December 09, 2001
By Mawlana Hasan Anyabwile
Though poles apart I am a regular reader of columnist Denis Solomon. His latest analysis “Clash of extremes, I and II” (7th Nov, 01 and 14th Nov, 01) in my view was an honest attempt to come to grips with events larger than Trinibago’s cote ce cote la, which passes for commentary and analysis.
Before we examine what the writer wrote in classical structuralist thinking which has seriously hobbled his findings and conclusions, permit me to clarify a matter. It has to do with a claim by Mr. Solomon that I propounded (in what manner he did not clarify) ‘…the following astonishing syllogism: Islam requires Muslims to revolt against unjust regimes; the state permits the practice of Islam: therefore the state permits revolt against itself.' Now that is asinine from head to tail, as for me I have never held that position! My position is that according to my convictions, I reserve the right to defend myself and to do so; I do not need state approval. Furthermore, the state does not allow the praxis of Islam; it allows freedom of worship and assembly. As for the articles in question there are some major points which I am at odds with and which I intend to refute in the following passages.
-
· His view that the elevation of Bush and Sharon “…to the thrones of the United States and Israel respectively” contributed in some way to the events of September 11th. This is a severe misreading of the modern process of rule. Israel has never being anything but a militant distraction.
The internationalist hegemony run by Jews with no more interest in Israel than the Eskimos have thrown over the Arab nation and Muslims a net imprisoning them in the magic of abstract, zero worth, paper money, this is their arena of control. As for the politicians in this scenario, they exert no more than a personal style, to act as center stage actors drawing the attention of the masses from the theft of wealth and resources going on backstage. What is operative is a web of networked banking and supranational control systems that dictates and set policies.
-
“Islamic Fundamentalism is one of the two prongs of a world wide anti market, anti globalisation…” this definition is of recent vintage, in fact it is a western media definition born out of their response to the Iranian Revolution led by Imam Khomeini which demands its anti-thesis, moderate Muslims. This word ‘fundamentalism’ has no nexus historical, political, social, intellectual, religious or spiritual within Islam. It has to do with the Protestant Reformation which does not remotely resembles Islamic Resurgence. The body politic of Islam has been undergoing an aggressive and confrontational awakening; its quest for land for praxis is driven by its declared definition of being a practical deen-way of life.
Fundamentalism denotes another phenomena, for us Islam has never been and will never be in crisis. What has happened however is the periodic demise into error and deviation, which necessitates correction, leading ultimately to convergence and then confrontation. This is the Quranic thesis fluid as against statism, it is likened to a plant, which grows then attains full strength after which it dies and from its roots hidden in the ground, revived once again and the process repeats itself. In fact the Prophet Muhammad (S) expressed clearly this process of Tajdeed (renewal, rectification, and resurgence), which may involves a personality (mujadid) or a group. This is expected within the body of Islam periodically and historically for the last hundred years Islam has existed without one central political authority (Khalif) and without correct scholarship (Shaykh ul Islam).
-
"The Theological underpinning of Islamic Fundamentalism is a rigid interpretation of the Quraan." Like his previous point on fundamentalism, the logical end will never be realized except by correction of the beginning. Quranic commentary is a discipline with its courtesies and rigidity is not one of its characteristics. The Quranic discourse is carried out from two points, clear and analogical verses. One is by reason and the other is by dropping reason yet using the abstract entity of the brain and the spirit to see that it means something else. So there are rules preventing you from taking a clear verse and attaching to it a primary, historical, political or physical significance, which is not evident in the text or relevant in the context. So the rules for example prevent you from taking a verse on menstruation and its blood and making it metaphoric for something else. Thereby dropping the legal ordinance of the verse. This does not prevent the commentator in accordance with his spiritual states from having an insight (ishara), illumination and deeper explanation. But only after you have been sharpened, pointed and oriented.
The problem however which the Muslim community has worldwide, is the judicious application of Islam in accordance with the dictates of wisdom and knowledge of current events (fiqh al waqiyyah), which must be possessed by the working activist scholar or juro-consult. This is where the problems of textual application lie, not in it’s commentary. For example the Quranic revelation states that: “As to the thief male and female, cut off his hands or her hands, a punishment by way of example from Allah for their crimes and Allah is Powerful and Wise.” It is well known that the second Khalif ‘Umar suspended the application of this rule during a year of famine and no one accused him of failing to fulfil his responsibility, because in Islam there are three verdicts, you are either guilty, innocent or the state is guilty. Due to the famine the state was unable to provide for the weak in the society therefore in all conscience it could not punish.
Secondly, in accordance with the rules of Islamic jurisprudence certain conditions must exists before one executes this command such as: The thief must be sane, an adult, not compelled, not hungry. As for the thing stolen: Must reach a determined financial level, must be valuable, and must be in custody, owned by someone. So much for rigidity in interpretation! The Quraan is a book of action not for academic discussion. That is why one of the legal luminaries of Islam, Imam Shaafii’ and founder of the Shaafii’ School of Islamic legal jurisprudence, gave different legal opinions (fatawa) on the same issues when he was in two different countries. Our opponents however level accusations of obscurantism against us not for these reasons but for resistance to their ‘worldview’.
-
As for accusing Islam of being “anti-market, anti-globalisation and anti-modern”, we need to place this in its proper historical context. It is not an accident that the results of one hundred years of redefining Islam is now unfolding viciously across the globe. In order to control the Muslim masses from open Jihad in accordance with the Shariah (as opposed to terrorism) after the destruction of the khalifate in 1924, the Islamic institutions of learning in Egypt, Delhi, Tunisia and everywhere else were destroyed, their scholars killed in resistance or driven out in humiliation. In their places a new scholarship enthroned in the pay of dictators given over to programmes which are openly committed to the (then) newly emerging social nexus, westernisation. Which never meant civilization but a commercial order to ensure new markets by means of media reprogramming taste, habits economics and life styles of host of peoples. Its watchword was uniformity, consumption its logical outcome. Modernity has already become extinct. It functions only as public relations for usury capitalism. Non-Muslims who have escaped this patterning share this understanding with us, which has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory. If globalisation, market and modernity are Trojan horses of further domination and socialization of the world into one mindless, valueless and immoral consumer then we prefer not to participate.
-
Far from being anti-market, the Quraan is clear, “Allah has permitted trade and made Usury forbidden”, and “Allah destroys Usury/Interest and gives increase for charities”, and in another place Allah declares war on Usury/Interest. So we are calling for a market free from exploitation, oppression and inequality, which are the fruits of Usury. As for modernity, we are clear that it is not a synonym for civilization. It has to do with advancement in tools, methods, procedures and means. It is not an excuse to redefine morality and values, which falls, in the domain of religion and civilisation. So there is no theological link with those elements of so-called civil society, other than being on the same ship, on the same trip feeling the same stick.
The economic regime of the present usurocracy is worldwide therefore its response, the global intifaada (uprising) is also worldwide. The political society is dead. The legendary free citizen, the child of the French Revolution with his or her vaunted principles of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality, has been reduced to a slave. By definition the modern individual is a debtor serf, a slave on whose neck fabulous sums are owed. A child born today into the world is already indebted. As we speak in Niger today a newborn already owes five hundred American dollars.
The state today is but that body of registered debtors on whose shoulders rests the heavy burden of the national debt. Power has moved from the political to the economic sphere this was declared openly in the Weekend Australian of October 6, 1992, which said: “Despite Mr. Keating, Dr. Hewson, Mr. Kennet, President Bush, Prime Minister Major, Chancellor Khol and all their pretensions, it is not the elected governments that rules the states. For all their promises, the politicians have lost or surrendered most of their power to affect their national economies. They have turned their power over to the central bankers. Governments economic policies in this decade consists of waiting for the Federal Reserve or other central banks to raise or lower interest rates.”
-
Had Mr. Solomon followed the words of Ignacio Ramonet who wrote that, “the real masters of the world are no longer those [Parliaments and national governments] who wear the trappings of political power, but rather those who now control the financial markets, the international media houses, the information superhighway, cyberspace and genetic technology”. He would have unravelled an important weave operative in modern society today.
The oil Titans in collaboration with revisionist Muslim scholar who are part of the International Executive are bent on reducing Islam to a system of puritanical piety, prayer and fasting, unable to impinge on the social process and acceptable to the Kafir (disbelieving) system. While at the same time authoring terrorism without recourse to Islamic legal injunctions to ensure marginalisation and rejection of resistance by young intellectual Muslims.
How? When you destroy the intellectual basis of a society it is only a matter of time before they descend into terrorism. All the ancient Islamic Universities were destroyed along with its personnel and ideologues. In their place a school was placed which produced ‘modernist’ Muslims who absorbed the language and methodology of Kufr (disbelief) who became either reactionary rightists with political ambitions in the arena of assembly politics, or radicals with fantasies of revolution, with terrorism as its natural outcome. Hardly the Islamic thesis!
According to Shaykh Abdul Qadeer as Sufi ion his book. ‘A letter to an Arab Muslim’ he wrote that, ‘what has to be grasped-and this is the very heart of this message-is that given the enormous importance of this issue and the stakes in the oil commodities market, that the kuffar would never be naïve enough simply to employ physical acts of subversion and not undertake profound spiritual and intellectual subversion in making war against the true religion.
Historically, this confrontation of Kafir society with Islam begins with Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt…With the western kafir nations’ struggle to get their hands on the oil supply it must be noted that from the beginning of these imperialist operations not only military agents were employed, like Shakespeare and Lawrence, but there grew up the Orientalists’ activity with the precise task of briefing the political activists in how best to control and deactivate the Muslims. However unpleasant this may be, the matter has to be confronted because only then will you grasp how profoundly you have been tricked. You have to realise that to recover your honour and your self-respect you must return to that ongoing and vibrant historical Islam which was dealt these almost lethal blows by the so-called ‘reformers and purifiers’ of the Deen.”
Share your views here ...
Back / Trinicenter
|