Tag Archives: Modernists

Islam needs a Restoration, not a Reformation

[Abdullah al-Andalusi]

The desire for the reformation of Islam tends to typically come as a demand made upon the Muslim world by external factors or influences

Having been invited to speak in many debates and lectures about the question of whether there should be a reformation of Islam, I’ve observed that it is not a question that I or most Muslims raise, but one that is thrust upon us by others.

Generally, Muslims are well aware that there is no problem with Islam. Muslims understand that Islam defines human purpose in the cosmos, and offers a complete and consistent way of life that is designed to lead to human happiness and justice in this life and the hereafter. For Muslims, the author of the Qur’an, being also the author of mankind, knows humans better than anyone, and understands how humans should be organised and guided – therefore Islamic laws and solutions are perfectly balanced for implementation by mankind.

The desire for the reformation of Islam then, tends to typically come as a demand made upon the Muslim world by external actors or influences – typically by Westerners and those influenced by Western civilisation, i.e. “secular reformists”. Their demand for reform is based upon the false assumption that religion must be separate from state, and that Islam is comparable to Christianity’s problems with politics. However, there are a number of other fallacies and assumptions they make that quickly come undone under simple scrutiny.

Non-liberal government does not cause technological backwardness

Christianity never caused the Dark Ages, nor did it bring about backwardness. This may come as a surprise to anyone unfamiliar with the relevant history, but the Dark Ages occurred because of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476AD and being overrun by Germanic barbarian migrations entering the empire. Meanwhile, the devoutly Christian Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantines), experienced no fall, and no Dark Ages, and ancient Greek Philosophy and Roman technological know-how continued to be taught in numerous academies and schools throughout the Eastern Roman Empire.

In fact, if anything, the Catholic Church created the modern West, since after encountering the Islamic civilisation through either trade or war, they began translating Arabic and Greek intellectual works and setting up universities, triggering the European renaissance in the 1100s. The Roman Catholic Church was a patron of science and education, causing European science and technology to progress for 600 years under non-secular Christian governments. Modern secular liberal governments did not arise until around the 1780s.

Europe’s famous “Scientific revolution” started around the 1500s and is said to have reached its completion by the 1700s all under non-secular Christian governments. By the time secular liberalism first arose in state systems, Europe had already invented the steam engine 80 years before.

The industrial revolution in 1760-1840 began while most of Europe still was not secular liberal. Even the few Liberal regimes existing at the time had not yet adopted most of the laws we associate today with Liberal government.

Europe never progressed technologically or economically due to Secularism, but rather due to the beginning of curiosity, thought and inquiry that was kick-started by encounters with the Islamic civilisation’s level of advancement. The creation of secular liberalism (called “The Enlightenment”) was actually an unintended by-product of the Renaissance, and not the cause of it.

Modern Chinese political philosophers have already remarked that secular liberal democracy is not a prerequisite for technological, economic and scientific development, nor good government, and the meteoric rise of China demonstrates that there are other ways to progress and to achieve prosperity. Indeed, democracy is an older system than Islam, yet is considered “modern”. Islamic laws therefore are not obsolete, but rather they only require re-implementation, with the wisdom and mercy that the Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) demonstrated should accompany them.

The Muslim world is already the product of previous colonial reform attempts

It is argued that the Muslim world is in its current predicament because Islam has not been reformed, but this is ignorant of the fact that the Muslim world has already been “reformed”. Through colonialism, the European powers aimed to reform Islam, and removed Islam from political life in Muslim lands and altered or abolished the teaching of classical Islamic education in law and government, replacing it with a secular and pragmatic understanding for the people, leaving Muslims today illiterate in Islamic political laws. However, the process of changing the masses would take a long time so, in the meanwhile, the colonial occupiers selected and educated a new secular elite from the indigenous peoples to take power after “independence” – and guard the new status quo.

The public activities of Islamic scholarship and its institutions in almost every Muslim country are tightly controlled by their governments. The reality today is that secular elites hold Islam hostage, censoring Islamic education to apolitical aspects of Islam and commissioning bogus legal rulings from client scholars to exhort people to be politically passive, while simultaneously using these same scholars to give Islamic rulings ‘justifying’ allowing the government to perpetrate suppression, torture and arbitrary killing of their enemies (especially against peaceful political Islamic groups – which the West quietly condones).

Militant violence is not caused by Islam

Secular reformists like to claim that terrorist violence is caused by Islam, or an interpretation of it (e.g. Salafism), and not political factors. However, their claims have been disproven by numerous Western academic studies, and even classical secular philosophers, like John Locke, refuted the connection between religion and anti-state violence.

The reality reformists attempt to obscure is that terrorism doesn’t emerge from traditional education of Islam. Most political Islamic education is censored in secular Muslim countries, and a tightly controlled “spiritual-only” education is allowed. Each state teaches its own controlled version, from state-controlled Sufism in Uzbekistan, to Saudi-controlled “Salafism”. Each version is designed to keep the people passive and focusing only on theological disputes or spiritual self-development.

However, the control by secular elites over Islamic education does not always keep the people politically or militarily passive.

The continual extreme oppression and subjugation of peaceful political dissent by these secular elites eventually led to armed revolutionary movements, and in response, a brutal suppression by the elites. This caused some to unfortunately react to the extremism of the secular elites in a reciprocal manner, copying the horrific tactics of the elites they were fighting and, in some cases, attacking other groups suspected of also being used by the West against the Muslim world – tragically including non-Muslim minorities.

The Islamic belief of universal Muslim solidarity and sympathy to the plight of the global Muslim community led to further groups arising from around the Muslim world in response to constant military invasions or occupations of Muslim countries by the West.

Unfortunately, this again saw some using strategies that copy the horrific historical tactics of Western armies used against enemy populations, like “strategic bombing,” where in WWII civilians were first targeted by US/UK as part of a “defensive strategy” to demoralise an aggressive enemy and get them to stop their warring. It then becomes curious how Islam being “reformed” to secular liberalism would stop this, when mainstream Secular Liberal philosophers justify these tactics for the defence of liberalism, and many groups used terrorism in their fight for the liberal ruling system of secular democracy.

In fact, the main argument of terror groups for their tactics is not an interpretation or Islamic text, nor the denial of the Islamic prohibition against targeting civilians. These groups argue that the prohibition is “not set in stone” and that “in today’s world” they can copy modern Western tactics to fight the West.

The problem here is not a classical understanding of Islam (which would prohibit these actions), but that these groups arose from post-colonial Muslim populations who were deeply affected by Western thinking, clearly causing militant groups to arise afflicted with the same Western-imitating logic as the populations they arose from.

Although secular Muslim rulers have been known to use Islam to bolster their support when they feel threatened, this tactic caused strange things to start to happen. Secular elites that were deposed by the West, due to being no longer useful to the West, began cynically transforming themselves into the very Islamic groups they used to violently suppress, but keeping the same tactics they once used against their populations – one such example is the so-called Islamic State (IS).

In modern times, the 20th Century was dominated by terror attacks by secular groups. In Lebanon, during the 1970s, the Christian militia known as “The Phalange” (Phalanx) – in alliance with Israel – massacred thousands of civilians in Palestinian refugee camps and committed numerous war crimes against Muslim populations in Lebanon. Communist Kurdish groups have waged a decades-long terror and insurgency campaign against Turkey, killing thousands. Recently, Communist Kurdish groups detonated deadly car bombs and suicide bombs in crowded civilians areas in Turkey (which noticeably did not receive as much attention in Western media as “Islamist” terror attacks).

Therefore, it is not ideology that causes terror violence, but rather political and social circumstances connected to oppression and invasion which historically have arisen under the same conditions, whether in South America, Africa or Europe itself.

However, secular reformists like to cynically take advantage of IS’s propaganda and public facade of “Islam” to strengthen their case for “Islamic reform,” leading to a shockingly strange and unholy agreement between reformists, Islamophobes and IS for its (bogus) claim to be Islamic. Such reformists have even been known to describe IS as a “blessing in disguise,” with others making similar comments, ironically making reformists some of the biggest apologists for IS.

As demonstrated above, Islamic law does not sanction the actions of extreme groups, despite the invocation of Islamic history and warfare by these groups. These groups use Islamic text merely to seek support for themselves in a region where religion carries weight. These groups arose from a region where everyone does the same, even secular dictators like (Shaitan Jew) President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, who uses religion to justify his authority and commission “religious” justifications to perpetrate the killing of dissidents, despite the fact that all these actions actually contradict the details and conditions contained in those texts.

The logic of terror groups and secular dictators in the Muslim world are no different to far-right American terror groups who misquote the passages of the American constitution and declaration of independence discussing use of force to justify violent revolution against the current American government (which they believe has overstepped its limits) and violence against immigrants and minorities (including Muslims).

Of course, American law courts (like most American laypeople) reject these spurious citations as false and ignorant “legal” arguments. However, in the Muslim world, in the absence of the once widely established Islamic court systems under a Caliphate, post-colonial Muslim populations have a difficult time debunking bogus Islamic legal arguments in the political aspects of a law they simply have not been educated in.

What is the solution to this – less Islamic education on a holistic Islam, or more of it?

“Wahhabism” is not the ‘root of all evil’

Some Western secular reformists claim that the main root of most of the problems in the Muslim world is “Wahhabism” or “puritanical Islam”. They then point to the 1744-1818 Wahhabi-Saudi uprising against the Ottoman Caliphate and the sectarian violence that ensued.

However, what they forget to mention, is that like the decline of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Caliphate’s military and intellectual decline in the 18th-19th centuries saw the rise of armed insurrections and civil unrest throughout its lands. Some were led by religious reformist movements who saw the Ottoman state as corrupt due to what must be spiritual defects, others fought for the new ideology of nationalism, and others for power. Sectarian violence affected all citizens, not just “Wahhabis”.

The Ottoman Caliphate saw a religious uprising from a Sufi movement that was far more sectarian and more deadly than the “Wahhabis” – the Mahdist movement of the Sufi Samaniyya order in Sudan, led by Mohammed Ahmad. Ahmad claimed he was the awaited “Mahdi” and believed the Ottoman Caliphate to be corrupt collaborators with “infidels”. Ahmad declared all Turks to be disbelievers, and ordered that they should be killed. His movement was also noted for attacking the followers and shrines of rival Sufi groups who rejected him, like the Khatmiyyah, forcing many to flee for their life. Like the Wahhabis, the Mahdists were condemned by the Islamic scholars of their region, and found support mainly from tribal fighters living in the outer frontier areas of the Muslim world. Unlike the Sufi Mahdists, the Wahhabis never declared Ottoman Turks to be disbelievers.

However, most armed uprisings that arose afterward continued to be mostly from Sufi-led insurgencies responding to colonial occupation of Muslim lands in the 19th to early 20th century.

Even non-Muslim communities in the Middle East fell into sectarianism amongst themselves. For example, the Christian and Druze communities of the Levant fell into fighting each other in 1860 leading to the deaths of over 60,000 people (many of them civilians).

Some Western secularists point to sectarian intolerance and violence as evidence of the effect of fundamentalist religion. However, the problems that effect different parts of the Muslim world are not due to Islam or an interpretation of Islam – but rather the declined thinking of the people and un-Islamic cultural practices that arose either after the intellectual decline of Islamic civilisation and/or after colonialism. Consequently, we see the same deteriorating social and intellectual phenomena amongst not just Muslims, but secularists and non-Muslims in the Muslim world, and many other countries outside.

In Jordan, it was reported that a Christian father killed his daughter because she had allegedly converted to Islam. In 2007, a Yazidi father gathered members of the local Yazidi community to stone to death his daughter for wanting to marry a Muslim man. Outside the Muslim world, Indian Sikh father in the UK was alleged to have killed his daughter for being “Westernised” and for not following “Sikhism or Indian traditions”.

In the Secular majority non-Muslim India, there is an acknowledged, out of control rape crisis brought about by the clash of Secular and traditional values. This is mirrored in Egypt by reports of sexual harassment and rape reported in the 2013 pro-secular protests in Tahrir square (notably, none were reported in the “Islamist” counter-protests in Rabia al Adhwiyyah square). Furthermore, the secular Egyptian regime under  (Zionist Butcher) Sisi has been documented to use rape as a weapon against female protestors.

Were these problems caused by Wahhabist interpretations of Islam?? Will reforming Islam affect the secular Kurds, secular Egyptians, secular Indians and Yazidis in those examples? The answer is no. It is therefore clear that the problem that afflicts the Muslim world does not only afflict the Muslim world, and is related to sociological factors that affect both Muslims, secular Muslims and non-Muslims in the region – not an interpretation of Islam. Even the British colonialists noticed that Egyptian Christians were no different to Egyptian Muslims, and were just as sectarian, maybe more so.

Secular reformists exploit sectarian divides in the Muslim world and use the label “Wahhabism” to divide and conquer Muslim resistance to reformation. Wahhabism was a movement, not a school of thought. If you examine the aspects of Islam that the reformists call “Wahhabism” – e.g. hudud (penal) laws in the Qur’an and traditions of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the prohibition of interest etc – you will find that they are generally shared by all the classical scholars of Islam, and not just of the four Sunni schools of thought, but also the three Shia schools, the Dhahiri (apparentist) school of Ibn Hazm, and the Mutazilite school. The differences between the schools are only in the details of these Islamic laws, not the fundamental concepts themselves.

The use of the word “Wahhabi” (a word taken from European history) therefore, is merely a cover by reformists to attack all of classical Islamic thought – Sunni, Sufi and Shia alike.

The way forward is a restoration of Islam

As demonstrated above, the arguments of secular reformists lack accuracy on the reality of the Muslim world, and its solutions. Their demand for reformation, therefore, is not to initiate something original, but merely to call to complete the re-indoctrination process of the Muslim world that was begun 150 years ago by the predecessors of the secular reformists – the European colonialists.

Muslims that lived after the Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), from their birth to their death, attempted to continuously change themselves toward the state of perfect obedience of their creator described in the Qur’an – both in their hearts, minds and actions. This is called “islah,” and means to reform the individual to be better than they were before, or in an improved position.

But if the Muslim world is not living up to the values and objectives that Islam prescribes, Muslims generally understand that this is the result of the failure of the Muslim community itself, not of Islam. When such cases occur, Islam calls for “tajdeed,” which means revival in the sense of the restoration of something. In this case, it is the restoration of Islam in the community, bringing it back to the mental and behavioural state it was in, before it declined.

Ironically, the claim that countries whose policies are influenced by Islam become backward is refuted by examples in the Muslim world today. Amazingly, the so-called “Islamic Republic” of Iran – although only a hybrid regime with some Islamic policies – is just one of only nine countries in the world that has a fully independent space programme which independently builds and launches its own satellites into orbit. Likewise, the late leader of the “Islamic Republic” of Pakistan, General Zia ul Haq, initiated work on Pakistan’s first independently built space satellite, Badr 1, as well as developing nuclear power reactors and weapons to match India’s developments.

Arguably, the more Islam influences a government’s policies, the more likely it is to invest in an independent capacity for science and technology, even though those governments currently implement only a few Islamic policies. These examples raise an interesting question: if Muslims established a fully Islamic political system, how much more progress could be possible?

The above examples clearly show the Islamic world has great potential, but to fully achieve this it must strive to return to a full intellectual awakening, re-opening of inquiry, creative thought and ingenuity – like it had achieved in its past. This cannot be achieved by an Islamic Reformation, which simply continues to ape the West and continues to turn Muslims into blind imitators, with no original thought or authenticity based upon the Islamic worldview.

What the Muslim world needs is an Islamic restoration (tajdeed), re-establishing the enlightened, plural and just Caliphate that Islam prescribes. That would be a patron of industry, research and defend the citizens of the Muslim world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, from oppression and incursions. It is only then that the Muslim world can progress beyond militancy, secular dictators, invasions and oppression, and become an example of justice and Islam for all mankind – for Islam came to try to change the wrongs of the world, not be changed by them.

The Irrationality of Western Ideology and the Blind Faith of Muslim Modernists

By Abdullah Al Andalusi

The most important thing for a person who seeks truth is to remain objective and be skeptical of so-called ‘given truths’ – especially ideas that are in fashion in his/her day and age. In every age and time, there were always ideas that were fashionable, accepted as given, and taken for granted that they were true – but later rejected as false – even laughed at.

The best approach for the rational mind, is to withdraw oneself from the society and time period one inhabits and look at the ideas around oneself for what they are. Many thinkers and philosophers have done this and have written great books whose content mostly remains timeless. The reason for this, is that they have successfully removed themselves from their times and cultures and used their minds to assess the ideas based purely on their evidence and merit, and come to conclusions of truth, no matter how unpopular or odd they seem to their society at the time.

However, the one thing I’ve noticed, is that most people claim to be skeptical only to ideas they don’t like, or which is not in line with the accepted culture or fashion of their times. Many such people even claim that they are ‘rational’ and want people to ‘think for themselves’, but really they just want people to ‘think’ their way into conformity with popular trends and the dominant fashions.

I’ve always urged Muslims to be skeptical, even of their own beliefs, in order that they can reach certainty and depart from blindly following their parents religion and culture. But unfortunately there is another culture that influences some Muslims and is blindly followed by many of them due to their inability to detach themselves from their society and time and look at the world from a rational and detached perspective – the culture of Western Civilisation.

It is taken as ‘accepted’ in this day and age that religion is a retrograde force, and that only Secularism or Liberalism can bring progress. It is also accepted ‘wisdom’ that the development and technological progression of the West is due to their democratic systems of ruling, and their liberal secular values. The concept of ‘democracy’, ‘nationalism’, ‘feminism’, ‘secularism’ and [the Liberal conception of] ‘human rights’ is taken as given ‘truths’ to the degree that they have attained the level of an unquestioned religious dogma. Most people don’t know how to philosophically justify these ideas, or how they came about – all that people know is, ‘it’s the MODERN way to do things’.

However, just like the proverbial big elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring, these ideas lack any rational justification or intellectual basis. For example, Democracy is impossible, people will always be ruled by one leader or small group of leaders – usually the elites of their society. This was something both Plato, and the classical Muslim philosopher Al Farabi realised and wrote about.

Nationalism cannot be justified, as there is no clear way to delineate one nation from another [is it common language? Then is USA, Australia and South Africa all one nation?]. Secondly, why should humans be separated and discriminated into categories that should hold no moral difference or division??

Feminism cannot be rationally justified either, as basing rights on gender is either arbitrary and unholistic at best, or elitist and sectarian at worst (if men are not also considered equally in the equation). If men and women should be exactly equal in everything, as Feminism claims, then why not egalitarianism instead of feminism??

Secularism cannot be rationally justified, because in essence it posits the absurd notion that man’s purpose in life should be separate from man’s affairs in life. Secularism then results in a materialistic re-interpretation of man’s purpose of life, and the imposition of this purpose in place of a former non-materialistic purpose – with no conclusive reason why one is superior to another. Secularism then naturally ends up being non-neutral to this central question of human purpose, while fooling the people as pretending to be neutral!

‘Human rights’ [as understood by Liberalism] are arbitrary, prone to change depending on society’s current tastes at any given point in time, and lacks any rational justification for where rights even come from in the first place. The irony of Liberalism is, while pretending to be materialistic, it borrowed a lot of its rights from Christianity and theology (which is where the term ‘God given rights’ comes from) then quietly divorced from it later on when it wanted to claim ‘universality’ to the world. Consequently, ‘rights’ can’t be justified. For example, if humans have rights merely for being human, then why are criminals denied the ‘right to freedom’ when they are put in jails?? Surely they are still human, and therefore deserving of their full ‘human rights’? Apparently not.

However, the Modernist ‘Muslims’ doesn’t question these Western imports. They are perfectly happy to be skeptical against all Islamic laws, beliefs and traditions, but never to be skeptical on the Western ideas they blindly follow and adore. Modernists can only defend these borrowed Western ideas with emotional arguments, usually either brushing off the criticism as ‘just wrong’ or ‘out of kilter’ or claim the criticism is just ‘a strawman’ of their beliefs – without providing any evidence to show why its a strawman. I’ve yet to hear a rational argument from a modernist other than merely playing down criticism of Western ideas as merely ‘the ramblings of Islamist fundamentalism’ – which is the equivalent of the dismissive saying ‘you are just haters’.

This reveals something very interesting about the Modernist mindset. As the saying goes ‘you can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into’, and the Modernist ‘Muslim’s’ blind faith in Western ideas is just that, an irrational dogma they’ve adopted blindly. But this leads us to the question ‘what made them believe these ideas in the first place??, why are they so alluring??’. The answer is quite simple, ‘might makes right’. The West, though declining, still retains a degree of cultural, technological, economic and military superiority over the Muslim world. The Muslim world, for reasons of social and historical circumstances is currently in a ignorant and declined state – it’s simply human nature for the weak to look up to the strong, just like the Barbarian tribes of europe looked up to Roman culture before and adopted their habits and language.

The are two main problems with this modernist logic. They have made two faulty assumptions, and this leads them to their error.

The first assumption is that Muslim decline is due to the ‘traditional Muslim understanding of Islam. This is easily refuted when we consider that during the first 500 years of ‘traditional Islam’ Muslims were technologically, militarily and economically the most advanced in the world – innovating many new technologies and expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. The fact that Muslims believed in hudud punishments, the traditional family, or wearing turbans and having beards didn’t limit their cultural advancement in the slightest. This demonstrates that the spirit of technological progress and knowledge development has NOTHING to do with the ‘traditional’ Islamic law system, and everything to do with the Muslim state of mind. Consequently, the main problem of the Muslim world is not getting rid of ‘medieval laws’ but to rediscover of the same spirit and state of mind that motivated our ancestors to advance in all spheres of life. The Islamic political system is not limited to only being implemented using medieval technology, but can be implemented using modern technology! Systems don’t change, technology changes. Democracy is 1000 years older than Islam, yet no one believes that implementing it will send people back to the age of wearing togas and worshipping Zeus! Political systems are timeless, because they merely describe a set of relationships between humans, not a technological tool or piece of equipment.

The second biggest assumption made by modernists, is that religion is a retrograde force, and that Western advancement , political stability and economic success is the result of leaving religion and implementation of democracy, liberalism, secularism and nationalism. However history begs to differ.

Christianity was never the reason for the European dark ages, but rather the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of barbarian tribes is the most glaringly obvious reason. Historians are generally agreed that the last great ancient, or classical period philosopher before the fall into the dark ages was the Christian thinker St Augustine! However, since Christianity can only exist in the minds of humans, if the humans carrying it are ignorant, shallow thinkers, then their understanding and practice of Christianity will also be ignorant and shallow. To believe the dark ages was the cause of the Catholic clergy’s behaviour during this period is to confuse the symptom with the problem.

For most of the last 500 years, technological advancement in the West started, and has mostly occurred, under highly religious non-democratic European monarchies and empires. The Liberal Democratic Europe we see today mostly emerged only in the last century! [1900-1999]. The vast majority of pioneering Western scientists were not Atheists, nor did they live under Secularism, but rather they were devout Catholics and even clergy (e.g. Roger Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle and even the recent George Lemaitre, discoverer of the ‘big bang theory’…) or protestant Church (e.g. Newton) – and much scientific literature and almost ALL institutes of higher education and research were under patronage by the Catholic [and later Anglican] Church!

Economic success in the West started with colonialism (and continued with neo-colonialism to this day)- but now is seriously declining COINCIDENTALLY with the rise of countries powerful enough to be outside Western control (e.g. india, china, Iran, brazil etc).

As for political stability, it is mostly due to wealth – but even then people should check their history. Many Liberal and Secular countries today are not the result of an unbroken continued implementation of Liberalism, but rather many currently Liberal countries are the results of a second attempt to re-impose Liberalism after a previous attempt failed, which led to civil wars and the collapse into fascist or autocratic regimes (e.g. Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Japan, Greece etc…over the last 150 years). And the future looks like Liberalism is collapsing again in a number of Western countries, with fascism rising again ‘coincidentally’ as these same countries get poorer [recent example, Greece, Ukraine!].

What took the West out of the Dark Ages, was the change induced by their interaction with the medieval Islamic civilisation which developed a spirit and state of mind that led to the beginning of technological development and the advancement of human knowledge LONG before Liberalism, Secularism, Nationalism were invented [and Democracy re-implemented since Ancient Greek times]. These ideas did not begin the Western intellectual renaissance, but were rather the RECENT PRODUCTS of it [along with Communism and Fascism]. Oh how human memory is short to believe those ideas have existed since the beginning of Western development! If you could take a time machine and go back 100 years, you’d see a europe mostly NOT LIBERAL and 150 years back mostly not secular. Technically, UK is still not a Secular country! The head of state is the head of the national Church – a relic of the not-so-distant past).

In the end, Western development came from a state of mind and spirit, not from an ideology or set of ideas (just look at the modern example of China, a country fast outpacing USA in inventions and industry, despite being not Liberal and not Democratic!).

In contrast, the Arabs developed and advanced not when they removed religion from their life’s affairs (like the pagan Quraysh had been doing for centuries) but change only happened after they CONNECTED religion with their life’s affairs – Islam. It was only then that the Arabs then rose at an intellectually and technologically alarming rate, eventually surpassing all the empires around them in achievements.

What changed the Arabs was not contact with another civilisation, but rather the introduction of Islam – which spread beyond the Arabs, creating a new ‘nation’ (the Muslim Ummah) and assimilation different races and cultures into itself. The ideal that spurred the early Muslims to excel in civilisation, and to expand human knowledge and condition, was the ideal of ihsan – the attainment of the perfection of the Worship of Allah Almighty. Unlike the secular understanding of this in the current Muslim dark age, the classical understanding of Ihsan was the perfection not just of praying, and dhikr, nor just morals and conduct, but the perfection of wisdom, knowledge of God’s creation [the universe] and the worship of him through the highest degree of philanthropy to our fellow human beings – creating hospitals, medicines, mental therapies, sewage systems, health care and technologies that provide ease. The obligation to prayer alone, viewed today as a purely private spiritual affair, created in the medieval Islamic world, the material and knowledge advancements in city planning, street lighting, acoustics, astronomy, navigation, water provision to cities, even domestic plumbing [yes, all that from just the Islamic obligation of the Salah!].

The task of the Muslim today, is not to change Islam in the hope of imitating the West’s current intellectual follies, but rather to recapture the state of mind and spirit that made our medieval ancestors excel in civilisation.

And to our Modernist friends, with the decline of the West, and the social, economic and political problems rising in its societies, perhaps we should ask them this searching question ‘why do you want to imitate the most recent ideas produced by a declining civilisation?’

Perhaps because love is blind…

True Jihad- Tarnished by the Salafis/Modernists



forthcoming in this section is a compilation of articles which illustrate the huge difference between the lofty institution of Jihad and the murderous atrocities perpetrated by spiritually barren pseudo-Jihadis who, devoid of taqwa and waraa (abstinence from all doubtful matters and even some permissible matters), acquire enough room to justify their actions by loosening the reins of rigid adherence (taqleed) to one of the four accepted madh-habs (schools of thought codified over a millenium ago which comprise of all the rulings of Islam).

In the same manner in which lengthy arguments based on Qur’an, Sunnah, and new ijtihad (interpretations) based on unprecedented scenarios of warfare, are used to justify dubious actions on the battlefield, every other alteration to the Deen (religion) is justified and legalized today by bypassing rigid taqleed (adherence) to one of the four accepted madh-habs, and opting instead for direct ijtihad (formulating of rulings) using the Qur’an and Sunnah, – an ijtihad that is violently subject to variation according to the chaotically fluctuating intellects of modern day scholars.

Modernists and Salafis of all breeds should take note that the very same slogans of “Quran and Hadith” that they themselves use to ‘reform’ or ‘modernise’ the religion, are also used by these pseudo-Jihadis to justify their ‘Jihad’, which effectively opens the door for each person to create a tailor-made version of ‘Islam’.

The natural consequence of granting any scope to scholars today to leave one of the four madh-habs for what is believed to be the ‘stronger ruling’, is unlimited versions of ‘Islam’, with each scholar absolutely convinced that his particular version is the Haqq (truth), no matter how mutated it may seem to others.

Those who hold a ‘softspot’ for modernist and Salafi breeds of their particular inclination, should realise that their ‘softspot’ is in fact Nifaaq (hypocrisy), according to the clear explicit statements of the Salaf-us-Saliheen who had adopted extreme harshness towards even the slightest of deviations in the Deen, and who regarded the potential danger of Baatil sects to be even worse than that of the Kuffaar.

The Ummah is not in need of Mushtabah (doubtful) and Haraam Asbaab (means). The clearly Halaal bounds of Allah’s glorious Shariah are more than sufficient to deliver victory to our doorsteps, no matter how limited and restricted such bounds may seem to our puny intellects colonized by the effects of materialism. The use of Mushtabah Asbaab (doubtful means) is, in fact, an open statement expressing a lack of Tawakkul (trust) in the clearly Halaal bounds set by Allah (azza wa jal). As a result Allah (azza wa jal) abandons us to our Asbaab (means) and withdraws his Nusrat (Divine Help) – a Nusrat without which all the means, weaponry, man-power, technology, etc. in the world will not be able to extricate the Ummah from its current state of abject humiliation.

Thus, while the Jihaad of the small band of Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) was met with resounding victory after victory, without barely any means whatsoever, eventually delivering the whole world into their hands within a few years, all Jihaad efforts of groups influenced by Salafis and modernists, over the past century, have ended in catastrophe after catastrophe.

May Allah (azza wa jal) inspire this downtrodden Ummah to submit to the pure orthodox Shariah completely, adopt Taqwa and Waraa’ in all matters, and thus be deserving of His (azza wa jal) Nusrat.