Strangers In The Dunyā

Fiat currency derives its value from people demanding it to satisfy their needs and wants. Moving away from dependence on fiat currency, even if only partially, can harm the enemies of Allāh and contribute towards the end of the fiat-based global system of enslavement. The more people turn to alternatives like gifting, charity, abstaining from excessive consumption, barter trading, and cryptocurrencies, the less people would want fiat money. The ṭawāghīt need to keep printing and increasing the supply of fiat money because they rely on it to purchase weapons from arms manufacturers to arm their military and security apparatuses and aid their allies like the Zionist entity. They also need it to preserve and expand their control over the people they rule over by building schools, hospitals, and social welfare programs. They won’t go with the flow and use alternatives to fiat money like others because sticking to the fiat monetary system is how they stay in power. US global dominance survives on most of the world’s fiat currencies being pegged to the US dollar and the ṭawāghīt of other countries want to avoid being eliminated or isolated from the “benefits” of having access to markets controlled by the liberal international economic order. By reducing our demand for fiat money, the inflation and currency devaluation resulting from the ṭawāghīt increasing its supply would be higher. This means the fiat prices of goods and services and government expenditures would increase, creating more societal pressure on ṭāghūt governments, making it harder for them to increase their power and grant subsidies to the enemies of Allāh like the Zionist entity, and encouraging more people to turn to alternatives to fiat money.

The ease of printing money in a fiat monetary system leads to ever-increasing inflation. As inflation increases, living costs also increase. When this happens, the masses of workers demand higher wages and pressure politicians to increase the minimum wage, which they will do in a democracy in order to gain votes. Although employers will make more money from the increased prices of goods and services, they will also have to spend more money on rent, electricity and water bills, their personal living expenses, etc. Since they cannot afford to pay the extra wages, they’d have to fire workers or shut down, leading to increased unemployment. Increased unemployment along with the fact that money has less purchasing power as inflation increases means that people will consume less in the market, which leads to even less production and more businesses shutting down, creating more unemployment and less consumption. It’s a vicious cycle.

The feminisation of men is the latest in a long list of historical processes to increase the centralisation of power in the hands of the state. Weak men are less capable of protecting and providing for themselves and their families, and women are naturally weaker than men. This gives the state justification to impose higher taxes to purchase technology to arm the police force and increase the power of and people’s dependence on the police. Additional taxes would also be required to build social welfare programs to provide for men who can’t provide for themselves and families who don’t have men to provide for them. These programs then compete with traditions and institutions that provide for the people independently of the state on an unequal footing, leading people to become more dependent on the state and to the state becoming more powerful and influential. This is why there’s such a great effort in public educational institutions to push for homosexuality and the feminisation of boys and men.

There’s hardly any democratic state today that doesn’t have policies like the minimum wage, price fixing, taxation, universal healthcare and education, and state-controlled social welfare. That’s because democracy is an authoritarian system that gives an unprecedented amount of power to the state; the only difference is that you get to choose which parties/politicians you want to represent the state. Life is difficult for most people, and in a democracy, politicians simply make promises that sound good to most people in order to gain votes. So they keep giving people “benefits” like the minimum wage, price fixing, universal healthcare and education, social welfare, etc. Levying high tax rates can be justified in order to implement all these policies. This, of course, increases the power and influence of the state. More taxes allow the state to spend more money on expanding its power; and public education, healthcare, and welfare take over traditions and institutions that provide for the people independently of the state, such as charity, gifting, taking care of parents, homeschooling, traditional medicine, and caring for the ill. Traditions and state-independent institutions can’t compete with state-controlled programs because people would be less willing to spend their time helping others in the presence of an overarching state that already does that job and because the state has a lot more wealth to spend on providing for people. In the UK, we have a universal healthcare system called the National Health Service, and not even the conservative Tories are willing to suggest abolishing it. In the US, no Republican government has attempted to abolish the federal minimum wage.

Establishing a hierarchical society is necessary because the people need a common identity to unite under and maintain social cohesion. This common identity cannot be established except through hierarchy, as humankind is too diverse to build a common identity around. Under khilāfah, people are unified under the identity of Islām and those who don’t fall into this identity are given an inferior status. Under the liberal nationalist state that prevails today, people are unified under the identity of their nationality and those who don’t fall into this identity are given an inferior status. Under khilāfah, the kāfir is a dhimmī, mu`āhid, or slave. Under the liberal nationalist state, the one who doesn’t share the nationality of the majority of people that make up the nation the state represents is a non-citizen who doesn’t even have a say in the politics of the country they live in, despite being affected by state policy. Every attempt to establish an egalitarian society has been a cover to replace the existing hierarchy or strengthen the existing one. The communist revolution in Russia was the replacement of a hierarchy where aristocrats were dominant with a hierarchy where the socialist state was dominant. The state is a type of hierarchical order, and every attempt by the state to make society more egalitarian has resulted in the further destruction of traditional hierarchies and the strengthening of the state. An example of this is the liberal nationalist state’s war on the family via “women’s emancipation” in order to strengthen the power and influence of the state. The establishment of democracy was also the replacement of one hierarchy with another. Democracy can only emerge through a war on a traditional socioeconomic order and the destruction of traditional institutions like tribes and families that protect and provide for the people and give them a sense of belonging to a community. This strengthens the dominance of the state, as the people would turn to the state to protect and provide for them. The hierarchical structure of nationalism is likewise necessary for a democracy, not only because the people need a new identity to unite under and maintain social cohesion in the absence of traditional social institutions but also because people need to be encouraged to vote in the interests of society at large instead of just themselves even when those traditional social institutions no longer exist. Furthermore, political parties in a democracy compete with each other in elections by promising the masses more economic benefits than their opponents. Democratic governments establish a slave class they can exploit to seize the wealth necessary to fulfil their promises and feed the whims of the masses. In the ancient Athenian democracy, they had a literal slave class living in Greece whose members weren’t citizens with the right to vote. Today, the slave class is established on nationalist lines where democracies enslave other countries through the process of neocolonialism. This is also another way democracy leads to the hierarchical order known as the state; people become more and more dependent on the state as the state continuously provides them with economic benefits.

The neocolonial relationship many “developing” countries — including Muslim ones — have with the kāfir West means that the West depends on them for a stable supply of raw materials and stable markets to sell their goods. These are essential to sustaining the industrial economies of the West. The presence of war within and between the West’s various colonies often disrupts the supply of raw materials and the functioning of markets. This is one of the reasons why the kuffār of the West designed international law to make it very difficult to legally wage war. International law prohibits the targeting of “civilians” and even any attack on military targets that are expected to result in collateral damage against “civilians”. To give this moral legitimacy in the eyes of Muslims, they’ve also trained treacherous “scholars” to propagate this heretical belief to Muslims by misrepresenting Islāmic law and texts. However, the West and its puppets and allies can still wage wars that are within Western interests without being subject to any penalty by the international community if they break international law, because the US, Britain, and France are permanent UN Security Council members and can veto any proposed resolution to punish violators of international law that work to advance their interests. When it comes to warring factions that oppose Western interests on the other hand, the violation of international law on their part gives moral and legal justifications for the West to intervene in their conflicts and attempt to eliminate them. It also discredits and delegitimises their cause in the eyes of people who are mentally colonised by international law. Jihād is the only path to our liberation and the reunification of Muslim lands, but following international law to the letter makes it extremely difficult for us to wage jihād and puts us at a massive disadvantage. This is especially the case when we consider the fact our enemies are the West and its puppets and allies who break international law on a daily basis. The sharī`ah permits the targeting of any adult male who fights and anyone else who provides material or moral support to those who fight. Many jurists also permit the targeting of any adult male who is merely capable of fighting and the Shāfi`ī school permits the targeting of any adult male in general. If there are non-combatants like women and children among the enemy, then striking the enemy is not prohibited due to that even if it would certainly lead to the deaths of those women and children, as prohibiting it would lead to the suspension of jihād. In modern warfare, striking economic targets like the means of production that supply steel and aluminium can be crucial to reducing the supply of materials and components that are used in the production of weapons and military equipment at a time when they’re in high demand. Likewise, striking transport infrastructure is very useful to reduce the supply of these materials and components as well as weapons and equipment. It’s also necessary to hinder the movement of soldiers and their aides. Financial targets like banks lend loans to governments, who use the money to fund their military and security apparatuses. They also keep economic life bearable, and their collapse often leads to financial crises that affect everyone (like the 1482 AH financial crisis). Other civil infrastructures like those that supply food, water, and electricity also keep life bearable and uphold the morale of enemy combatants by providing for their needs and wants. This keeps a population, including soldiers and their aides, in support of their government’s war effort. Some scholars say that conducting operations that will lead to collateral damage is only permitted out of necessity. But striking civil infrastructure is often a necessity especially in this day and age when different industries across the world — including the arms industry — are so interdependent.

It’s not just limited to this, however, because it’s necessary to have access to resources, components, and markets under the control of the liberal international order to even be able to fight a war without carrying out operations that are likely to result in collateral damage on “civilians”. The US manufactures high-tech weapons that can attack specific targets while avoiding or minimising collateral damage and then equips its military and the militaries of its allies and puppets — such as the Zionist entity — with them. Ironically, it manages to obtain the materials, components, and markets to continue manufacturing them through brutal imperialism that has resulted in millions of deaths both directly through killing and indirectly through neocolonial economic policies. Of course, it’s possible to capture these weapons from the enemy on the battlefield. But it’s not possible to have a consistent supply of them except by accepting the liberal international order and often also by befriending the worst enemies of Islām. Apart from granting legitimacy to the Pax-Americana by accepting and participating in the liberal international order, purchasing the raw materials and components necessary to manufacture them expands the arms industries of the kuffār. Certain regions of the world specialise in the production and supply of raw materials and components that the arms industry highly depends on to keep the manufacture of weapons going. Increasing the demand and consumption of these raw materials and components increases the production of them in these regions, which in turn maintains and expands the military-industrial complexes of the kuffār. Reducing the demand and consumption of them leads to a reduction in the production and supply of them in these regions as well. This leads to the materials and components becoming a lot more expensive, which would then have a chain effect of reducing the supply of weapons produced by the enemies of Allāh and harming their military-industrial complexes. Importing weapons from the enemies of Allāh also feeds the growth of their arms industries and military-industrial complexes, because consumption is a form of investment in a business that grants it more profit and allows it to use that profit to expand. This is why the US wants to revise the Westphalian nation-state system to make it legal to violate the sovereignty of other nations in order to protect “human rights”, prevent genocide, etc.; they need to justify interfering in the affairs of countries where armed groups that reject the US-led international order and regularly violate “human rights” because of their lack of access to high-tech weapons that can easily avoid collateral damage operate. They need to eliminate threats to their global hegemony.

‎When men voted in democratic elections in the past, they also voted on behalf of their families as their representatives. Women’s suffrage changed that; men were no longer representatives of their families and both men and women voted as individuals representing themselves alone. ‎In the past, men were expected to vote while keeping the interests of their families in mind. Now, however, men vote only with their selfish interests in mind. ‎Because women can now vote and their husbands no longer vote while having their interests in mind, they are encouraged to become more political and form their own opinions that are independent of the opinions of their husbands. This created conflicts within families. ‎Thus, women’s suffrage made families less relevant and helped develop an individualist mentality that gradually moved people away from familial relationships and values. ‎I previously wrote about the need for nation-states to concentrate an increasing amount of power in their hands as technology develops and populations grow in order to preserve the centralisation of power. The introduction of universal suffrage was part of the process of making people more dependent on the state by loosening familial and communal bonds, strengthening the state’s power. ‎In an Islāmic polity, known as khilāfah, the masses don’t have the right to vote; people of power and influence who have integrity, are righteous, and possess the capability to select the right candidate come together and appoint the khalīfah. These people include tribal leaders who represent their tribes, governors who represent the towns they govern, leaders of the mujāhidīn who represent the mujāhidīn, etc. ‎In such a society, communal identities and relationships are strengthened. Local communities and their leaders are more relevant, and if a good khalīfah is appointed, people will be grateful to be led by good community leaders and be more willing to obey them. This prevents a high concentration of power by the khilāfah. ‎The fact community leaders who take part in the process of appointing the khalīfah are representatives of the people brings together members of local communities as they discuss their collective interests and grievances and present them to their leaders. This further strengthens communities. ‎This is yet another problem with Muslims who believe in participating in democratic systems; the more they encourage people to vote — whether it’s for an “Islāmist” party or a secularist who’s a “lesser of two evils” — the more they reinforce the liberal-individualist intellectual invasion of the ummah. ‎Many contemporary Islāmic movements afflicted by modernist ideas like Jamā`ah al-Islāmiyyah and Ḥizbut-Taḥrīr are rather fascinated by the concept of universal suffrage invented by the West, so they co-opted the idea and invented “Islāmic democracy”, pretending that universal suffrage was something that has existed in the Islāmic tradition since the time of the Ṣaḥābah رضي الله عنهم. ‎Universal suffrage is a law of the ṭāghūt and cannot be separated from its liberal-individualist philosophical foundations. Because of the harm it brings to the social fabric of the ummah, it’s necessary to establish the ḥujjah against those who call for it and make takfīr of and forcefully silence them if necessary.

‎This means that mujāhidīn must stick to Islāmic laws of warfare in battle and disobey any command that necessitates disobedience to Allāh ﷻ. This prevents a lot of unnecessary cruelty in warfare and its legitimisation — something that can’t be said for the secular nation-state.

‎To most people, Islām seems more violent than the West. But this is only because of the existing power imbalance. ‎One of the legal duties of a citizen is that he has to take up arms and be prepared to sacrifice his life for the sake of the nation-state if the state calls upon him to do so. This isn’t a choice for the vast majority of people who are assigned citizenship of a particular country at birth. ‎The reason why most countries in the West don’t enact conscription is because it’s not necessary. They already have dozens of national militaries of puppet states fighting to protect their imperialist interests, which are vital to the preservation of their informal economies, on their behalf. Their colonial ambitions that started with Columbus and continue to this day also allowed them to develop military technology that minimises the need for men to fight on the battlefield. These countries, however, do reserve the right to enact conscription. ‎Jihād is farḍ `ayn in this day and age because we’re in an exceptional situation where there aren’t enough mujāhidīn to repel the kuffār and their puppet apostates occupying the lands of the Muslims. The existing power imbalance also forces the mujāhidīn to resort to asymmetric warfare, which requires constant recruitment from the local population. ‎Imām Ibn `Abidīn al-Ḥanafī رحمه الله said: ‎“[Jihād is] farḍ `ayn when the enemy has attacked any of the Islāmic heartland, at which point it becomes farḍ `ayn on those close to the enemy. As for those beyond them, at some distance from the enemy, it is farḍ kifāyah for them unless they are needed. The need arises when those close to the enemy fail to counter the enemy, or if they do not fail but are negligent and fail to perform jihād. In that case, it becomes obligatory on those around them - farḍ `ayn, just like prayer and fasting, and they may not abandon it. [The circle of people on whom jihād is farḍ `ayn expands] until in this way, it becomes compulsory on the entire people of Islām, of the West and the East.” ‎📚 Ad-Durr al-Mukhtār, 3/238 ‎If Islām returns to a position of strength and dominance, the rulings would be different. In such a situation, there would be a lot fewer attacks on and occupation of Muslim lands, and there would be enough men to fight them off without jihād becoming farḍ on the entire ummah. In this situation, most jihād would be farḍ kifāyah and impermissible without the permission of one’s parents and creditor. ‎If Muslims manage to liberate the lands of the Muslims and unite them, seize kāfir trade routes passing through Muslim lands and waters, deny the kuffār access to our markets, labour, and natural resources, and conquer other lands like those in Africa that provide the West with cheap raw materials, it would put the kuffār in a dire situation. ‎The loss of puppet national militaries to fight on their behalf along with the loss of raw materials and foreign markets to keep the production of many of their military technologies up would result in the need for them to enact conscription and draft people to fight the Islāmic project and put down growing domestic opposition to Western governments due to economic hardship and the inability of Western states to continue centralising power. ‎Their current system of mass incarceration would become unsustainable as the necessary wealth required to fund it is lost, forcing the kuffār to return to corporal and capital punishment. ‎Modern nation-states in the West have a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence, which means that they would resort to very cruel and harsh measures to preserve their authority and maintain law and order. ‎An Islāmic leadership, on the other hand, is bound by the sharī`ah and cannot command any act of violence that contravenes it. If the imām commands something in disobedience to Allāh ﷻ, he must not be obeyed. If he replaces the sharī`ah with man-made law, he loses his right to rule and must be removed if possible.