the post-renaissance era, or from another perspective, it is the era of the post-religious reformation movement, beginning in approximately on the year 1570 CE and continued beyond 1650 CE. Stromberg then highlights the seventeenth century as an age of reasoning, “Battered by the terrific crisis of the Reformation, Europe came up with the scientific and intellectual renaissance of the seventeenth century.” Stromberg cites Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Spinoza, Hobbes, Locke and Leibniz to assert that the seventeenth century CE was the age of reasoning. Stromberg enthuses then of “that extraordinary chapter of intellectual history, the eighteenth century Enlightenment,” before speaking of the ideological character of the nineteenth century CE.
The Age of Enlightenment (French: Siècle des Lumières) is the terminology used to express the philosophy that prevailed in Europe in the eighteenth century CE, from 1715 to 1789 CE, specifically in France, English and Germany. Thus, the French historian Pierre Chaunu, author of The Civilization of Europe of Enlightenment (French: La civilisation de l’Europe des Lumières) spoke of the enlightenment of Europe, in three languages, ordered by significance as French, English and German. Bryan S. Turner’s The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology states regarding Enlightenment that “In the western tradition, Enlightenment (éclaircissement, Aufklärung) refers to the process of becoming rational in thought and action. It can be individual or society-wide. Either way, reason is figured as a light that illuminates the understanding and dispels the darkness of ignorance and superstition.”
Roland N. Stromberg depicts the intense debate during the Enlightenment, European Intellectual History Since 1789, referring to those who adopted “deistic anticlericalism· as well as describing William James’ viewpoint as “the various myths or conceptualizations in which religions are objectively embodied are not fundamental; they are the mere husks of religion. What is basic is the instinct to believe, the need for the human spirit to express itself.”
Gunnar Skirbekk and Nils Gilje wrote in their book, A History of Western Thought from Ancient Greece to the Twentieth Century, “The period of the Enlightenment was thus marked by progressive optimism within the expanding middle class: a newly awakened confidence in reason and in man. There was a secularized Messianism, in which reason supplanted the Gospel. By the aid of reason, man would now uncover the innern1ost essence of reality and achieve material progress. Man would gradually become autonomous, dispensing with groundless authority and theological tutelage. Thought was liberated because man felt himself to be self-governed and independent of revelation and tradition. Atheism became fashionable.”
The concept of Enlightenment in the Western thought is interconnected to the concept of modernity. There are those who consider Enlightenment a precursor to modernity. There are those who consider both to be synonymous. There are those who view that enlightenment emerged from modernity. There are those who say the tem1 enlightenment is a description of a thought that enlightened the darkness of the West, with the light of reason and knowledge. As for modernity, it is the description of the thought that introduced contemporariness in its knowledge and methods, in a break from antiquity.
Irrespective of the various theories, the foundation and cornerstone of modernity is religion’s abolition, sidelining or separation from life, exemplified in the stance of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, and it is in accordance with Enlightenment. This also indicates that both modernity and Enlightenment are a description of the same phenomenon. The French sociologist Alain Touraine says in his Critique of Modernity (French: Critique de la modernite) that, “The idea of modernity makes science, rather than God, central to society, and at best relegates religious beliefs to the inner realm of life. This is on one side and on the other side, the mere presence of technological applications of science does not allow us to speak of a modern society. Intellectual activity must also be protected from both political propaganda and religious beliefs… the idea of modernity is therefore closely associated with that of rationalization.”
Here the question arises: Why does the history of Western thought, that is described as Enlightenment and modernity, revolve around the subject of rejecting, separating, sidelining and detaching religion?
The answer necessitates our referring to the time period of Western history called the Middle Ages, distinct from the era of modernity. Bertrand Russell stated in his book, A History of Western Philosophy, that “The period of history which is commonly called “modem” has a mental outlook which differs from that of the medieval period in many ways. Of these, two are the most important: the diminishing authority of the Church, and the increasing authority of science.” Europe during the Middle Ages was a Europe with the Church having absolute sovereignty and sole authority, dominating life, man, society and the state. Morris Bishop states in his book, The Middle Ages that “The church was, in sum, more than the patron of medieval culture; it was medieval culture.” Bishop also states, “The church and its teachings pervaded man’s entire life. One could not strike bargain, cut finger, or lose farm tool without invoking celestial favor.”
In the Middle Ages, the Church was extending its sovereignty and hegemony over the society in the name of religion, according to the scholastic philosophical vision that fom1ed in the thirteenth century, upon the adoption of thought reconciled between the philosophy of Aristotelian and Christian theology. This thought was associated with a number of erroneous concepts and teachings about man, nature, universe and life. It was adopted and claimed as absolute, whilst certainties emerged from the holy infallible authority. No interpretation or development or change was accepted. One must believe in it, submit to it and be compliant to it. The Church used to refuse any view or saying that contradicted its teachings. It rejected any thought that undermined its credibility. Thus the Church used means of punishment for those who left its teachings. It adopted the method of excommunication and charging blasphemy against heterodoxy and heresy. It suppressed any intellectual or scientific movement that challenged its interpretations and refuted its concepts.
Thus the movement of ecclesiastical persecution began against the thinkers who criticized its teachings and rampant corruption. In the year 1415 CE, the Czech John Huss (lohannes Hus). who criticized the corruption of the Church and accused it of departing from its principles, was burned at the stake. In the year 1498 CE Girolamo Savonarola was tortured, hanged and then burnt in Italy. In the year 1612, Bartholomew legate and Edward Wightman were burnt in England, due to the accusation of heresy. Georges Minois stated in his book, The Church and Science: History of Conflict (French: L’Eglise et la science. Histoire d’un malentendu) that “Since 1544, The Paris School of Theology had been condemning the Aristotelian Observations, authored by Pierre de la Ramee, who criticized the philosopher Aristotle, and he was prohibited to teach. In the year 1546, The Etienne Dolet was tortured. By the end of the century, the prosecutions were multiplied. Patrizi was subjected to some harassment from the Holy Office in 1595. Campanella was arrested for the first time in 1594 after the Inquisition (the Holy Office) had stolen his papers. Giordano Bruno was executed in 1600. In the year 1601 followed by the year 1602, the University of Paris was established followed by the parliament to reiterate the authority of peripatetic doctrine. Campanella was sentenced with life imprisonment in 1601 … ln 1616, Copernicus (Polish: Kopernik) school of thought was declared as a heretical school of thought. The tongue of Vanini was cut out and he was burnt alive, upon the verdict passed by the Parliament of Toulouse describing him as an astrologer, occultist, and atheist. In 1624, three authors opposed to Aristotelianism were expelled within twenty-four hours based on the request of the Faculty of Theology in Paris. In 1629, measures were taken against some anti-Aristotelian chemists… The holy office condemned Galileo and forced him to be under house arrest.”
Nevertheless, a series of scientific discoveries were undertaken by the pioneers of scientific movements in the West, such as Copernicus (d. 1543), Johannes Kepler (d. 1630) and Galileo Galilei (d. 1642), that shook trust in the concept of the Church and undermined its credibility. These strengthened trust in Western thinkers by virtue of their scientific ability and success. The scientific research and the defiance of the Church continued. The emergence of every new discovery and every modern thought acted as a pickaxe that contributed to the destruction of the Church’s intellectual edifice. Thus there were painful blows to the Church from Newton (d. 1757), Lisnnaeus (d. 1778), Lavoisier (d 1794), Claude Bernard (d. 1878), and Darwin (d. 1882), such that the dominance of the church gradually waned. The Church was no longer required to be reformed, as apparent in the movement of Martin Luther (d. 1546) and Jean Calvin (d. 1564) that resulted into the Thirty Years’ War (1618- 1648), whose result was catastrophic to the European nations. It was no longer required to merely reform the Church. Instead, it was required to demolish it. The matter concluded with the defamation of priestly ecclesiastical teachings in its entirety, refuting its concepts, teachings and intellectual perceptions, absolutely.
The famous phrase of the Scottish philosopher David Hume (d. 1776) in his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, summarizes the view of scholars about the Church, its knowledge and methods in the eighteenth century CE, by saying, “If we take in our hand any volume – of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance – let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning about quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experiential reasoning about matters of fact and existence? No. Then throw it in the fire, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
The fall of the Church accompanied its teachings and concepts about universe, man, life and society. This was accompanied by a growing confidence in the West about the abilities of the human mind to reveal the secrets of the universe, nature and man. Thus, reason in the West began replacing the “divine• church and its theology, gradually. Rationalism emerged to explain the cosmic phenomena, whilst societal parameters were analyzed according to rational views, free from all priestly or religious restrictions. Will Durant expressed in his book, The Story of Civilization Volume 7 that “Science now began to liberate itself from the placenta of its mother, philosophy. It shrugged Aristotle from its back, turned its face from metaphysics to Nature, developed its own distinctive methods, and looked to improve the life of man on the earth. This movement belonged to the heart of the Age of Reason, but it did not put its faith in “pure reason” – reason independent of experience and experiment. Too often such reasoning had woven mythical webs.”
Thus the new thoughts about humankind, reasoning, knowledge, society, politics, economy, state, ruling and canons became prominent. The views of Francis Bacon {d. 1626), Rene Descartes {d. 1650), Blaise Pascal {d. 1662), Baruch Spinoza {d. 1677), Thomas Hobbes {d. 1679), John Locke (d. 1704), Montesquieu {d. 1755), Voltaire (1778), and Jean–Jacques Rousseau (1778), Adam Smith {d. 1790), Immanuel Kant {d. 1804), Jeremy Bentham {d. 1832), John Stuart Mill {d. 1873) and others contributed to laying the foundations of modern Western thought.
This is the summary of the formation of modern Western thought, as narrated by the Western historians. Regardless of the accuracy in the history of Western thought, distinguishing facts from exaggerated myth serving the propaganda of the so-called Western miracle, that produced the civilization of Enlightenment and modernity, regardless of all of that, it is best for us to examine at the nature of this Western thought, to know its reality and then expose its corruption.
Essence of the Western Thought
Samuel P. Huntington mentions in his book, The Clash of Civilization that the separation between spiritual and temporal authority is amongst the main features of the Western civilization. The separation is considered to be the essence of Western civilization. Huntington states, “This division of authority contributed immeasurably to the development of freedom in the West.” He also states, “Historically American national identity has been defined culturally by the heritage of Western civilization and politically by the principles of the American creed on which Americans overwhelmingly agree: liberty, democracy, individualism, equality before the law, constitutionalism, private property.” Huntington wrote, “Europe, as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., has said, is “the source-the unique source” of the “ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and cultural freedom…. These are European ideas, not Asian, nor African, nor Middle Eastern ideas, except by adoption.”” Huntington then continues to say, “They make Western civilization unique, and Western civilization is valuable not because it is universal but because it is unique.” Philippe Nemo says in his book, What is the West? (French: Qu’est-ce que l’Occident?) that “As a matter of fact, Western civilization may define itself, by approximation in any case, in terms of the constitutional state, democracy, intellectual freedom, critical reason, science, and the liberal economy rooted in the principle of private property.”
In his book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, Niall Ferguson speaks of “the achievements of Western civilization – capitalism, science, the rule of law and democracy.” The historian Sir Ramsay Muir in his essay for Foreign Affairs in 1933, “the freedom of the individual to live his own life in his own way depends upon the existence of a system of law, enforced by the common will, which can restrain the strong from abuse of their strength at the expense of their neighbors.’ The repository europaeischewerte.info defined six basic European values in its publication, “Definition of the most basic European Values and their significance for our modem society,” which are humanistic thinking, rationality, secularity, rule of law, democracy and human rights. Milan Zafirovski asserts in his book, The Enlightenment and Its Effects on Modem Society, that the values that distinguish the West, fom1ing the foundation of its civilization, are “liberty, equality, justice, democracy, inclusion, human rights, dignity, well-being and happiness, humane life, civil liberties, scientific rationalism, technological and social progress and optimism, economic prosperity, free markets, secularism, pluralism and diversity, individualism, universalism, humanism, and the like.”
All these were the result of the intellectual movement and cultural revolution of Enlightenment in Western Europe. If we rely on these sayings that define the essence of Western thought, integrating it with what has been mentioned of its origination, we can give a crystallized picture that encapsulates the structural foundation of the Western ideology, delineating the pillars of its civilization and culture.
And after the conflict with the Church, the Western thought reached to a conclusion that forms its intellectual basis and its doctrine, which is, secularism (French: Laicite). Secularism means the liberation from the chains of the Church, freedom from the rulings of divine religion and the reliance upon the human mind, equipped with the scientific method, for establishing a system for the Western man, both individually and collectively, to manage the affairs of his life. Thus freedom, in its intellectual, political, economic and societal dimensions, emerged from secularism. Secularism is the pivotal concept on which the West built its conception of the system organizing the affairs of the individual, society and the state. So secularism is both the origin and the destination. Accordingly, this thought became sacred to the West as a
state and people. The democracy adopted by the West represents the formal structure and political framework that nurtures the notion of freedom. Ideology comprises of a rational doctrine upon which a system emerges. The Western ideology is based on the doctrine of secularism, upon which the democratic system emerges. This Western ideology is called Capitalism, after its most prominent feature, which is its economic system. Capitalism’s economic system is based on the idea of freedom of ownership. It is encapsulated by the well-known French phrase, laissez-faire, which means “1eave it alone.” It stresses the non-interference of government in the economy. The phrase laissez faire itself comes from the French phrase laissez faire et laissez passer, “let be and let pass.’ It is sometimes called Liberal Capitalism due to its prominent idea of freedom, or the prominent philosophy that produces it.As for the civilization which is a collection of concepts about life adopted by a nation, the important concepts of the Western civilization, adopted by the Western man and acted upon by the Western state, which are central to its society and for propagating it around the world are:
– Secularism (French: Laicite). It is, as discussed previously, the doctrine of the West and the foundation of its civilization.
– Democracy in its form and substance: i.e. as in any of the forms of ruling, it has specific characteristics, which in its case includes matters related to elections, sovereign laws and separation of powers. It is as a system nurturing values based on the so-called fundamental freedoms.
– Rationalism, in the sense that the mind judges upon everything.
– Individual and public freedom in its intellectual, political, economic and social dimensions.
– Individualism.
– Pluralism in its intellectual, cultural, political and social dimensions.
– Human rights, which includes the idea of equality in origin, as well as the idea of equality branching into so-called gender equality.
– Utilitarianism, as a conception of life that defines the meaning of happiness, along with its relation to both hedonism and social welfare, upon a teleological scale.
As for the culture which is a collective of knowledge, it is prevalent now in the West to use culture with the term sciences, along with separation between the sciences, according to fields, specializations and curricula. The Westerners have what is called natural science which includes any of the sciences (such as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena. Formal science is a branch of science studying formal language disciplines concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, statistics, theoretical computer science, artificial intelligence, information theory, game theory, systems theory, decision theory and rhetorical linguistics. Social science is the branch of science devoted to the study of societies and the relationships among individuals within those societies. In addition to sociology, social science includes anthropology, archaeology, economics, human geography, linguistics, management science, political science, psychology and history.
These bodies of knowledge are called sciences, along with the research methods that branch out from them, such as the statistical method, using induction and deduction. They also encompass varieties of criticism, such as aesthetic, logical, factual, constructive and destructive. They are all based on the Western viewpoint and are established upon the basis of its thought about life. They are also influenced by either its methodology of rationalism or its theory of empiricism. This makes separation between the objective and the subjective from amongst the most difficult matters. It requires conscientiousness and vigilance to distinguish between the mere objective intellectual research, from the subjective intellectual research that is influenced by the Western intellectual basis and its method.
Whilst we are examining, researching and refuting Western culture, we should draw attention to the necessity of distinguishing between two matters: the theoretical aspect and the practical aspect. The theoretical aspect of the Western thought, or the so-called theoretical, speculative or pure reason, encompasses Western culture as a whole, with all that it produces of knowledge and research. Thus, it includes a number of trends, orientations, methods and schools of thought that collectively comprise Western philosophy. For example, the so-called epistemology is specific to the research of the theory of knowledge in the past and present, regardless of the practical aspect and its influence on the society, state and individual, in terms of formulating thoughts, systems and behavior. Therefore, in the context of our practical research, we are neither concerned with Bergson’s theory of Duration, nor with Russell’s analytic philosophy nor with Schopenhauer’s pessimism or other theories that are considered central to Western culture. These theories have no significant impact on the practical formulation of the Western ideology and ns civilization as they are now. In the West, there are a number of trends, theories and intellectual schools of thought, however, in reality, they are nothing but emanations of the Western civilization and its dominant concepts, even if they appear as refutation or criticism. Some of them are influential like the philosophy of feminism, whilst others are not. Thus one should not be deceived by this. The differentiation between the two matters, theoretical and practical i.e. the differentiation between thoughts as knowledge alone on the one hand, and on the other hand, thoughts as concepts upon which the ideology is established, according to which the civilization is formulated. These are the concepts that are established as standards and values in the society, to which individuals and groups are subjected to and upon which the state is established, with its systems and treatments. Although we did not discuss in this book such trends, orientations and intellectual schools of thought, that fall under the so-called general Western culture, our refutation to Western thought as a whole does not neglect the basis upon which this thought is established, along with all that its produces.
This is the Western thought, ideology, method, civilization and culture which we would like to refute. It is the Western (Euro-American) thinking overall, whether its methodology of rationalism or its theory of empiricism and its scientific method, as well as its product, the so-called Enlightenment or modernity. Its ideology is called Capitalism and its doctrine is called Secularism (French: Laicite). Its method is to spread the ideology is called colonialism. Its system is called democracy that is based on the thought of freedom. Its philosophy is liberty and individualism, whilst its conception towards life is called utilitarianism.
-
Muharram & the Fall of Fir’awn
Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) said in Surah Al-Qasas;
“Ta Seen Meem. These are Verses of the Book that makes (things) clear. We rehearse to you some of the story of Musa and Fir’awn (Pharaoh) in Truth for people who believe. Truly Fir’awn exalted himself in the land and broke up its people into sections depressing a small group among them; their sons he slew but he kept alive their females, for he was indeed a maker of mischief. And We wished to be gracious to those who were being depressed in the land to make them leaders and make them inheritors. To establish a firm place for them in the land and We let Fir’awn and Haman and their hosts receive from them that which they feared.” [TMQ Al-Qasas: 1-6]
These words of Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) are remembered as the blessed month of Muharram has approached us once again. Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) has blessed the Muslims with experiencing these months so that we may remember the former generations who called to the worship and submission to Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) and how they succeeded in their struggles against the batil (falsehood).
For Muslims the reference point for undertaking all actions and deriving laws is from the Qur’an and Sunnah of the final Messenger Muhammad (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam). In addition to this Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) related many stories of the previous Prophets during the struggle and sacrifice in Makkah that the Prophet (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam) and the Sahabah (ra) went through. These Surahs were a great lesson for the Prophet (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam) and the Sahabah (ra). It motivated their souls; they carried the call of Islam, conveyed the da’wah and they learned to endure the struggle and sacrifice and worked with tawakkul (trust) and sabr (patience) for the victory as Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) had granted it to the previous Prophets.
The story of Musa (as) and his struggle against the tyrant Fir’awn is one of these stories in the Glorious Qur’an. It carries significance to the month of Muharram because this is a blessed month and it is also when Fir’awn was defeated.
The excellence of Muharram
The month of Muharram marks the beginning of the year 1424 Hijri, meaning 1424 years after Hijra (AH). Muharram was declared the first month of Hijri calendar by ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) at the suggestion of ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan (ra) in the year 16 AH.
The merits and significance of the month of Muharram are unparalleled. Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) narrated,The Prophet (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam) arrived in Madinah and found the Jews observing fast on the day of ‘Ashura. He said to them: ‘What is this?’ They said: ‘A great day. Allah saved Musa and the tribes of Israel from their enemies on this day and therefore, Musa fasted on this day.’ The Prophet (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: ‘We have more of a right to Musa than you.’ So he fasted on that day and also ordered the people to fast on that day.” [Al-Bukhari, Muslim, An-Nasai and Ibn Majah]
Abu Hurairah (ra) reported:“I asked the Prophet (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam): ‘Which prayer is the best after the obligatory prayers?’ He said: ‘Prayer during the middle of the night.’ I asked: ‘Which fast is the best after the fast of Ramadhan?’ He said, ‘The month of Allah that you call Muharram.’” [Ahmad, Muslim and Abu Dawud]
Indeed the fasting of ‘Ashura is of great excellence because Abu Qatada (ra) relates that the Prophet (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Fasting on the day of ‘Arafah is an expiation for two years, the year preceding it and the year following it. Fasting on the day of ‘Ashurah is an expiation for the year preceding it.” [Sahih Muslim]
The story of Musa (as)
Today the Muslims witness tyranny and oppression over the Islamic lands by the successor of Fir’awn, the U.S. and her servants, the rulers in the Muslim world. Musa (as) came to face similar tyranny and oppression by the Fir’awn of that time. It is on the day of ‘Ashurah that Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) gave the victory to Musa (as).
Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) raised Musa (as) to liberate the people from this tyranny and oppression. Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) mentioned in Surah al-Qasas how he protected Musa (as) from his campaign of killing the male children. The Qur’an relates to us when Musa (as) was born, Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) inspired his mother to cast him into the river.“And We inspired the mother of Musa, (saying): “Suckle him (Musa), but when you fear for him, then cast him into the river and fear not, nor grieve. Verily! We shall bring him back to you, and shall make him one of (Our) Messengers.” [TMQ Al-Qasas: 7]
The mother of Musa (as) obeyed the command of Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) with no resistance. Imagine casting your child into the river, this is the meaning of having Tawakkal (trust) in Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala).
And when Musa (as) came into the hands of Fir’awn, upon seeing Musa (as) Fir’awn’s wife felt joy and convinced Fir’awn not to slay him. Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) reunited Musa (as) with his mother when he would not take the milk from others, so Fir’awn’s wife employed Musa’s (as) mother as a maid to look after him and raise him. And a few ayat later Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) said,“So did We restore him to his mother, that she might be delighted, and that she might not grieve, and that she might know that the Promise of Allah is true. But most of them know not.” [TMQ Al-Qasas: 13]
This is a reminder that Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) will always fulfil his promise. Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) has promised the Ummah that victory will be ours,
“Allah has promised those of you who believe and do righteous deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth…” [TMQ An-Nur: 55]
The role of the Ummah is to work with full sincerity and effort and to have complete Tawakkul (trust) in Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) and at the same time by following the method of the Prophet (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam) to revive the Muslim Ummah. Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) said about Musa (as),
“And when he attained full strength, and was perfect (in manhood), We bestowed on him Hukman (Prophethood, right judgement of the affairs) and knowledge…” [TMQ Al-Qasas: 14]
Fir’awn’s arrogance and fall
When Musa (as) grew up he stood against Fir’awn and challenged his corruption and tyranny, he led the Children of Israel (Bani Israel) against Fir’awn and made them disbelieve in him and his tyranny. Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) said to Musa (as) and Harun (as),“Go, both of you, to Fir’awn, verily, he has transgressed (all bounds), and speak to him firmly, perhaps he may accept admonition or fear Allah” [TMQ Ta-Ha: 43-44]
Musa (as) and Harun (as) went to Fir’awn and discussed with him to convince him of the truth that Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) sent. But Fir’awn was arrogant and proud of his power and wealth.
“But non Believed in Musa except the offspring of his people, because of the fear of Fir’awn and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them; and verily, Fir’awn was an arrogant tyrant on the earth indeed he was one of the Musrifeen (transgressors) ” [TMQ Yunus: 83]
In reality Fir’awn’s power and wealth was but an illusion. His power could not extend to match the power of Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) and the power of the promised victory the believers carried in their hearts and minds. Just as today when the successor of Fir’awn the USA seems to be all powerful and invincible. The USA cannot match the power of Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) nor the power of the promised victory which the Muslims carry in their hearts and minds.
Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) said in Surah Yusuf,“We relate unto you (O Muhammad) the best of stories through Our revelations unto you, of this Qur’an. And before this (i.e. the revelation), you were among those who knew nothing about it (the Qur’an).” [TMQ Yusuf: 3]
Hence the story of Musa (as) is of the best stories and Muslims must look positively at these stories in the Qur’an and learn from them that the Ummah will one day defeat the modern day Fir’awn. This will happen by accomplishing what is fard on us today by following the method of the Prophet (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam).
USA’s arrogance and fall
“I want to be the bully on the block…” “…there is no future in trying to challenge the armed forces of the United States…” [Bush doctrine]. These were the testifying words of Colin Powell, the current US Secretary of State, before the House Armed Services Committee documented in the history of the Bush doctrine.
Today the U.S. is the modern day Fir’awn, roaming around the earth with arrogance and pride as if they are the Gods of the Earth. Like Fir’awn the USA is arrogant, oppresses the weak, whether they be the peoples or nations of the world, it breaks the very rules and legislation that it laid down such as UN resolutions and International Law. The Qur’an describes the nature of Fir’awn’s arrogance and the similarities are clear;“And he and his hosts were arrogant in the land, without right, and they thought they would never return to us.” [TMQ Al-Qasas: 39]
The U.S. claims that Saddam will use ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMD) against the West, Israel and other neighbouring countries whom Bush calls ‘friends’. Yet it is this very colonialist nation who is behind the impending war on Iraq that is the chief supplier of these weapons, and it is the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons in the entire history of human existence.
This arrogant superpower lies as it wishes hoping for people to accept what she says without question. For example, Colin Powell a few weeks ago ‘confidently’ described a compound in north-eastern Iraq – run by the group Ansar al-Islam – as a ‘terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.’ However the Observer newspaper described it as nothing more than a, “… dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere – only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking.”
It was 58 years ago that a fleet of American B-29 bombers dropped 1,665 tons of napalm-filled bombs on Tokyo, leaving almost nothing standing over 16 square miles. In one horrific night, the firebombing of Tokyo killed an estimated 100,000 people.
The U.S. has bombed Afghanistan as she pleased, she has squeezed Iraq of basic necessities such as foodstuff and medicine. She aids her henchmen (the rulers in the Islamic lands) in oppressing those Muslims who she considers as a threat to her forced domination in the Islamic lands.
Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) tells us about what Fir’awn said when Musa (as) came to him inviting him to worship only Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala),“O chiefs! I know not that you have an Ilah other than me, so kindle for me (a fire), O Haman, to bake (bricks out of clay), and set up for me a Sarhan (a lofty tower, or palace) in order that I may look at (or look for) the Ilah of Musa, and verily I think that he (Musa) is one of the liars.” [TMQ Al-Qasas: 38]
The U.S. supplies nations with weapons to kill the Muslims. Israel is one of the biggest buyers of U.S. arms, and much of the trade is financed with the $US2 billion a year it gets from Washington in military aid. Israel’s arsenal includes dozens of US helicopters (AH 64As, AH 1Fs, AH 1Gs); hundreds of tanks (M-60s) and armoured personnel carriers; and the biggest fleet of American fighter aircraft outside the US (F-15s, F-16s, F-4s and A-4s).
In all arrogance Fir’awn considered himself to be a god. Today the Americans carry the same arrogance, as was made so clear in an article in Time magazine titled, ‘America Rules: Thank God.’ An extract from the article says: “American dominance brings the world something more, the American creed, we are a uniquely ideological nation, we do not define ourselves by race or blood, but by adherence to a proposition, a proposition so humane and attractive, that it has independently of American power, one near universal adherence, from Prague’s velvet revolution to Tiananmen square, whose declaration of independence whose statue of liberty, do demonstrate us for freedom turned to for inspiration. Individual rights, government by consent, protection from arbitrary power, the free exchange of goods and ideas, we did not invent these ideas, we inherited them, we codified them and now we propagate them.” [Time Magazine, 4 August 1997]
However, despite the power and dominance the US carries today, it is a weak and crumbling nation. It is nothing other than an illusion at face value. The US is the most indebted nation in the world, has soaring crime rates, it has record family break-ups, it has recently admitted its fuel reserves have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s Arab oil embargo and most of the world hates her. Without the betrayal of the rulers in the Muslim countries the US armies would not have been able to step one foot in the Islamic lands from where she now bombs neighbouring countries.
David McArthur writes, “The US has been living off the savings of the rest of the world for years, now absorbing some three-quarters of the world’s debt finance. The US government, corporations and people are now the most indebted in the world. Altogether, the US has borrowed nearly $40 trillion, and needs $2 billion a day in debt finance to support its huge trade deficit.” [rense.com]
Any number of surveys do not need to prove the following point, however, in Germany a poll by the Forsa institute, published in the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper found that 57 percent agreed with the statement; “The United States is a nation of warmongers.”
If the rulers in the Islamic lands had not allowed the US to establish her military, air and naval bases in the Muslim world, could the US ever have been able strike a war on the Muslims of Iraq or Afghanistan? Never. As we will see insh’allah these traitors will be removed from their positions as the Muslim Ummah increases in her awareness of their treachery and betrayal. Once they are removed every colonialist base will be ejected from the Islamic lands. Where will the US strike her wars from then? Hence the idea of an unshakable and unbeatable America needs to be re-examined to understand with conviction the fall of this arrogant power.
Having Tawakkul (trust) in Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala)
Verily the Muslim Ummah is up against the Fir’awn of today and his assistants. We must learn from the seerah of our Messenger (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam) and stories of the previous Prophets such as Musa (as) and how he struggled against the tyrant Fir’awn and today we must do the same.
Having tawakkul in Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) means to work and fulfil the fard actions to the highest level and at the same time have tawakkul that Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) will very soon grant the Ummah the success. Our beloved Prophet (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam), Musa (as) and the other Prophets put their trust in Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) and this is the same trust we as Muslims must carry.
As the Qur’an tells us,“And Musa said, “O my people! If you have believed in Allah, then put your trust in Him if you are Muslims”. They said, “In Allah we put our trust. Our Lord! Make us not a trial for the folk who are Dhalimun (oppressors).” [TMQ Yunus: 84-85]
Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) ordered Muhammad (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam),
“So put your trust in Allah, surely, you (O Muhammad) are on manifest truth”. [TMQ An-Naml: 79]
Our stance regarding the current status quo should not be one of defeatism and should not be one of despair and should not be one of just having patience. Rather we should understand Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) has promised the Muslim Ummah His victory, and the defeat of today’s Fir’awn is not far insh’allah and we must work now to bring this defeat very soon. Our role today is to work on the method of the Prophethood to re-establish the Islamic Khilafah state.
This victory will only be materialised once the Muslim Ummah has united under the banner of one Khalifah under one Khilafah State and as one unified force against the Fir’awn and his assistants. We should have the same attitude that the Prophet (Sall Allahu Alaihi Wasallam), the Sahabah (ra) and the previous Prophets had. As Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) orders that the believers put their trust in Him alone,“Say, nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us. He is our Maula (Lord, Helper and Protector). And in Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) let the believers put their trust.” [TMQ At-Tauba: 51]
The Promise of Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala)
Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) said,“O Mankind! Verily, the Promise of Allah is true” [TMQ Al-Faatir: 5]
Verily the promise of Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) is the best of promises and it brings delight to the hearts and souls of the believers that Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) is behind the Muslims every step of the way with the struggle against the Fir’awn of today. Whenever a struggle between the Haqq (truth) and the Batil (falsehood) has taken place, Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) has made the Haqq triumphant at the hands of the believers. Whether the believers have been weak, disheartened or strong in number, the Haqq always remains.
“(It is) a Promise of Allah, and Allah fails not in His Promise, but most of men know not.” [TMQ Ar-Rum: 6]
Therefore, Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) will insh’allah give the Ummah the nusrah (victory) when we have expended all our efforts in working to revive the Ummah and re-establish the Islamic Khilafah state. The US, her assistants and the enemies of the Ummah around the world will insh’allah be another piece of history just as the former generations that Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta’aala) has informed us about.
“Did you (O Muhammad) not see how your Lord dealt with ‘Ad (people) of Iram Who were very tall like lofty pillars? The like of which were not created in the land? And (with) Thamud (people), who cut (hewed) out rocks in the valley (to make dwellings)? And Fir’awn who had pegs (who used to torture men by binding them to pegs)? Who did transgress beyond bounds in the lands (in the disobedience to Allah). And multiplied iniquity therein. So your Lord poured on them different kinds of sever torment. Verily your Lord is ever watchful” [TMQ A-Fajr: 6-14]
Asad Ali
Source: Khilafah Magazine March 2003 Edition
-
The Twisted Hikmah
“You have to use Hikmah, brother” one often hears. “Yes we agree with you 100%, but Hikmah must be used”, and “You are too aggressive, use some Hikmah” are on the tongue’s of many Muslims. Such a concept exists among active and non-active Muslims alike. Its validity or invalidity therefore must be discussed.
First, the concept of Hikmah must be put in context. It has been used frequently in issues as diverse as, asking for the assistance of the UN or the West in Iraq, Palestine, Bosnia or Kashmir; entering into the political process in the West; and the gradual implementation of Islam in the Muslim world amongst others. However each of the above mentioned examples have proofs from the Quran and the Sunnah to make them prohibited. When these proofs are mentioned they are met with a the statement “Brother, we agree with you 100%, but Hikmah must be used! Can’t you see Muslims (in Palestine, Kashmir etc) how they are treated; we must save them by any means! Can’t you see that nothing gets done unless the US and the UN wishes it?” and so forth.
In reality, this understanding of Hikmah is alien to Islam, for there is no text from the Quran or the Sunnah, where the word Hikmah is mentioned with the same meaning that some today associate. Upon researching the word Hikmah, one finds that it is derived from the Arabic word ‘Hukm’ which means ‘rule’. The word Hikmah appears in the Holy Quran twenty times. It appears with various meanings which are dependent on the context, such as Prophethood, the Quran, the Sunnah, knowledge of the reality of things, deep knowledge followed by actions based on this knowledge etc. Some of the Ayaat are as follows:“Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, Who shall rehearse Thy Signs To them and instruct them In Scripture and WISDOM, and purify them:” (TMQ al-Baqara:129)
“And Allah will teach him The Book and WISDOM…” (TMQ Ale-Imran:48)
“Allah did confer A great favour on the Believers When He sent among them A Messenger from among Themselves, rehearsing Unto them the Signs Of Allah, purifying them, And instructing them In Scripture and WISDOM…” (TMQ Ale-Imran:164)
“Invite (all) to the Way Of thy Lord with WISDOM…” (TMQ An-Nahl:125)
“And recite what is Rehearsed to you in your Homes, of the Signs of Allah And His WISDOM…” (TMQ Al-Ahzab:34)
“There have already come to them such tidings as contain a deterrent, A WISDOM far-reaching: -but (the preaching of) Warners Profits them not.” (TMQ Al-Qamr: 4-5)Thus there is no Islamic or linguistic meaning to Hikmah that is similar to that associated with it by some today.
As a matter of fact one finds that the word, used in this specific context, is synonymous with the idea of ‘Benefit” that exists in Capitalism. This is so because its usage is the same usage of ‘benefit’ among the capitalists. Both parties make it as the yardstick of their actions, with the difference that the Muslim’s say we follow Islam while Capitalists admit they follow that which is beneficial to them.
a) The Muslim is to abide by the divine rule in every action. The divine rule is found only in the Quran, Sunnah, Consensus of the Companions, and Analogy (Qiyas). That which the person views as good, is not one of them. Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’ala) says,
“It is not for the believer (male or female) that when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter that they should have any choice in their matter.” [TMQ Al-Ahzab: 36]
b) All actions of all human beings are addressed by the divine rule. The divine rule is divided into five categories. Every action must fall in one of these categories. The five categories are:
1) The obligation (fard), which is defined as the action that the person is rewarded for doing and punished for not performing, such as, Salah, Zakah, Jihad, establishing the Khilafah.
2) The forbidden (Haram). It is the action that a person is punished for doing and rewarded for not doing i.e., Zina, back biting, ruling by kufr, doing injustice to an orphan…etc.
3) The liked or preferable (Mandub or Mustahab) is the action where the person is rewarded for doing but not punishable for leaving. Example of such are praying Nafil, giving sadaqa, doing Zikr, etc.
4) The disliked (Makrooh) is that which the person is rewarded for abandoning however not punishable for committing, such as, sleeping on the stomach, biting their nails etc.
5) The allowed (Mubah) action is the one in which the person is not rewarded or punishable for doing or abandoning, talking, sleeping, walking, eating, are some examples.
Therefore it is not allowed for a person to use his “Hikmah” to determine the status of his actions or succumb to his personal desires.
Furthermore the same people cite the example of the Messenger as a justification for their understanding of “Hikmah”. The example of the treaty of Hudybiyah is the main incident used to prove their point. In that treaty, the Messenger (SallAllahau Alaihi Wasallam) accepted to remove “The Messenger of Allah” and “The Most Merciful the Most Compassionate” from the document. Those Muslims see in such actions some sort of Hikmah or compromise.
Such a conclusion is definitely wrong on several levels, two of which are:
a) Both demands made by the Kuffar to the Messenger (SallAllahau Alaihi Wasallam) did not go against any divine rule. Removing the wording “Messenger of Allah” from the document was not Haram, for that was a political document that had nothing to do with anyone’s belief. The Messenger (SallAllahau Alaihi Wasallam) was not asked to deny his Prophethood but merely not to write it in the document. Also removing the words “The Most Merciful, the Compassionate” from the paper is not against Islam. This is due to the fact that we are ordered to mention the name of Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’ala) on any matter of importance, not to write it. The Messenger (SallAllahau Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Anything of importance that doesn’t start by mentioning the name of Allah is incomplete.” There was no abandonment of the divine rule at all in the above case.
b) This document was signed based on an order of the Wahi. It was due to this reason that the Messenger (SallAllahau Alaihi Wasallam) refused to reverse his decisions despite the feeling amongst the Muslims that it weakened their position, Rasool Allah (SallAllahau Alaihi Wasallam) categorically stated to this “I am the slave of Allah and His Messenger. And I will not disobey His order.” Therefore, signing that treaty was a divine rule from Allah that the Messenger adhered to.
In conclusion Muslims must learn, not as a matter of theory, but as a matter of practice that the good is only that which Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger have said. We must learn that the criterion for our actions is the Halal and Haram not reason or benefit. We Muslims must learn that the Hikmah is in following the Islamic text as it is, without twisting or changing its meaning. Muslims must remember that using our minds as the yardstick of actions instead of the divine law is going back to Jahilliyyah and taking the secular standard of judgment taken by the West.Abul Amin & Habibur Rehman
Khilafah.com Journal
17 Rabee Al-Awwal 1424 Hijri
18 May 2003 -
Islam and Spirituality
The origin of the use of the word ‘spirit’ is found in the discussions that took place between people who believe in the existence of God, frequently using words such as ‘spirit’ and ‘spirituality’ to articulate the effect of a creator.
One of the most misunderstood areas of Islam amongst the Ummah is this very topic of spirituality with the Muslim Ummah today holding a wide range of varying views on what spirituality is and how it is to be interpreted.
It must however be asked as to whether the issue of spirituality in Islam is something that has always existed. Is the discussion of spirituality part of Islam or a separate universal topic?
Spirituality: Past and present
The first-time spirituality was discussed amongst the Muslims was when they encountered Hindu philosophy. Hindu philosophy advocates ascetism and renunciation of the world. Comparisons were made with zuhd (pious austerity), a well-known status which has been reported in several ahadeeth. It is from this comparison that the ‘Sufis’ emerged.
Throughout the medieval ages, spirituality came to be defined, due to the history of Christianity, in Europe. The Christian Church maintained that man embodies both spiritual ascension and physical yearning and that life includes both the materialistic and the spiritual aspects. They advocated that the tangible reality contradicts the unseen, and that spiritual ascension cannot be together with physical yearning, and that matter is separate from the spirit. They contended that these two sides are separated from one another due to their fundamental contradiction in nature.
This understanding led to an historic conflict in Europe which eventually saw the removal of the Church as an authority and its replacement by man-made system and laws. This in turn led to the industrial revolution where vast leaps were made in technology, allowing mass consumption on a scale never seen before. It is no surprise, therefore, that this has created a world were material gratification is seen as the ultimate ideal. The materialisation of society has led many to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and still unable to fulfil their spiritual void, famous examples being Madonna turning to Jewish asceticism and Tom Cruise turning to Scientology. Both these personalities are considered to have achieved the ultimate level of sensual pleasure.
Islam and Spirituality
Scholars in Islamic history did not write at length about spirituality as it was never a discussion. Some discussion did take place when Islam came into contact with Hindu philosophy due to elements of the new thinking i.e. Hindu asceticism being espoused by some.
The issue of spirituality can only refer to two matters, either the reality of the created i.e. who created all the creation and the relationship between the creator and the created, or it can be the ruh, translated often as ‘soul’.
The ruh definitely exists and is proven in the definite Qur’anic texts, and hence Muslims are obliged to believe in it. The word spirit or ‘ruh’ is a common term like the word ‘ein’ in Arabic, a word that has multiples meaning; such as ‘water source’, ‘eye’, ‘spy’, ‘gold’, ‘silver’ amongst others. The word ruh appeared in the Qur’an with numerous meanings, such as the secret of life;
“And they ask you about the ruh. Say: The ruh is one of the commands of my Lord, and you are not given aught of knowledge but a little.” [Al-Israa, 17:85]
In Islam, spirituality is defined as the linking of actions to the purpose of life. So for instance, a Muslim’s purpose of life is to worship Allah, hence spirituality in this sense is linking the actions of an individual to the purpose of their life. Actions on their own, without using this framework, are just that – actions. They are material constructs of time, space and objects.
So somebody could pray their salah without ever thinking about the words they are reciting and with these words having no impact upon them. This prayer cannot then be described as spiritual because it has become robot-like. It is just the same as eating a certain meal, or going on a train, as there is no link to the purpose of life. A Muslim is he who does actions to seek the pleasure of Allah and to draw nearer to Him. By this definition, all actions undertaken for the pleasure of Allah are spiritual because they link the material action with the purpose of life.
This why sexual relations within marriage, the most material of actions, becomes a spiritual action when linked to Allah سبحانه وتعالى commands. Spirituality has often been seen as an intangible sensation, based on the Christian precept of the Holy Spirit inspiring morality and hence, actions. This understanding is wholly inconsistent and at complete contrast with the way Islam views spirituality because this view is subjective, whereas the Islamic view is objective because it is from Allah.
There are two extremes of practising spirituality. Firstly, there are those who are highly influenced by and inclined to emotional spirituality and to ignoring the aspects of life perceived to be ‘materialistic’, preferring the spiritual value over the materialistic one. So they accordingly turn to prayer (individual ibaadah) and renounce the material world and its aspects; they neglect life because it is material and under such a common definition and understanding, it becomes obvious that religion is bound to be a personal matter in every sense of the word. When this becomes common in people’s thoughts, the standard of living in the society they live in declines as they seek only to perfect their character and morals. On the other extreme are those who are highly influenced by the material world and are taken over by their whims and neglect the spiritual value, preferring the materialistic value and making their purpose in life to achieve it.
When Islam speaks of zuhd (living an austere life) in this world, this means that one should not take the world as one’s goal in life, for example setting the procurement of wealth as the highest goal. It does not mean that Muslims should not enjoy the good and halaal aspects of life. This is contrary to ascetism and renunciation of the world, both of which require the abandoning of pleasures and delights in life despite having the ability to attain them. This contradicts Islam.
It is also wrong for Muslims to evaluate actions from a deen-and-dunya perspective (matter and spirit). Instead they must be evaluated by their Creator who is Allah سبحانه وتعالى. The Shari’ah or laws of Allah has demonstrated the solutions to life’s problems through obedience to Allah’s commands and prohibitions. Allah has also shown Muslims the action that achieves the spiritual value which is the Fard (obligatory) and Mandub (recommended) worships.
The best example we have of this is that of the Sahabahs or Companions of the Prophet. They took part in wars, governed the lands of the Muslims, engaged in business and trade and all these actions came under the banner of spirituality. If we begin to separate matters into ‘deeni’ and ‘dunya’ matters, we run the risk of compartmentalising Islam and at the very least losing out on the reward of everyday actions. At its worst, this mentality will lead to secularism where we completely separate our actions from our purpose of life, leading to a compromise of our religion.
Inevitably we must realise our relationship with Allah سبحانه وتعالى when undertaking any action, whether it is spiritual or material, thus making sure that our actions are in accordance to the commands and prohibitions of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and ultimately attaining his pleasure.
-
Q&A: Demonstrations, Marches and the Hadith of Muslims Marching out in Two Rows
To: Moadh Seif Elmi
Question:
Our honourable Sheikh, Assalamu Alaikum. Is the hadeeth regarding the Muslims going out in two rows, one headed by Omar (ra) and the other by Hamza (ra), weak? Thank you.
And
To: Andalusi Maqdisi Andalus
Asalamu Alaikum our honourable Sheikh,
In your answer regarding demonstrations, may Allah protect you, you gave reference to this hadeeth:
Abu Na’eem Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Ahmad Bin Ishaq bin Musa bin Mahran Al-Asbahani (deceased in 430 AH) narrated in his book “Huliyat Al-Awliaa’ Wa Tabaqat Al-Asfiyaa’” from Ibn Abbas, he said: I asked Omar (ra): Why were called Al-Farouq? He said: Hamza converted to Islam three days before me, Allah then opened my heart to Islam… I said: Where is the Prophet (saw)? My sister said, “He is in the house of Al-Arqam ibn Al-Arqam at As-Safa.” So I went there… and said, “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his slave and Messenger.” He said that the people in the house chanted Takbeers loudly which the people outside in the Masjid heard. He said, “I said, O Messenger of Allah, are we not upon the truth, if we are dead or alive?” He said: «بَلَى وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ، إِنَّكُمْ عَلَى الْحَقِّ إِنْ مُتُّمْ وَإِنْ حَيِيتُمْ “Yes, by whose my soul is in His hand, you are upon the truth, if you die or if you live? He said, “I said, so why are we hiding? By the One who sent you with the truth you will go out, so we marched out in two rows, Hamza lead one line, and I lead the other like the flour warms until we entered the Masjid, he said: Qurayish looked at me and they looked at Hamza, they were hit with depression that they never experienced before, on that the Prophet called me Al-Farouq, who differentiated between truth and falsehood.” End.
When studying this hadeeth, we find that Al-Albani said that it is odd and most scholars of hadeeth graded it as weak. My question is in two parts: First, is it allowed to refer to weak evidence? If the answer is yes, then, when do we use it as evidence and how do we judge it?
If the answer was no, do you therefore have another narration other than what is mentioned in the question? May Allah make us benefit from your knowledge; May Allah Bless you and open doors for you. Abdullah Ash-Shami
Answer:
Wa Alaikum us Salaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu,
Both questions are concerning the same subject, so here is your answer:
My dear brothers,
When you read that someone graded a narration as weak, it does not necessarily true that it is definitely weak. For example there are “Shuyookh” who graded the Ahadeeth of Bukhari and Muslim as weak, i.e. that they ranked Ahadeeth which were extracted by the two who the Ummah accepted and were reassured by their narrations. Bukhari and Muslim had set great standards in finding the correctness of narration, through the chain of narrators and the text… despite this there were those who came and said that some of their ahadeeth were weak!
Yes, it is true that if the hadeeth is found to be weak, it is not allowed to use it as evidence. However, Muhadiths or some of them might grade a hadeeth as weak while others grade it as Hasan and can be used as evidence. Those acquainted with the science of Hadeeth and its fundamentals know this, it is well known amongst Muhadiths and Mujtahideen, so when some use a hadeeth as a reference, another does not. We have given detailed explanation of this in our book, The Islamic Personality Volume One under: “Accepted and Rejected Hadeeth” and the chapter on: “When to consider a hadeeth as an evidence in the Shari’ah rules”
Now I will answer your question on the March of the Sahaba in Makka after the conversion of Omar (ra) to Islam:
1. The narration mentioned in the answer to the question was that of Abu Na’eem Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Ahmad Bin Ishaq bin Musa bin Mahran Al-Asbahani (deceased in 430 AH) narrated in his book “Huliyat Al-Awliaa’ Wa Tabaqat Al-Asfiyaa’”, Abu Na’eem is from the trusted memorisers, in “A’lam An-Nubala”, Az-Zarkali said regarding him:
“Abu Nu’aim [330-430 AH = 948-1038 CE] Ahmad Bin Abdullah Bin Ahmad Al-Asbahani, Abu Na’eem: is a memoriser, historian, from the trusted in memorisation and narration.
He was born and died in Asbahan. From his books are: “Huliyat Al-Awliaa’ Wa Tabaqat Al-Asfiyaa’-T” in ten volumes, and “Ma’rifat As-Sahaba” al-Kabeer, only one left in two volumes, it is the 551 AH version found in the library of Sultan Ahmad III in Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, number 497 as mentioned in Al-Maimani’s Memoires-Kh.
And “Tabaqat Al-Muhaditheen Wa Ar-Riwat” and “Dala’il An-Nubuwa-T” and “Zikr Akhbar Asbahan-T” in two volumes, and the book “As-Shu’ara’-Kh”. End.
This is why his narration regarding the Marching of Muslims in two rows after the conversion of Omar (ra) can be taken as evidence.
2. However, it is not the only narration, there are other correct (Saheeh) narrations:
– In Al-Mustadrak regarding the two Sahihein by Al-Hakim: “From Othman bin Abdullah Bin Al-Arqam, from his grandfather, who was from the people of Badr, the Prophet (saw) was in his house at Safa, until the number of Muslims reached 40, the last one to embrace Islam was Omar bin Al-khatab (ra), when they became 40 they marched out to the Mushriks…” Al-Hakim said this is a Sahih hadeeth in transmission, and they did not extract it, Az-zahabi agreed with him.
– In at-Tabaqat Al-Kubra to Ibn Sa’d: he said on the authority of Yahiya bin Imran bin Othman bin Al-Arqam, he said, “I heard my grandfather Othman bin Al-Arqam say: I am the son of the seventh man who embraced Islam, his house was in Makka at Safa. It is the first house the Prophet called in it for Islam and many people embraced Islam in it. On Monday night he (saw) made this supplication:
((اللهم أعز الإسلام بأحب الرجلين إليك: عمر بن الخطاب أو عمرو بن هشام))
“O Allah strengthen Islam by two of the most loved men to you: Omar bin Al-Khatab or Amr bin Hashim”.
Omar bin Al-Khataab came the next morning to the house of Al-Arqam and embraced Islam, they marched out and chanted Takbeers and did Tawaf around the Ka’ba openly, and the house of Al-Arqam was called the house of Islam.”
– Ibn Ishaq said in As-Seera An-Nabawiyah: “Omar then said: By Allah we have a greater right to call for Islam… let the Deen of Allah become highest in Makka, If our people were unjust to us we fight them, if they support us we accept it from them, Omar and his companions marched out and sat in the Masjid, when Qurayish saw that Omar joined Islam.”
– The subject of the two rows was also mentioned by Taqqi-udDeen Al-Maqreezi in “Imta’ Al-Asma’”, and by Hussain bin Muhammad Ad-Diyyar Bakri in “Tareekh Al-Khamees Fi Ahwal Anfus An-Nafees”, and by Muhammad Abu Shabha in “As-Seera An-Nabawiyah Ala Dhaw’ Al Qur’an Wa As-Sunnah”, and by Saffiy Ar-Rahman Al-Mubakfoory in “Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtom”… and others.
3. Not to mention that this is not the only evidence that permit demonstrations and marches. Demonstrations and marches are styles that are used to express an opinion and spread ideas similar to leaflets, talks and seminars, videos and other means and styles. In origin, means and styles are permitted unless there is evidence that prohibits some of them, which will restrict their use. These means and styles move people to carry Islam and adhere to it, and interact with it. The Hizb carries out these actions when it is possible on the condition that the Hizb organises them and manages them alone and under its Banner and Chants, and unites people by its leadership ... and not in partnership with others who raise their banners and has their chants… The Hizb does not carry out such actions. What we are able to do with our own leadership and management we carry it out, they may come a time when we cannot carry out these actions and they may come others when we can. This is similar to the style of Media Offices. It was difficult to open Media Offices during the time of Abu Ibrahim (May Allah, have mercy on him), but was more feasible during the time of Abu Yusuf (May Allah have mercy on him) who appointed me as the Official Spokesman in Jordan, and today as you can see our Media Offices are many.
4. In conclusion dear brothers, every action that we undertake, and every step we make, we think and reflect upon, we do not just abstain from that which is prohibited, but from anything that comes near the dust of the prohibited dust; we trust in Allah (swt) inwardly and outwardly, in the minor and major. We carry a burden that mountains cannot bear, did you think we can continue without the adherence to the Shari’ah rules was in our hearts, tongues, and all our sentiments?! We ask Allah for assistance and guidance to the wisdom in issues. And Allah supports the righteous.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
10 Sha’aban 1435
2014/06/08Thus, rallies are acts of public opinion to move people and make them aware of the ideas of Islam and its rulings. They are held by the condition that we can perform them with our banners, cheers and thoughts, but we do not join others in public actions that we do not lead. This is because when the Prophet (saw) led the Muslims in that march, Muslims did not join other movements under mixed leadership, but Muslims took two rows in a march led by RasulAllah (saw).
From another Q&A
