Abu ne mai wahalar gaske a samu
wata gamayya ta Al’umma ko wata
hadaka ta Al’umma wacce za a ce
ba a tsara wa gudanar da ita
constitution ba: Ko dai a rubuce, ko
kuwa ba a rubuce ba.
Wannan shi ya sa ma a lokacin da
Annabi mai tsira da amincin Allah
ya yi hijira zuwa Madina bai bata
wani lokaci ba, a’a tun a shekarar
farko ta hijira ne ya rubuta wa
jaririyar Daular Islama constitution:
watau abin da tsoffin littattafan
tarihi na Musulunci ke kira: AL-
WATHIIQAH ma’ana: Abin da aka
kyautata shi kuma aka amince da
shi. Wani lokaci kuma suna kiran
shi da suna: AS-SAHIIFAH ma’ana:
Littafi. Sannan sabbin littattafan
tarihin Musulunci kuma suna kiran
shi da suna: DUSTUURUL
MADINAH ma’ana constitution din
Madina.
Ga tarjamar nassin constitution din
kamar yadda ya zo a rubuce cikin
littafin: Siiratu Ibn Hisham 1/503,
da littafin Ar-Raudhul Unuf 2/345,
da littafin As-Siiratun Nabawiyyah
Ardhu Waqaa’i’i Wa Tahliilu Ahdath
1/492:-
((Da sunan Allah Mai rahama Mai
jinkai.
Wannan wani littafi ne daga
Muhammad Annabin nan kuma
Manzon Allah, tsakanin Muminai
da Musulmai daga Quraishawa da
mutanen Yathrib (Madina) da ma
wanda ya bi su ya riske su ya yi
jihadi tare da su.
Lalle su wata Al’umma ce guda
daya koma bayan mutane.
Muhaajirai daga cikinsu
Quraishawa za su ci gaba da zama
a kan al’amarin da suke a kai: za
su rika biyan diyya a tsakaninsu,
za su rika fansar fursunonin yaki
da aka kama daga cikinsu a bisa
tsari na kyautayi da adalci a
tsakanin Muminai.
Banuu Auf za su ci gaba da zama
a kan al’amarin da suke a kai: Za
su rika biyan diyya a bisa diyyarsu
ta farko, ko wace jama’a za ta rika
fansar fursunonin yaki da aka
kama daga cikinta a bisa tsari na
kyautayi da adalci a tsakanin
Muminai.
Banul Haarith Bin Khazraj za su ci
gaba da zama a kan al’amarin da
suke a kai: Za su rika biyan diyya a
bisa diyyoyinsu na farko, ko wace
jama’a za ta rika fansar fursunonin
yaki da aka kama daga cikinta a
bisa tsari na kyautayi da adalci a
tsakanin Muminai.
Banuu Jusham za su ci gaba da
zama a kan al’amarin da suke a
kai: Za su rika biyan diyya a bisa
diyyoyinsu na farko, ko wace
jama’a za ta rika fansar fursunonin
yaki da aka kama daga cikinta a
bisa tsari na kyautayi da adalci a
tsakanin Muminai.
Banun Najjar za su ci gaba da
zama a kan al’amarin da suke a
kai: Za su rika biyan diyya a bisa
diyyoyinsu na farko, ko wace
jama’a za su rika fansar fursunonin
yaki da aka kama daga cikinta a
bisa tsari na kyautayi da adalci a
tsakanin Muminai.
Banuu Amr Bin Auf za su ci gaba
da zama a kan al’amarin da suke a
kai: Za su rika biyan diyya a bisa
diyyoyinsu na farko, ko wace
jama’a za ta rika fansar fursunonin
yaki da aka kama daga cikinta a
bisa tsari na kyautayi da adalci a
tsakanin Muminai.
Banun Nabit za su ci gaba da
zama a kan al’amarin da suke a kai
za su rika biyan diyya a bisa
diyyoyinsu na farko, ko wace
jsma’a za ta rika fansar fursunonin
yaki da aka kama daga cikinta a
bisa tsari na kyautayi da adalci a
tsakanin Muminai.
Lalle Muminai ba za su bar
mutumin da bashi ya ci karfinsa a
cikinsu ba face sai sun ba shi abin
da zai biya tare da kyautayi: Daga
fansa ko diyya.
Sannan Mumini ba zai yi kawance
da ‘yantaccen bawa na wani
Mumini ba koma bayan wancan
Muminin.
Kuma lalle Muminai masu takawa
hannuwansu yana kan dukkan
wanda ya yi zalunci a cikinsu ko ya
nemi samun wata kariya ta hanyar
zalunci, ko zunubi, ko ketare iyaka,
ko yada barna tsakanin Muminai,
lalle hannuwansu suna kansa
gaba daya koda kuwa da ne yake
ga daya daga cikinsu.
Sannan Mumini ba ya kashe
Mumini saboda kafiri, haka nan ba
zai taimaki kafiri a kan Mumini ba.
Kuma amanar Allah daya ce mafi
kankanta a cikin Muminai in ya
dauke ta hakan sai ya lazimce su
(gaba daya).
Kuma lalle Muminai sashinsu
majibinci ne ga sashi koma bayan
sauran mutane.
Kuma lalle dukkan wanda ya bi mu
daga cikin Yahudawa to yana da
hakkin taimako da koyi a bisa halin
suna wadanda ba a zalunta, kuma
ba a taimakon wani a kan cutar da
su.
Kuma lalle zaman lafiyar Muminai
daya ce ba za a kulla zaman lafiya
da wani Mumini ba koma bayan
wani Muminin a cikin yaki cikin
tafarkin Allah face sai a bisa daidai
da adalci a tsakaninsu.
Kuma lalle ko wane yaki da ake
aiwatarwa za a rika karbabbeniya
ne a tsakaninsu (idan wadannan
jama’a suka fita a wannan yakin to
wasu jama’an kuma sai su fita a
daya yakin).
Kuma lalle Muminai sashinsu na
dawowa a kan sashi da abin da ya
sami jininsu cikin tafarkin Allah.
Kuma lalle Muminai masu takawa
suna bisa mafi kyawun shiriya
kuma mafi mikewansa.
Sannan wani mushruki (mai bautar
gumaka) ba zai ba da mafaka ga
wani rai ko dukiya ta Quraishawa
ba, kuma ba zai shiga tsakanin
wani Mumini da shi ba (shi wannan
ran ko dukiyar).
Sannan duk wanda ya yi kisan kai
a bisa zalunci kisa kuma wanda ya
tabbata ta hanyar hujja to za a yi
kisasi ne (ramuwar gayya) a
cikinsa sai dai idan waliyyin wanda
aka kashe ya yarda ya karbi diyya,
sannan dole ne dukkan Muminai
su tsayu a kansu babu abin da zai
halatta gare su sai tsayuwa a
kansa.
Sannan ba ya halatta ga Muminin
da ya yarda da abin da ke cikin
wannan Littafin (constitution) kuma
ya yi imani da Allah da Ranar
Lahira ya taimaki mai laifi, ko ya ba
shi mafaka kuma lalle duk wanda
ya taimake shi ko ya ba shi mafaka
to hakika akwai la’anar Allah a
kansa, da kuma fushinSa a Ranar
Kiyama, sannan ba za a karbi wata
musanya ko fansa daga gare shi
ba.
Sannan duk yadda kuka saba a
cikin al’amari to fa makomarsa
zuwa ga Muhammad mai tsira da
amincin Allah ne.
Lalle Yahudawa za su rika ciyar da
dukiyarsu tare da Muminai matukar
dai ana yakarsu (su Muminan).
Sannan Yahudawa Banuu Auf
wata Al’umma ce tare da Muminai.
Yahudawa suna damar yin
addininsu, Musulmi ma suna da
daar yin addininsu: ‘Yantattun
bayinsu da su kansu sai wanda ya
yi zalunci ya yi zunubi, lalle shi
wannan babu wanda yake
hallakarwa sai kansa da kuma
iyalan gidansa.
Kuma lalle Yahudawan Banuu
Najjar suna da keatankwacin abin
da Yahudawan Banuu Auf suke da
shi.
Sannan Yahudawan Banul Haarith
suna da kwatankwacin abin da
Yahudawan Banuu Auf auke da
ahi.
Sannan Yahudawan Banuu
Saa’idah suna da kwatankwacin
abin da Yahudawan Banuu Auf
suke da shi.
Sannan Yahudawan Banuu
Ju’sham suna da kwatankwacin
abin da Yahudawan Banuu Auf
suke da shi.
Sannan Yahudawan Banul Aus
suna da kwatankwacin abin da
Yahudawan Banuu Auf suke da
shi.
Sannan Yahudawan Banuu
Tha’ala’bah suna da kwatankwacin
abin da Yahudawan Banuu Auf
suke da shi.
Sai fa wanda ya yi zalunci ya yi
zunubi lalle shi wannan babu
wanda yake hallakarwa sai kansa
da kuma iyalan gidansa.
Kuma lalle jama’ar Jafnah wani
yanki ne na Kabilar Tha’ala’bah
saboda su kamar su suke.
Kuma lalle Banuu Sha’tai’bah suna
da kwatankwacin abin da
Yahudawan Banuu Auf suke da
shi.
Sannan aikin kirki ba kamar zunubi
yake ba.
Sannan ‘yantattun bayin
Tha’ala’bah kamar su Tha’ala’bah
ne suke.
Sannan abokan Yahudawa kamar
su kansu Yahudawan ne suke.
Sannan babu daya daga cikinsu da
zai fita ba tare da izinin
Muhammad mai tsira da amincin
Allah ba.
Sannan ba za a sanya kariya ba a
kan daukan fansar wani rauni.
Sannan duk wanda ya yi kisan gilla
to kuwa kansa da iyalansa ya yi
wa’ sai fa wanda ya yi zalunci,
kuma lalle Allah Yana kan magi
kyawun haka.
Sannan wajibi ne Yahudawa su
ciyar da dukiyoyinsu, kuma wajibi
ne Musulmi su ciyar da
dukiyoyinsu.
Sannan lalle akwai taimakon juna
a tsakaninsu a kan dukkan wanda
ya yaki mutanen wannan Littafin
(constitution).
Sannan lalle a tsakaninsu akwai
nasiha da ayyukan kwarai banda
zunubi.
Sannan ba a cewa mutum ya yi
laifi saboda dalilin abokin
kwancensa.
Sannan lalle akwai taimako ga
wanda aka zalunta.
Sannan kuma Yahudawa za su
ciyar da dukiyoyinsu tare da
Muminai matukar dai ana yakarsu.
Sannan garin Yathrib (Madina)
lalle mai alfarma ne ga mutanen
wannan Littafin (Constitution).
Sannan lalle makwabci tamkar
makwabcinsa yake matukar ba mai
cutarwa ba ne ba kuma mai zunubi
ba ne.
Sannan ba a ba wa wata mace
mafaka ba tare da izinin mutanenta
ba.
Sannan dukkan abin da ya
kasance a tsakanin jama’ar
wannan Littafin (constitution) na
wani laifi ko wani jayayya da ake
tsoron barnarsa, to makomarsa
zuwa ga Allah ne kuma zuwa ga
Muhammad Manzon Allah ne mai
tsira da amincin Allah.
Sannan Allah Yana a kan mafi kirki
da takawar abin da yake cikin
wannan Littafin (constitution).
Sannan ba a bai wa Quraishawa
da wadanda suka taimake su
mafaka.
Sannan lalle taimako dole ne a
tsakaninsu a kan dukkan wanda ya
kawo wa Yathrib (Madina) hari.
Idan kuma aka kira su zuwa ga
wani sulhu da za su yi shi kuma su
jibance shi to lalle za su yi sulhun
kuma za su jibance shi, lalle su
idan aka kira su zuwa ga misalin
haka to lalle ne suna hakki a kan
Muminai face wannan da ya yi yaki
cikin Addini.
A kan dukkan mutane akwai kaso
nasu ta bangarensun nan da yake
ta fiskarsu.
Kuma lalle Yahudawan Aus:
‘Yantattun bayinsu da su kansu
suna kan misalin abin da ma’abuta
wannan Littafin (constitution) suke
da shi tare da tsantsar mutumin
kirki daga ma’abuta wannan Littafin
(constitution).
Kuma lalle aikin kirki ba kamar
zunubi yake ba, babu wani mai
aikata wani aiki na barna face a
kan kansa.
Kuma lalle Allah Yana kan mafi
gaskiya kuma mafi kirkin abin da
yake cikin wannan Littafi
(constitution).
Kuma lalle wannan Littafin
(constitution) ba ya ba wa azzalumi
da mai zunubi kariya.
Kuma lalle dukkan wanda ya fita
daga Madina amintacce ne, kuma
dukkan wanda ya zauna cikin
Madina amintacce ne, sai wanda
ya yi zalunci, ko ya yi zunubi.
Kuma lalle Allah Mai ba da mafaka
ne ga wanda ya yi kirki da takawa,
haka ma Muhammad Manzon
Allah mai tsira da amincin Allah)).
Intaha.
*************************
wannan ita ce:-
ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ – ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﻔﺔ – ﺍﻟﺪﺳﺘﻮﺭ
Da Annabi mai tsira da amincin
Allah ya rubuta wa mutanen
Madina Musulminsu da
Yahudawansu da kafurai masu
bautan gumaka dake tare da su.
Kuma Annabi ya rubuta musu
wannan constitution din ne ba
saboda da yaudara ba a’a saboda
su yi aiki da shi ne.
Ke nan wannan yana tabbatar
mana da cewa duk lokacin da
Musulmi masana Shari’ar
Musulunci suka hadu suka rubuta
constitution saboda gudanar da
kasarsu, ko gudanar da wata
kungiya tasu, ko gudanar da wani
club nasu, to ba daidai ba wani ya
ce zai karya wannan constitution
din saboda biyan wata maslahar
kansa. Kuma wannan shi ne
ma’anar fadar Annabi mai tsira da
amincin Allah cikin hadithi sahihi:
((Musulmi duna bisa sharuddansu
sai fa sharadin da ya haramta hala,
ko ya halatta haram)).
Muna fata Allah Ya nuna mana
gaskiya gaskiya ce Ya ba mu ikon
bin ta Ya nuna mana karya karya
ce Ya ba mu ikon guje mata.
Ameen.
Alhamdulillah
Bissimillah
malam wanan jawabai haka suke, jazakallahu
amma to malam en kalura da wanan counstitution bai ci karo na Qur,ani ba ta kowace fuska, kuma kasan shi Annabi /saw/ “WAMA YANTIQU ANIL HAWA” “IN HUWA ILLA WAHYU YUHA” to malam en kalura da wa,ennan ayoyi, daka cewa nasa haka take. Mu yanzu duk constitution en da za mu yi, indai ba irin wanan bane kokuma daga cikin Qurani ko Hadisi to gaskiya Malam kafircine
indai da ayi adalci Malam
May be it’s the Draft Islamic Constitution, issued by al-Azhar University you’re talking about. But please read Umar Ibrahim Vadillo’s The Esoteric Deviation in Islam, and you surely will know where you are. Before then, here are some excerpts from the book.
Esotericism and constitutionalism
The constitutions have been an essential tool of esotericisation.
Constitutions challenged the validity of the religious law, and
provided the required political justification to the state. They
redefined freedom in terms of political docility. Their new morals,
like toleration, peace and security became subsidiary values to the
categorical imperatives of the state and the development of
capitalism. Constitutions became the essential tools of capitalism.
WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONALISM?
The constitution itself is just the result of the deliberation of a
group of people on paper, which itself can be altered or amended
from time to time as demanded. The constitution then rests on
acquiescence, whether it is established by referendum or by tacit
approval or even by force. The object of the constitution, was to
limit the arbitrary action of the government, to guarantee rights of
the governed, and to define the operation of the sovereign power.
The essence of constitutionalism is the affirmation that religion or
religions do not have a law, and even if they have one, man-made
laws are better than those originated by the prophet or prophets.
Constitutions emerged against a background of customary and
religious law and came to replace them. This is why a fundamental
hostility to religion or rather organised traditional religion is
implicit in constitutionalism. The whole process was summed up
by Figgis in the phrase: ‘Political Liberty is the residuary legatee of
ecclesiastical animosities.’ Constitutional supporters did of course
present the constitution as a defence of religion, in the name of
religious freedom. What it in fact protected was a religious
diversity that guaranteed absolute validity to none. But if religion
is not absolute it is not religion at all, but becomes at most a group
of feelings and inclinations of thought with no practical relevance
to the main aspects of political and economic life. And this is how
constitutions transformed religions under their rule. (p.170-71)
The Muslims and the new esoteric order
The world that resulted from the tragic elimination of the
Khalifate was a cluster of separated nations each with its own flag,
constitution and central bank. None of these realities are
acceptable in Islam. Every one of these constitutions, including the
so-called Islamic constitutions, is an assault on Islam. Every bank
open in a Muslim land is a reminder of the declaration of war that
Allah has issued in Qur’an against the usurers. In this state of
affairs a ‘reformed’ Islam has prevailed that has succeeded in
keeping the status quo for almost a hundred years.
Every Muslim knows that usury is forbidden. So, like the christian
reformers, some Muslim reformers with the help of well educated
kafirs changed the definition of usury. They abandoned the
traditional schools of jurisprudence, they invented a new school,
and, partly based on pragmatism, they invented the unthinkable:
the Islamic bank. Consequently, while criticising capitalism, they
embraced it with a religious endorsement. All the new laws and
methods of the ‘reformed Islam’ are in conflict with Islam. They
are a deviation which presents itself as fundamentalism, but the
only thing they are fundamentalist about is capitalism. They have
done what no kafir dared to do: to change Islamic Law in order to
accept the banks. This was possible because fundamentalism owes
more to freemasonry than to Islamic Law: it was Rashid Reda,
inspired by ‘Abduh who shaped reformist Islam, not Ibn
Taymiyya. Despite his oversight on fundamental aspects of the
Deen, Ibn Taymiyya was not a reformer, and he would never have
allowed an Islamic bank or a Saudi state.
In the meantime the world of capitalism continues to evolve towards
a world state. The preparations involve, as well as economic and
political issues, religious issues. The reformers, who had already
changed Islam to accept capitalism, seemed equally eager to change
Islam further in order to redefine it alongside the tolerance, human
rights and other principles of the new esoteric religion.
The ecumenical power of this esoteric religion has already
managed to bring together some irreconcilable sects of Islam.
Whether esotericist reformers or, to use an expression of Titus
Burckhardt, ‘those who do not look beyond the horizons of
exotericism’, there are many who have succumbed to the alluring
power of the UN. Where else will you find exoteric so-called
Salafis and esoteric so-called Sufis, who supposedly despise each
other, fraternally coming together? That brotherhood which
brings them together is not an Islamic Brotherhood but the
‘brotherhood of mankind’ advocated by freemasonry, the bahais
and the UN. When it comes to capitalism and the UN, they are in
conformity with each other. (p.63-4)
…Esotericism is present in our lives through the legal system. All
constitutions have an esoteric origin, including the Islamic
Constitution of Iran. If Iran followed Islamic Law they would not
need a constitution. Only the state, the banks and their paper
currency need a constitution. All the states that are part of the
United Nations have accepted the rule of esotericism. Accepting
the UN is an automatic renunciation of Islam. In effect, the
equality of all religions proclaimed by human rights meant the
practical abolition of all religions. We do not accept all the
religions because we know that Islam is the only religion
acceptable to Allah. Europe also tried for centuries to get rid of
christianity. But that liberating anti-christian spirit of the
Europeans which would have inevitably led them to Islam, as is
happening today, was deviated into esotericism, a false doctrine of
dualist foundations, that paralysed people with nihilistic values and
a will deprived of wisdom. (p.147)
…The second stage of esotericism was the utilitarian phase in which
Islamic Law was subject to a complete re-evaluation in terms of a
social, political or economic pragmatism. Real Sufism is banished
and a new Tasawwuf starts to emerge defined as esoteric Islam5
Madhhabs are gone and a new set of Islamic principles come into
action. Islamic principles allow the acceptance of assimilation to
kafir society: Islamic banks, Islamic states, Islamic stock exchanges,
Islamic constitutions, and so on. While affirming that Allah is the
most powerful, they admit that the kafir West (seen as evil) is in fact
more practical, and they eagerly succumb to imitating its kufr
which they had said they so much hated (e.g. the Islamic Republic
of Iran).
The final stage is the assimilation stage. Perennialism is their new
metaphysics. The brotherhood of mankind and the universality of
religions are widely accepted as Islamic doctrines. Tasawwuf is
esotericised and accepted6 and the Shari‘ah is esoterically softened
and made ready to become Islamic human rights. It follows an
implicit acceptance of the Declaration of Human Rights, and the
world state as the new kafir messiah. Progressively everything that
differentiated religions was defined as an exoteric domain (external,
accidental and peripheral) while the esoteric domain (internal,
essential and central) became that which brings them together.
Capitalism demands uniformity and freedom for usury.
Esotericisation provides both. Embracing all religions is their
deceiving technique. Usury is esoterically reinterpreted. It first
became reduced to ‘interest’ and then to a moral expression of ‘the
evil of trading’. Usury is no longer an existential practice, but a
moral principle. From dealing with the event we projected it into a
field of ethics and morality, in which principles and rights
dominate reality.
The utility of an act of pure worship has been devalued and
discredited according to a practical understanding of utility. This
behaviour resembles the behaviour of the agnostic. In this context it is
important to note that the people of all the religions today follow more
or less the same type of life. We all have banks, paper-money, pay
under a more and more homogeneous tax system, with identity cards
and a registration system. Muslims, christians and agnostics have to
live essentially in the same way. The difference is reduced to their
personal moral and sexual attitude, which creates a puritan/liberal
dialectic, and also to which day of the week they decide to go to the
temple. The morality is reduced to ‘I do what I can’. We propose a
change in the mentality produced by the utilitarian enquiry of ‘what
can we do?’ We can act if we just obey Allah.
Man’s actions cannot merely be valued by their utility. It would
mean the triumph of technique over obedience to Allah. It would
mean that the imperatives of the banking system are above those
of obedience to Allah. This is what the deviated say: “Allah is the
most powerful, but the bankers are more practical. We should
follow the sunna of the bankers.” This is the irony of their dualism.
They call the banks ‘shaytans’, and yet they hurry to islamise them
(Islamic banks). It shows the helplessness of their vision and makes
obvious their surrender. The banks are institutions forbidden by
Allah and to accept them or try to incorporate them into our
worship is to worship other-than-Allah. This is commonly referred
to as being practical. They say “we are practical”, but they are only
fooling themselves. This way of saying they are practical is the
evidence of their helplessness which results in an inability to act
according to Islam. One of the most common ideas in esoteric
thinking is that ‘we cannot obey’ because there are other forces that
do not allow us to act. Normally these forces are referred to as
shaytan. So the shaytans — they say — do not allow them to act.
The shaytans are all their political enemies. But these people do not
realise that the only obstacle they have is themselves. The proof is
that when they are finally given an opportunity to act they copy the
shaytans whom they hate: Islamic banks. They think that what is
halal is not possible, and this understanding blinds them. (p.17-19)
May be it’s the Draft Islamic Constitution, issued by al-Azhar University you’re talking about. But please read Umar Ibrahim Vadillo’s The Esoteric Deviation in Islam, and you surely will know where you are. Before then, here are some excerpts from the book.
Esotericism and constitutionalism
The constitutions have been an essential tool of esotericisation. Constitutions challenged the validity of the religious law, and provided the required political justification to the state. They redefined freedom in terms of political docility. Their new morals, like toleration, peace and security became subsidiary values to the categorical imperatives of the state and the development of capitalism. Constitutions became the essential tools of capitalism.
WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONALISM?
The constitution itself is just the result of the deliberation of a group of people on paper, which itself can be altered or amended from time to time as demanded. The constitution then rests on acquiescence, whether it is established by referendum or by tacit approval or even by force. The object of the constitution, was to limit the arbitrary action of the government, to guarantee rights of the governed, and to define the operation of the sovereign power.
The essence of constitutionalism is the affirmation that religion or religions do not have a law, and even if they have one, man-made laws are better than those originated by the prophet or prophets. Constitutions emerged against a background of customary and religious law and came to replace them. This is why a fundamental hostility to religion or rather organised traditional religion is implicit in constitutionalism. The whole process was summed up by Figgis in the phrase: ‘Political Liberty is the residuary legatee of ecclesiastical animosities.’ Constitutional supporters did of course present the constitution as a defence of religion, in the name of religious freedom. What it in fact protected was a religious diversity that guaranteed absolute validity to none. But if religion is not absolute it is not religion at all, but becomes at most a group of feelings and inclinations of thought with no practical relevance to the main aspects of political and economic life. And this is how constitutions transformed religions under their rule. (p.170-71)
The Muslims and the new esoteric order
The world that resulted from the tragic elimination of the Khalifate was a cluster of separated nations each with its own flag, constitution and central bank. None of these realities are acceptable in Islam. Every one of these constitutions, including the so-called Islamic constitutions, is an assault on Islam. Every bank open in a Muslim land is a reminder of the declaration of war that Allah has issued in Qur’an against the usurers. In this state of affairs a ‘reformed’ Islam has prevailed that has succeeded in keeping the status quo for almost a hundred years.
Every Muslim knows that usury is forbidden. So, like the christian reformers, some Muslim reformers with the help of well educated kafirs changed the definition of usury. They abandoned the traditional schools of jurisprudence, they invented a new school, and, partly based on pragmatism, they invented the unthinkable: the Islamic bank. Consequently, while criticising capitalism, they embraced it with a religious endorsement. All the new laws and methods of the ‘reformed Islam’ are in conflict with Islam. They are a deviation which presents itself as fundamentalism, but the only thing they are fundamentalist about is capitalism. They have done what no kafir dared to do: to change Islamic Law in order to accept the banks. This was possible because fundamentalism owes more to freemasonry than to Islamic Law: it was Rashid Reda, inspired by ‘Abduh who shaped reformist Islam, not Ibn Taymiyya. Despite his oversight on fundamental aspects of the Deen, Ibn Taymiyya was not a reformer, and he would never have allowed an Islamic bank or a Saudi state.
In the meantime the world of capitalism continues to evolve towards a world state. The preparations involve, as well as economic and political issues, religious issues. The reformers, who had already changed Islam to accept capitalism, seemed equally eager to change Islam further in order to redefine it alongside the tolerance, human rights and other principles of the new esoteric religion.
The ecumenical power of this esoteric religion has already managed to bring together some irreconcilable sects of Islam. Whether esotericist reformers or, to use an expression of Titus Burckhardt, ‘those who do not look beyond the horizons of exotericism’, there are many who have succumbed to the alluring power of the UN. Where else will you find exoteric so-called Salafis and esoteric so-called Sufis, who supposedly despise each other, fraternally coming together? That brotherhood which brings them together is not an Islamic Brotherhood but the ‘brotherhood of mankind’ advocated by freemasonry, the bahais and the UN. When it comes to capitalism and the UN, they are in conformity with each other. (p.63-4)
…Esotericism is present in our lives through the legal system. All constitutions have an esoteric origin, including the Islamic Constitution of Iran. If Iran followed Islamic Law they would not need a constitution. Only the state, the banks and their paper currency need a constitution. All the states that are part of the United Nations have accepted the rule of esotericism. Accepting the UN is an automatic renunciation of Islam. In effect, the equality of all religions proclaimed by human rights meant the practical abolition of all religions. We do not accept all the religions because we know that Islam is the only religion acceptable to Allah. Europe also tried for centuries to get rid of christianity. But that liberating anti-christian spirit of the Europeans which would have inevitably led them to Islam, as is happening today, was deviated into esotericism, a false doctrine of dualist foundations, that paralysed people with nihilistic values and a will deprived of wisdom. (p.147)
…The second stage of esotericism was the utilitarian phase in which Islamic Law was subject to a complete re-evaluation in terms of a social, political or economic pragmatism. Real Sufism is banished and a new Tasawwuf starts to emerge defined as esoteric Islam5 Madhhabs are gone and a new set of Islamic principles come into action. Islamic principles allow the acceptance of assimilation to kafir society: Islamic banks, Islamic states, Islamic stock exchanges, Islamic constitutions, and so on. While affirming that Allah is the most powerful, they admit that the kafir West (seen as evil) is in fact more practical, and they eagerly succumb to imitating its kufr which they had said they so much hated (e.g. the Islamic Republic of Iran).
The final stage is the assimilation stage. Perennialism is their new metaphysics. The brotherhood of mankind and the universality of religions are widely accepted as Islamic doctrines. Tasawwuf is esotericised and accepted6 and the Shari‘ah is esoterically softened and made ready to become Islamic human rights. It follows an implicit acceptance of the Declaration of Human Rights, and the world state as the new kafir messiah. Progressively everything that differentiated religions was defined as an exoteric domain (external, accidental and peripheral) while the esoteric domain (internal, essential and central) became that which brings them together. Capitalism demands uniformity and freedom for usury. Esotericisation provides both. Embracing all religions is their deceiving technique. Usury is esoterically reinterpreted. It first became reduced to ‘interest’ and then to a moral expression of ‘the evil of trading’. Usury is no longer an existential practice, but a moral principle. From dealing with the event we projected it into a field of ethics and morality, in which principles and rights dominate reality.
The utility of an act of pure worship has been devalued and discredited according to a practical understanding of utility. This behaviour resembles the behaviour of the agnostic. In this context it is important to note that the people of all the religions today follow more or less the same type of life. We all have banks, paper-money, pay under a more and more homogeneous tax system, with identity cards and a registration system. Muslims, christians and agnostics have to live essentially in the same way. The difference is reduced to their personal moral and sexual attitude, which creates a puritan/liberal dialectic, and also to which day of the week they decide to go to the temple. The morality is reduced to ‘I do what I can’. We propose a change in the mentality produced by the utilitarian enquiry of ‘what can we do?’ We can act if we just obey Allah.
Man’s actions cannot merely be valued by their utility. It would mean the triumph of technique over obedience to Allah. It would mean that the imperatives of the banking system are above those of obedience to Allah. This is what the deviated say: “Allah is the most powerful, but the bankers are more practical. We should follow the sunna of the bankers.” This is the irony of their dualism. They call the banks ‘shaytans’, and yet they hurry to islamise them (Islamic banks). It shows the helplessness of their vision and makes obvious their surrender. The banks are institutions forbidden by Allah and to accept them or try to incorporate them into our worship is to worship other-than-Allah. This is commonly referred to as being practical. They say “we are practical”, but they are only fooling themselves. This way of saying they are practical is the evidence of their helplessness which results in an inability to act according to Islam. One of the most common ideas in esoteric thinking is that ‘we cannot obey’ because there are other forces that do not allow us to act. Normally these forces are referred to as shaytan. So the shaytans — they say — do not allow them to act. The shaytans are all their political enemies. But these people do not realise that the only obstacle they have is themselves. The proof is that when they are finally given an opportunity to act they copy the shaytans whom they hate: Islamic banks. They think that what is halal is not possible, and this understanding blinds them. (p.17-19)
Leave a Reply