REFUTATION OF THE FECUNDATION DECEPTION OF A ZINDEEQ

REFUTATION OF THE FECUNDATION DECEPTION OF A ZINDEEQ

HALLUCINATED “EXPLICIT” OR “TACIT” AGREEMENT

Question

Please comment on the following statement made by a modernist:

“It is a settled Shariah principle that a Muslim citizen residing in a modern non-muslim constitutional state, based on the rule of law, enters into an explicit or tacit agreement with the state, in terms of which he or she is obliged to obey all neutral laws and regulations, enacted in the public interest, which fall within the very wide category of mubah or what is described as merely permitted or neutral matters, examples are traffic and town planning laws.”

The modernist backs up his claim with a reference from Ad-durul Mukhtaar which says: “…Because obedience to the Imaam in things which are not sinful is Fardh. The action of the Imaam centres on expediency.” The objective of the modernist is to convince Muslims that it is a requirement of the Shariah for them to obey the government’s corona protocols, and if they disobey, they will be sinful. 

Is this correct in terms of the Shariah? Will a Muslim who disobeys the laws of the kuffaar country of which he is a citizen be deemed sinful in terms of the Shariah?

 

Answer

The brains of the modernist is convoluted with kufr, hence he is not blessed with the bounty of brain-application. What he has disgorged in his statement is rubbish. It is clear that this chap is a bootlicker of the kuffaar. In his bootlicking, he seeks to appease his kuffaar masters with his egregious misinterpretation of the texts of the Shariah.

The statement which the moron has ripped out of Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar has no relationship with a kuffaar state. It applies to an Islamic state, and none of the present Muslim lands governed by kuffaar regimes is an Islamic state, not even Afghanistan where currently the “Taliban” have treacherously betrayed the Ummah by violating their Covenant with Allah Azza Wa Jal. 

The “Imaam” mentioned in the quote by the moron modernist refers to the Khalifah or the Sultan or the Haakim of an Islamic state. It does not refer to the president or regime of a non-Muslim country. It is absolutely preposterous to understand that it is Fardh for a Muslim to obey man-made laws, and disobeying such laws being sinful, thereby making him liable for Jahannam in the Aakhirah. The consequence of disobeying Fardh is Jahannam, and its denial is kufr. 

Thus, in terms of the convoluted logic of the moron modernist, a Muslim who denies and rejects the hallucinated fardhiyat of traffic and town planning laws enacted by those who wallow in janaabatnajaasat and kufr becomes a murtadd. 

Also, the term fardh in the context of the statement cited from Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar does not have the technical Fiqhi meaning. It merely conveys the importance and essentiality of obeying the MUSLIM IMAAM in all rules/laws which are permissible in Islam. Disobedience of such laws enacted by even the Imaam of the Islamic state is not sinful. It is not punishable in the Aakhirat.

While Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar is concerned with the Imaam of an Islamic State, the moron rips out a Shar’i issue from its context to apply it to a “modern non-Muslim constitutional state”. 

At least the modernist has saved his skin from the fatwa of kufr by predicating the obedience to “neutral laws and regulations” which are presumed to be such enactments which are not in conflict with the Shariah. No one has any issue with such rules and regulations which are not in violation of the Shariah. However, despite the beneficial objectives of such rules and regulations, disobedience is not sinful in terms of the Shariah. Thus, his claim that the Muslim “is obliged to obey” such laws should not be understood to mean that it is technically Waajib, and that disobedience of such manmade laws is sinful. 

The modernist moron, dwelling in confusion states that the Muslim citizen living in a non-Muslim state “enters into an explicit or tacit agreement with the state” to obey all the trash enacted by the state. Here the fellow mentions two opposites: explicit and tacit. What are his grounds for claiming an explicit agreement between Muslim citizens and the state? Which document of obedience, which sacrament of allegiance do Muslim citizens pledge obedience, the violation of which will render them fussaaq? The moron should explain the basis for claiming that there exists an explicit agreement.

REFUTATION OF THE FECUNDATION DECEPTION OF A ZINDEEQ

Download book