If Allah is the only Sovereign, why do Muslims accept many sovereigns?
-
Peace Abdun Nur,
Simply because you are using internet, then you are part of this system you are pretending to be against. Allow me please to explain myself
-
You are using a computer that is a highly complex machine, this machine wouldn't exist without the many fields of science that cooperated to bring it to existance, in an organized and strict respect of the laws of nature.
-
Your electric power and you internet connection are provided by some very complex netwoks of power and data that cannot exist without some organisation at large scales.
-
Just for these material goods, you have to use some sort of money to pay for using them, which bring you again to be part of an agreed on system.
So you can see that even if You don't want it, but you are part of a system and under some laws/legislations to benefit from the above mentionned goods. Would you stop using such tools?
--
-
-
-
Allodial Earth. The complete model including historical and legal reference.
This is the first conceptual model outline, of four basic models that combined to manifest Islam. It maybe necessary to understand all four models before fully understanding each model independently.
To Allah belongs everything in the heavens and the earth, and Allah is the only Protector.
2 255 - 2284 - 3109 - 3129 - 3189 - 4126 - 4131 - 4170 - 4172 - 517 - 518 - 5120 - 612 - 7128 Etc.All the Earth is allodial by its very nature, as are the fruits of the Earth, as we did not create the abundance upon the earth, only enjoy its rewards.
An example
If I plant a field of watermelons, the watermelons are the bounty of Allah, grown from the earth and out of the seed, and from the design of Allah, but the physical labour you invested in the planting of the seed, the preparing of the land, the harvesting and marketing of the watermelons, is what you have honestly earned and deserve in reward of your labour, so when you sell the watermelon, the watermelon itself is free, as it is the bounty of Allah, but the labour it took to reach its end user and consumer must be paid by the end user and consumer.Allah has provided you the materials, while you provide the labour, human energy is the true economy of Islam.
In the modern age men sell the bounty of Allah, they profit from the abundance, they monopolise it and enslave their fellow man through the concept of ownership, but who gave them the right to sell something that they do not own?
Who established they had a right to buy and sell the property of Allah, the Earth and its abundance?
Who ever it was, was a thief!
To buy and sell stolen goods, is bad enough, but to buy and sell the stolen goods of Allah, takes a brave man indeed.
This is the Islamic model of ownership.
Allodial right is a situation where real property (land, buildings and fixtures) is held free and clear of any encumbrances, including liens, mortgages and tax obligations. Allodial title is inalienable, in that it cannot be taken by any operation of law for any reason whatsoever, (beyond the single intentional actions of manifesting long term damage to surrounding property.)
Allodial lands are the absolute property of their custodian and not subject to any service or acknowledgment to a superior, this concept denies the legal power of municipal and state governments to tax property, (if they were in existence) on the basis that allodial title cannot be alienated by failure to pay those taxes.
Allodial title cannot be alienated by seizure by a creditor, as the claim of the foreclosure by the mortgagee is illegal. However, by its nature, allodial title cannot be mortgaged in the first place, and an attempt to create allodial title on land that is subject to encumbrance by debt is impossible.
Within Islam the entire Earth is Allodial by its very nature.
Although allodial title cannot be lost, that also means that it cannot be transferred or encumbered without losing its allodial status. As such, when a property custodian dies and leaves custodianship to more than one heir, the conceptual allodial status of the property is lost, this situation must be resolved as quickly as possible, so re-establishing the correct Allodial status, the property must be divided, sold or agreement of the parties to settle and establish a single custodian (Caliph). This process failing to be accomplished the title reverts back to the community it exists within.
Allodial title cannot be mortgaged (as is common in a usury system). Moreover, as liens cannot attach to allodial title, it is difficult to finance improvements (if considered from the perspective of a usury system), to a property held in allodial title as, once incorporated to the singe custodian, the improvements become part of the allodial title and become exempt from lien or seizure of the property to pay a contractor's bill. The burden of responsibility to honour these debts, if established, is solely upon the custodian personally, the fruits generated from the property, personally by the custodian could be seized, as they represent the wealth, the labour invested within the produced goods from the property.
Allodial title cannot, in theory, be legally taken away against the will of the custodian. However, an allodial custodian can contractually give up allodial custodianship and that allodial custodianship can be restored or sold (added value only) or passed on to a single heir. Allodial title cannot be exchanged by fraud, only by legitimate contract. (For example you could not use your allodial property as a stake for a wager, just as much as the collateral for a loan.)
Allodial property can not be owned by a corporation, being a group recognised as an individual by law, being a group colony of individuals, working in unity against the community for their own benefit. Only single individuals can hold allodial rights and custodianship.
All property is Allodial, property without a custodian is held in trust by the local community, and allotted to individuals when the community feel it appropriate. Otherwise it remains open to all to enjoy, and for local community projects.
Land alone can have no saleable value, it can be given or exchanged for equal land in another location, but not sold, as it is in custody only, however the fixed labour invested in the land, labour integral that forms added worth, such as making the land arable, buildings, crops; seasonal or annual, like trees; all have value and can be sold with the transferred obligations of the custodianship of the land which attaches no cost.
If you irreparably damage the land, as its custodian, through contaminating it with poisons, damage its nature with cross specie genetically modified crops, making it radioactive, any long term effects that detrimentally effect not just your allodial land, but the surrounding lands, of intentional assault, breaks the covenant and so voids the custodianship, and holds those responsible accountable for the cost and effort, of rectifying the surrounding contamination. If the custodian damages their Allodial land without effecting any surrounding land it is a crime between the custodian and Allah. But these abuses would have a bearing on the local community allocating new allodial custodianship in any future applications.
As the entire Earth, categorically, is allodial, the substance of the Earth itself would also be allodial, for example the minerals of the earth are free in and of themselves, it is only the labour and small equipment charge, and the cost of any consumables used, in the extraction and purification and delivery of the minerals, that could be charged for something which no person could own, (you would own the added value invested in the minerals after extraction and processing, so in effect own the minerals through that action, much like land use and the fruits it bears), only your labour within an allodial system would be chargeable above the overheads, the same concept would apply to crops and fruits, the labour value would be charged and overheads, the bounty of Allah would always be freely given, and when true Muslim intent was prevalent, this system would invigorate commodities, no market of exploitation to hype the price beyond reason, no futures market to speculate on production, no investment market to gamble on price fluctuations, no monopolies to extort undeserved rewards from the weak and powerless.
For a sovereign to claim ownership and sell rights to mine any of these fruits of the Earth, is against Islam, these things of the Earth are the bounty of Allah, they cannot be sold, or monopolised.
Modern land law.
Ownership of property.
The first thing to note about the legal profession is the abuse of the word law, as they exchange it so easily for what should be known as legislation, so what is legal is legislation and what is lawful is common law. So they attempt to confuse others with this abuse, in reality the legal profession knows very little about the law, but can be experts on legislation. I wish to now examine both legislation and common law.The extent of personal land ownership, founded in definition, from the subjugation by force of arms of 1066, within England formally Albion
'Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos'
Which means
'He who owns the land owns everything 'up to the sky and down to the centre of the earth'.This is legislated away with the following legislative acts
?In terms of downward ownership so that coal and gas found under land are now subject to public (meaning Crown) ownership.(Petroleum Act 1934- Coal Industry Act 1994) Other than that, items found buried in the soil are yours, unless constituting treasure trove,(Treasure Act 1996) in which case the treasure belongs to the crown...?(Oxford Modern land law 4th edt)
In the case of civil aircraft, the matter is regulated by statute, Section 76 of the Civil Aircraft Act 1982.
A statute is a formal written enactment of legislative authority that governs a city, state or country. Again not law but legislated rules, so only binding upon registration to the corporate legislating body, being the Government in this case, also known as the Crown Corporation.?One speaks of ownership of a car yet, in the context of land, one does not, technically, refer to ownership of the land; instead, an abstract entity, known as an 'Estate' was created and one's ownership rights are defined by this abstract entity.?(Introduction to the Law of Property. 195
Modern legislative law is based upon the concept of the corporation, to perform this trick, they must create the fiction of the corporation to apply upon the natural person, or the property of the natural person, without this fiction they would have no basis to act. This is the reason they will apply a title before your name in court, Mister, Mrs, Master, Miss, etc. or use a title in place of property as in estate. The entire land ownership fraud is based on fictions of law.
Within Common law it is prohibited for a state, corporation or sovereign to exist, it is against common law. And the sovereigns know this, but do not want you to.
A corporation is an artificial person, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of legislation. Being the mere creature of legislation, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. The attributes of the corporate structure are
Immortality - allowed through a perpetual succession of many persons considered as the same so acting as a single entity.
Individuality ? enables a corporation to manage its own affairs, hold property without perplexing intricacies, of the hazardous and endless necessity of perpetual conveyances needed to transmit ownership from hand to hand.
A franchise - clothing bodies of men in free succession, with qualities and capacities capable of acting for the promotion of a particular object, like one immortal being.
A body politic ? vested under a special denomination of legislation, to act as a united will of unified power, undisturbed by the change of members, enjoying legislated rights and privileges.
Limited liability ? this possesses many advantages to the corporation, it supports the suppression of financial liabilities, in compensation, reparations, remunerations; and in personal accountability, cloaking the guilty in the blanket of the corporate fiction, so limiting personal accountability of environmental destruction and pollution, social exploitation and enslavement; take the food chain, corporate employees defiling plants, animals and humans with poisons, genetically modified perversions of nature, chemical infusion etc. acting with impunity; also stealing with deceptions, creating wars, hardship, terrorism, taking away human liberties and natural rights from communities, families and individuals. Additionally leaving creditors empty handed if the fiction of the indebted corporation is dissolved. This allows the corporation to externalise the greater portion of the risks of financial and moral liabilities, imposing them upon society at large.
Monopoly ? corporations of themselves are giant monopoly privileges, using the construct of copy right, economy of scale, dictating price and terms of supply and legislation of privileges; such as the printing of money for the cost of printing in the case of the Central Corporate Banks for example, being a coercive monopoly. Even in the small scale corporation is structured on monopoly, taking the fruits of the labour of the employees and monopolising this to the advantage of the financiers. Another simple example of coercive monopoly would be Microsoft, were they dominate through enforced copyright, resulting in a poor quality product almost free of competition. The state itself is the most extreme coercive monopoly as they use violence and intimidation to enforce a perceived compulsory monopoly.
The roots of the corporation go back deep into history, the word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people". The structure of corporations existed in ancient Roman and the ancient Indian Empire of Maurya, and continued into the modern world from its ancient existence, from the evolution of the failed brutal Roman Empire, as it collapsed under the exploitations of usury, transforming into the blind faith and mental enslavement of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest corporation in the world, as it incorporates many subordinate corporations within it.
Common law ownership
I
Inalienable rights also known as natural rights or universal rights. Only through trickery and confusion can we be robbed of them, this being the job of the legal profession, this means they work to prevent you having allodial property ownership, as this would be an inalienable right, they create a fiction which is the abstract entity of estate as described above.?English law has never embraced the concept of absolute ownership of land. The closest it has come to doing so is when a person is registered as the proprietor of land with an absolute title. Even then, however, as will be seen, that person's title is not indefeasible. Where title to the land is unregistered, this is even more the case. All that a person can do is to demonstrate that he has the better right to possess the land than anyone else.?(Modern Land Law 4th edn.)
English law only existed upon the creating of the constructs established from 1066, in subduing the original Albic nation, which was an allodial land system, and additionally not a Roman Catholic enclave. (See 'Rex Offa of Mercia (Northern Britain))
How do they justify their right to buy and sell the earth?
?To make better rights impossible the proof would have to start with the granting to Adam and Eve, but even then this was save and except the Garden of Eden, and one is not even sure if they took as joint tenants or tenants in common....?(Ferrand, Contract and Conveyance 4th edn.)
"to work it and watch over it,"(Bible, Old Testament, Genesis)
The very foundation of the legal right establishing the Sovereigns ownership, to buy and sell, is a lie, never were Adam and eve given the Earth as owners, only as custodians with obligations and restrictions.
?After the Norman invasion in 1066, a rigorous feudal structure was imposed upon the country. Central to it was the notion, still true to this day, that all the land belonged to the Crown.- This process led to the formation of a feudal pyramid.?(An Introduction to the History of Land Law 1961 Ch. 1)
William the Bastard (Conqueror) never purchased the land of Albion, nor took any legal ownership that would be supported, he murdered the allodial property owners and held it by force, changing the name from Albion to England, which explains this
?The fact of possession of a chattel of itself gives to the possessor a possessory title and the possessor is entitled to rely on such title without reference to the circumstances in which such possession was obtained; his entitlement to do so is not prejudiced by the fact that he obtained such possession unlawfully or by an illegal transaction.?(Ibid. At 157. Contrast Hibbert v. McKiernan 194
William the Bastard was in subjugation to the Pope, and established the Crown as owner of the land and all upon it, later King John of England (king 6th April 1199 - 19th Oct 1216) was excommunicated from the Church, to meet these demands to be re-embraced he surrendered the crown rights of ownership to the Roman Catholic Church, making them the Crown corporation, so the legal but not lawful owners of England, given as a Papal Legate to Bishop Pandulph in May 1213.
Two years later, at the point of a sword King John signed the Magna Carta Libertatum (the Great Charter of Freedoms ? 1215). This charter was written by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton for the protection of the contract establishing the Church as coporate owner of England, through the manipulation of the Barons and lords. However Pope Innocent III public declared outrage at the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear." He rejected any call for restraints on the King, saying it impaired John's dignity. He pretended it was an affront to the Church's authority over the King and the 'papal territories' of England and Ireland, and he released John from his oath to obey it, of course the Barons and Lords made certain it was obeyed. The Crown Corporation is the legal owner of England, as maintained through legal fictions, standing in direct conflict with Law.
?It remains theoretically true to say that all land is held from the Crown. The idea that one does not actually own the thing itself but rather has an interest in it, is also what underlies the theoretical basis of landholding in this country?(Modern Land Law 4th edn)
?..it is now assumed that an owner of land holds directly from the Crown as tenant in Chief but without the provision of any service in respect of that holding. The effect of the statute 'Quia Emptores' is that, when a house is sold, the purchaser replaces the vendor as the tenant in chief, holding the land directly from the Crown.?(Modern Land Law 4th edn)
'the plaintiff cannot recover but upon the strength of his own title. He cannot found a claim upon the weakness of the defendant's title. For possession gives the defendant a right against every man who cannot show a good title.'(Roe d. Haldane v. Harvey 1769)
?Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public (Crown)interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law(meaning legislation) and by the general principles of international law.(meaning international legislation)?(Human Rights Act 1998 Article 1)
?Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him, or if first accrued to some person through whom he claims, that person.? (Modern Land Law 4th edn)
-
Common Law.
The second conceptual model of Islam
Islam has a foundation of No Compulsion, this applies within a framework of conceptual conditions, but these conditions are simply examples of the two laws. This is the second society model common Law, and is linked inexorably with the first model explained, allodial ownership, this being a foundation of common law.
What is Common Law?
Lawful = Common Law Legal = Legislation
Legislation cannot change Common law!
Common Law nullifies Legislative law that contradicts common law.
No State ? Nation ? Sovereign or Corporation is recognised under Common Law, only the individual is recognised!There are two fundamental common laws
Do all you have agreed to do.
Do not encroach on other persons or their property."Do all you have agreed to do" is the basis for contract law.
"Do not encroach... " is the basis for criminal law and tort law.A "tort" is harm done to someone.
Encroach "To enter by gradual steps or stealth into the possessions or rights of another; to trespass or intrude. To gain or intrude unlawfully upon the lands, property, or authority of another."(Black's Law Dictionary)
Therefore "sovereign government" is simply common law turned upside-down.All Sovereign Government make the people slaves.
?The Dichotomy of the Freeman or the Slave.?
This dictum dates back at least 1,400 years in Western civilization and legal tradition.
OMNES HOMINES AUT LIBERI SUNT AUT SERVI.
All men are freemen or slaves.This Latin dictum declares you must be either a "freeman" or a "slave." Mutually exclusive categories. No middle ground. If you're not one, you must be the other. (Inst. 1, 3, pr.; Fleta, 1. 1, c. 1, Sect. 2." On page 1238 of Black's Law Dictionary (Revised 4th Edition) )
Free
"Not subject to legal (legislated) constraint of another. Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of his own will. Not subject to the dominion of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude. Used in this sense as opposed to 'slave'... Enjoying full civic rights... " (Blacks Law Dictionary)
Most fundamentally, these are the rights to own property, to engage in voluntary exchange, and the sanctity of contract. These are also basic common law rights.
In property
Freeman An allodial proprietor or freeholder has an inalienable right to property.
Slave Someone whose property is subject to property tax is a vassal or feudal tenant.
Freeman in models of Law
In Roman law, it denoted one who was either born free or emancipated, and was the opposite of 'slave.'
In feudal law, it designated an allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudal tenant.
In old English law, the word described a freeholder or tenant by free services; one who was not a villein (slave of a feudal lord).
In modern legal phraseology, it is the appellation (name) of a member of a city or borough having the right of suffrage, or a member of any municipal corporation invested with full civic right."Slave
"A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another... One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labour, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master... "(Blacks Law Dictionary)
Common Law defined in context of the 13th century.
1.Ancient no man can remember the beginning of it.
2.Continuous the rights claimed under it have never been abandoned or interrupted.
3.Peaceable supported by the common consent of those using custom.
4.Reasonable in the light of 'lawfully defined' reason.
5.Certain in the sense of being ascertainable.
6.Compulsory it is not left to the option of every man whether he will obey it or not.
7.Consistent for one custom cannot contradict another custom without producing an absurdity.
(Blackstone, Commentaries, I, 53-54)Lawyers have a deeply ingrained reluctance to define common law, as to do so would remove all fictions of legislation, and set law above privilage.
?to set the judicial power above that of the legislature. . . . . would be subversive of all government.?(Blackstone, Commentaries, I, 90)What common law is not
?Common law is not a written code.
Common law is not the law of special groups or interests.
Common law is not local custom, whatever 'smacks of a speciality' is not common law.
Common law is not the body of rules called 'Equity'.?
(Origins of The Common Law ? Arthur R Hogue ? Bloomington Indiana University press, 1966. p.187)The common law as practised before the Roman Catholic conquest of 1066.
The law system of Mercia under Rex Offa, was completely free of any influence of Roman law, it was based on the original laws of the ancient tribes that settled Britain, those that migrated over from the Continent, already possessing an elaborate and developed legal system.
The system of surety was known by a few names in the many regions of Albion (Great Britain), we are going to examine Borh, this was the legal system of Albion (replaced in general from 1066 by the Frankpledge) and had 6 concepts as its foundation
1)A predominant concern for individual rights and private and allodial property;
2)Laws enforced by victims backed by reciprocal agreements;
standard adjudicative procedures established to avoid violence;3)Offences treated as torts (meaning wrongful acts) punishable by economic restitution;
4)Strong incentives for the guilty to yield to prescribed punishment due to the threat of social ostracism;
5)Legal change (confined within common law) via an evolutionary process of developing customs and norms.
Each region of Albion had slight variations on the theme, but all followed the same basic structure.
Under the borh system a set of ten to twelve individuals, defined at first by kinship but later by contractual agreement, would form a group to pledge surety for the good behaviour of its members. The group would back up this pledge by paying the fines of its members if they were found guilty of violating customary law. A surety group thus had strong financial incentives to police its members and exclude those who persistently engaged in criminal behaviour.
Exclusion served as a powerful sanction " Every human being either had sureties and pledge associates or one would not be able to function beyond one's own land, as no one would deal with one who had no bond or who could not get anyone to pledge their surety to them."
The courts, called moots, were public assemblies of common men and neighbours. The moots did not expend their efforts on creating or codifying the law. The outcome of a dispute turned entirely on the facts of the case, which were usually established through ritual oath-giving. The disputants first swore to their accusations and denials. Each party then called on oath helpers (including members of their surety groups) to back up these claims with oaths of their own.Borh law had no category for crimes against the state or against society -- it recognized only crimes against individuals, the fiction of the person, a citizen, a commoner, a subject or a slave were not recognised, only a human being, a system without the concept of a slave, the Christians constructed many 'legal' fictions to inflict slavery on the population, none of which are 'lawful'.
As in other customary law systems, the moots typically demanded that criminals pay restitution or compensation to their victims -- or else face the hazards of outlawry and blood-feud. Murderers owed wergeld (literally, " man-money" ) to their victims' kin. Lesser criminals owed their victims lesser fines, elaborately graded according to the victim's status and the importance of the limb, hand, digit, fingertip, etc., that had been lost. In recognition of the importance of private property, heavier penalties were also imposed for crimes occurring in or about the home, the most serious being hamesucken, i.e. smashing up someone's house. This emphasis on the home reflected Borh law's concern with protecting property rights, including the notion of a protected private space.
The concept of a Rex (meaning 'to put right'.
Men served a Rex voluntarily. A Rex had to offer battle gear, food, and plunder to get others to follow him into battle, more importantly, they volunteered to champion the cause of the weak -- for a fee.
Weak victims sometimes found it difficult to convince their much stronger offenders to appear before the court. Rex's balanced the scales by backing the claims of such plaintiffs. This forced brazen defendants to face the court, where they faced the usual fines plus (if requiring to be forcibly summoned) a surcharge that went to the Rex as payment for his services.
This surcharge, called wite, made enforcing the law a profitable business for the Rex. This has passed down to the present day, the court issue, court writs, warrants, prerogatives, and subpoenas, which are all forms of writ.
The Writ passing down from antiquity, still mimics the old model, the writ is handed to the party accused of a crime, the writ has the crime and what was demanded in restitution, if the recipient fails to show up at court after the writ was given and served, then the police in the modern world, or in the ancient world the Rex, would execute the writ, this has been reversed in its present form, so the court issue the writ authorised by the king or Queen, as opposed to the authorising of the Rex through the writ.
The Rex occupation was not the Christian King sovereign model as practised within the Christianised European tribes, it had no authority to establish a corporate state, nation or crown, it was simply a function of the courts, to establish justice, so 'to put right' injustice.
Modern Sharia Law.
Sharia means "way" or "path to the water source"; it is presented, in its contemporary form, as been the system of laws expressed within the Qur?an, when in truth it is the laws expressed in the old and new testament of the Jewish and Christian contrived books of religious sovereign control, and most shamefully on the unmitigated conjecture of Hadith (Hadith un-provable opinion of hearsay).
This is compounded with misrepresentations, and incorporated into Sharia using the idea of Fiqh, (fiqh is an Arabic term meaning "deep understanding" or "full comprehension", which is Islamic jurisprudence. Fiqh, in its present form, is an unjustified expansion of the Sharia Islamic law?based directly on rulings/interpretations of Islamic jurists (erroneous legal (legislation) experts), largely based on Hadith.
This misunderstanding is further compounded, with the addition of a strange idea of fiqh that deals with the observance of artificial rituals, and unjustified social legislation. I say unjustified as the true Sharia Law of the Qur?an, is only concerned with the purging of action of each individual that negatively impact on those around them, something that is absolutely disregarded in the existing system, resulting in the reality of the world today, filled with usury and subjugated minds, actively following sovereigns without reason, and failing to see the light, and truth of Islam.
Common law within the Qur'an.
The historian Ibn Khaldun describes fiqh as "knowledge of the rules of Allah (not God, The Creator), which concern the actions of persons who own themselves (free of sovereignty), bound to obey the law (Qur?anic), respecting what is required (by the Qur?an, not by a contrived religion of men) (Waiib), forbidden (Haraam), recommended (Mandub), disapproved (Makruh) or merely permitted (Mubah)".
Firstly I will express an aspect of understanding the Qur?an, if a verse of the Qur?an states a concept or principle, that concept or principle applies to every single verse of the Qur?an, throughout the entire Qur?an, it never changes, it never reduces or increases in relevance, it is a constant understanding.
For example
There shall be NO COMPULSION in the Deen. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is hearing and knowing. (Surah 2 - 256)
So the concepts and principles in this verse can be applied to every other verse, meaning in Islam there is no Compulsion to perform any ritual, or social mandate, cultural doctrine, religious dogma, or sovereign dictate; to shape Sharia law to enforce these none Qur?anic values of compulsion, enforcing practices and obligations as Law, is in itself a crime, and demonstrates the true lack of knowledge of Islamic law, now used, originating from the minds of ignorant men, not the wisdom of the Qur?an.
You are directed not to follow or accept, as true or worthwhile, anything Taghut meaning superstitious beliefs, false objects of worship, idols, heavenly bodies (such as the moon or the sun, previously worshipped), spirits (such as the devil as a personification, Jinn as physically manifest fire creatures), human beings (as sovereigns, such as heads of states, Kings and Queens, religious hierarchies, pop stars, movie stars, mystics, yogis, etc. ).
Qur'anic Law is Common Law.
If you apply the two laws of common law to the guidance of the Qur'an, it will make simple and clear the true Sharia Laws of Allah.
Do all you have agreed to do.
Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
Some examples
FOOD.
Some food is expressed in the Qur?an as forbidden, such as
carrion, blood and swine flesh, and animals dedicated to Gods, or idolsThese are the criteria of the crime, the parameters that are unacceptable, things detrimental to health.
But this is not a law of Sharia that would repress the law of no compulsion, as an independent act, it has little effect on those around you, it damages your own body and mind, so to eat these things of your own free will is not a crime against the community at any level, only yourself, a crime without relevance to Sharia Law. In addition if you have no other options but to eat tainted or prohibited food, Allah (The Single consciousness) only judges intention, so no fault is found. It is an act of Makruh, a disliked or offensive act (literally "hated", though it is not haraam on a level of personal action that affects no other, however under the rules of common law
If you physically insist/force others to eat the prohibited or contaminated food against their will, this is a crime. (You encroach upon another)
If you actively encourage with peer pressure or intimidation, another to eat prohibited or contaminated food against their better judgement. (You encroach upon another)
If you deceive them into eating something they would refuse if they knew what they were consuming, while knowingly feeding them unacceptable foods. (You encroach upon another)
To intentionally decrease the amount of available food, by damaging or controlling the environment around or within the community, to maintain high prices, starve the people, oppress and dominate others. (You encroach upon another)
To intentionally contaminate the food, with pesticides, herbicides, GM crops, etc., in its production, upon attempting to supply these contaminated foods for human consumption. (You encroach upon another)
These crimes within common law are very common in the world today, poisons are intentionally introduced, pervasive and escalating in the food chain, the food is tainted, this is a crime of Sharia (path to the water source meaning the way to sustain and make fertile, a natural fruitful way) law, but a crime ignored by religious men who are blinded by their religion and love to judge and subjugate others, without authority.
Adultery.
243 The adulterer couples with none but an adulteress who worships
her desires. And with the adulteress none couples but the adulterer who
worships his desires. And it is forbidden to the believers.2568 Those who call on no deities along with Allah. Nor take a life that
Allah has forbidden except in the course of justice (through a court of
law). Nor do they commit adultery; and whoever does this, drags down
one?s own humanity.1732 Do not come close to adultery, for, it is an abomination and an evil
way.There is no physical punishment for adultery, only social, they are banished from holding a contract of marriage with a virtuous human being, have broken a common law, 'Do all you have agreed to do.', and can only contract with a human being under the same restriction. Having broken a signed contract witnessed, they would be required to reimburse the injured party or be subject to the common law court system.
Murder
2178 O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! The law of Just Recompense (Qisaas) has been prescribed for you in dealing with murder. If a free person has committed murder, that free person will face the law. If a servant has committed murder, that servant will face the law. And if a woman has committed murder, that woman will face the law. If the victim?s kin pardons the guilty, the murderer must be appreciative and pay an equitable compensation to the kin in handsome gratitude. This pardon is a concession and mercy from your Lord. Whoever, after this, trespasses this law will have an awful doom in the Court of Allah.
Just as practised within the ancient past, the victims kin is given a choice, equitable compensation or the execution of the criminal, murder is the ultimate encroachment upon another person.
Land Rights.
Allah - there is no deity (God) except Not God, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of (all) existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Allah nor sleep. To him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the Earth. Who is it that can intercede with Allah except by Allah?s permission? Allah knows what is before them and what is after them, and they encompass not a thing of Allah?s knowledge except for what Allah wills. Allah?s Kursl (chair or footstool) extends over the heavens and the Earth, and their preservation tires Allah not. And Allah (Not God) is the Most High, the Most Great. (Surah 2255)
Within the Qur?an Allah present the concept of allodial land, by explaining exactly who is the owner of every planetary body, by stating whatever is in the heavens, this would include the Earth, Allah continues, establishing who is the owner of whatever is on the Earth, this establishes the concept of allodial land rights, and allodial mineral and food rights, to understand this concept further please read, ?Allodial Earth http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/68/98/
Theft.
The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut their (three or more) hands as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from Allah (Not God). Allah ( Not God) is Almighty, Wise. (53
If one repents after committing this crime, and reforms, Allah (Not God) redeems them. Allah (Not God) is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
To further understand this concept please read, ?Theft and punishment?, the link http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/72/102/
Within the framework of common law Allah has explained the more difficult aspects to make clear what is acceptable and what is not.
Usury.
Definition 'The premeditated theft of the fruits of someone's labour.'
Many are confused as to what usury is, and what usury is not, but it is a very simple concept only confused by one thing, the desire to gain from usury while wishing to remain a Muslim.
All the Earth is allodial, as are the fruits of the Earth, for example if I plant a field of watermelons, the watermelons are the bounty of Allah, grown from the earth and out of the seed, and from the design of Allah, but the physical labour you invested in the planting of the seed, the preparing of the land, the harvesting and marketing of the watermelons, is what you have honestly earned and deserve in reward of your labour, so when you sell the watermelon, the watermelon itself is free, as it is the bounty of Allah, but the labour it took to reach its end user and consumer must be paid by the end user and consumer.
This is in contrast to usury, if I lent you a watermelon, and expect you to repay me two watermelons in return, I have laboured in the creation of the one watermelon, but I expect a second watermelon in return for no labour, I have extorted the fruits of your labour from you, because to create the second watermelon I must labour twice as much as you laboured in the creation of just one watermelon, and surrender that labour to you in reward for no effort on your part, this is usury.
Or if I demanded 10% of your crop in exchange for insuring it against loss, so I gambled you would have a good harvest, when the odds maybe only 1% of the time a crop is lost. This is a form of usury.
The Islamic model, protecting yourself from the hardship of a crop failure is simple. A group of farmers would join together, each committing a share of their crop into the collective pot, proportionate to the size of their holdings, only if a farm failed would any burden be extracted from the collective, otherwise the insurance would cost nothing. This loss burden sharing insurance could be linked across large group collectives of farmers, so reducing the burden through scale of any potential losses.
To sell a crop of watermelons at a discounted price before you have planted the seeds, and harvested, jumping straight to market, as is now commonly practiced through the futures market, is selling something you do not have, and may never have, you may only sell what you posses, to sell a potential is a form of usury, you are selling nothing now for the fruits of someone?s labour, for a price that if you deliver in the future would be for less than you have earned.
You shall give full measure when you trade, and weigh equitably. This is better and more righteous. (Surah 1735)
You shall give full measure when you trade; do not cheat. (Surah 26181)
You shall weigh with an equitable scale. (Surah 26182)
These principles can be applied to any area of commerce, for example if you sign a contract to pay a set fee for a service, irrelevant to whether that service is used or not, say a gym membership contract, but never go, yet you can not escape the contract period, this is a futures contract and a form of usury, any contract based on potential future use of service, as opposed to actual use is again not full measure for the fruits of your labour, so usury.
To understand these ideas further please read, ?Human Energy http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/1/28/ , ?Islamic Finance http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/21/55/ , ?Qur?anic Caliphate http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/9/30/
Sovereignty.
2526 On that Day it will become obvious to all that the Sovereignty belongs to the Most Gracious alone. Hence, a Day of distress it will be for all those who had been rejecting the Truth.
You can have absolutely no sovereign, not even, if he lived, the messenger Muhammad, could, or would be, your sovereign.
A sovereign is a person you surrender your decision making ability over to, for example the government decide you must pay income tax (a form of usury) and if you are subjugated you do, without any power within your mind to refuse.
Or for example a sovereign decides to go to war and you must go to war, and this form of obedience is subjugation, you are subject to the dictates and opinions of another, accepted without question or refusal.
This means as a Muslim you can have no king, no sovereign Caliph, no centralised government, no human worship, religious or intellectual, no imams, no muftis, no sheiks, no mullahs, no presidents, no prime ministers, no representatives, voted or hereditary, no outside sovereign power you exist in subjugation to, at all.
You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.
It would be a simple task to establish all the natural law concepts within the Qur?an, and establish true justice and freedom for all, whether Muslim or none Muslim, a believer in truth or a none believer in truth, no matter the shepherds each person carries, justice would not only be seen to be done, without inequity, but with reason and resolution.
The establishment of a lawful system.
Under common law you must be contracted to a society, within the present system, when you are first born your parents register you to the state, when they sign your birth certificate, making you then within legislation of that state, and so the physical property of the state.However you did not sign that contract, additionally you were not of an age where you were mentally competent, so could not enter into a legal contract that would be binding.
The first stage in the establishment of an Islamic community would be the establishment of the Islamic contract of the societal model, the basic foundations of society held accountable to the two rules of common law and the stipulations within the Qur'an.
The original contract must first be terminated, this is done through a signed and lawfully witnessed and registered affidavit sent to the head of the state you wish to remove yourself from, you must give them 40 days to respond, and then send a concluding affidavit to confirm your status.
Here is an example of an affidavits to the Queen of England, to remove yourself from the authority of her state
Affidavit of
In Pursuit of Justice and of Right, And in Full Exercise Of My Undoubted & Lawful rights as a free sentient human being.
I, , now resident at .
MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS ?
IT BEING APPARENT TO ME and to a multitude of others that divers evil persons have falsely and unlawfully, with the collusion of their Sovereign Lady, now believe that they alone are the true representatives of the people fictitiously placed in Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's (Windsor?s) Care by their fiction of Almighty God -
AND IT BEING APPARENT TO ME and to a multitude of others that these same evil persons have unlawfully and falsely with the collusion of their Sovereign Lady given unlawful effect to legislation that has violated and continues to violate the Common Law Which legislation further serves to undermine; deny and destroy the Absolute Supremacy of personal sovereignty, all to the prejudice of the people, and in absolute contravention of the right of the people to live in accordance with their own laws and Albic customs (even as evidenced by the terms of the Oath that was undertaken by their Sovereign Lady before the fiction of Almighty God at the time of her empty Coronation). Founded on stolen authority derived from murder, theft and brutal subjugation by Guillaume le B?tard, (whose line of criminals ended 30th January 1649 briefly and continued on with the implanting of the homosexual William of Orange), the Crown corporation now in authority was given perceived ownership by his descendent John, providing the legal but not lawful ownership of the fiction England, not the true Albion, given as a Papal Legate to Bishop Pandulph in May 1213. All the degenerate and subversive acts from 1066 onwards to achieve these ends being genocide, murder, theft, blackmail, intimidation and brutal subjugation will not be sanctioned or submitted to further-
To clarify the founding position before the subjugation beginning in 1066, that no sovereign authority is valid, the Albic concept of a Rex (meaning 'to put right' never represented sovereign authority. Men supported a Rex voluntarily. A Rex had to offer battle gear, food, and plunder to get others to follow him into a defensive battle, more importantly, they volunteered to CHAMPION THE CAUSE OF THE WEAK -- for a fee, not in support of a Rex, or sovereign.
Weak victims sometimes found it difficult to convince their much stronger offenders to appear before the court. Rex's balanced the scales by backing the claims of such plaintiffs. This forced brazen defendants to face the court, where they faced the usual fines plus (if requiring to be forcibly summoned) a surcharge that went to the Rex as payment for his services.
This surcharge, called wite, made enforcing the law a profitable business for the Rex, this occupation also had a natural nepotism passing from father to son. No King and no Kingdom could exist within common law, as no concept of a state, nation or corporation could exist within common law, precluding such a system.
AND IT BEING FURTHER APPARENT TO ME and to a multitude of others that the entirely common law authority of personal sovereignty must be Upheld & Defended, it is now so reduced &/or destroyed by the many processes of the betrayal of trust and confidence; so Treason, that have been and are now being employed against common law Authority from within the ranks of those evil persons who have been, and are now entrusted with perceived authority to manage the affairs of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg- Gotha's (Windsor's) Parliament & Government perceived as on behalf of the people within the fiction of the United Kingdom founded as Britannia of which Albion and Iern are the largest Islands?
FURTHER that my Security and Safety under the Rule of common Laws, that are my inalienable birthright, are now threatened, to my personal detriment and danger, and to the detriment and danger of my family; my people and my country in their entirety. With reference to the Magna Carta Libertatum (the Great Charter of Freedoms ? 1215). The pope knew the only people who could ever break the Papal Legate to Bishop Pandulph in May 1213, were descendants of John, the Barons became the popes and the corporation?s tool to create a controlling aspect upon the king. By making the Barons the slaves and not the slavers as established by William, the corporation engineered a rebellion of the Barons against the king for signing the treaty (contract) and forced John to sign the magna carta at Runnymede in 1215. The pope needed the Barons to control any successive kings and queens to make sure the contract stayed in place, establishing the corporation as owner and slave master. This absolute disregard and ignorance of common law litters history, so it is apparent no treaties, oaths or bonds are honourable or up held within common law, beyond the whim of the state, as history attests, further as a recurrent event throughout the subjugation upon the people of Albion, they even fail to adhere to their own legislations ?
AND IT BEING FINALLY APPARENT TO ME that I can achieve no redress to those many grievances that I now have, and which result entirely from the Unlawful Conduct of those Evil Persons who now surround the Person and invalid Throne of their Legislated Sovereign, I renounce their authority except by means of the common law process that I now intend ?
I NOW PLACE ON THE RECORD of All Persons who now falsely claim to assert a legislative authority over me in the name of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) their Queen, with their many processes of misgovernment & abuse that have been and are now being imposed on me; with no process of correction being commenced; undertaken; evidenced and given a first and lasting effect within a period of 40 days from this present date ? DATE
SUCH PROCESS OF CORRECTION being fully evidenced by Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's (Windsor's) dismissal of the entity of the Crown Corporation, and of the Assembly of Traitors that are now falsely describing themselves as the Representation of the People within the House of Commons. AND WITH SUCH DISMISSAL providing the entirety of the People themselves with full opportunity to speak and to act on their own behalf in the establishment of polycentric communities without representation, as first established by Rex (meaning to put right) Offa (757 - 796) under the Tribal Hildage, being free of sovereignty, that are truly loyal to the purposes of freedom, allodial ownership and common law, reverting back to a sterling silver monetary system, and rejecting the clear fraud of the fiat debt certificate system now in operation. To bring to justice under common law; all persons dealing in usury, being the theft of the fruits of someone labour; all persons guilty of murder, through military adventure, false flag domestic terrorism, or corporate profiteering, within government, the armed forces, the civil service, and members of corporate structures engaged in such acts, directly or indirectly; the seizure of all assets accrued through usury, being distributed locally to the people within polycentric groups; the rescinding of all and any fiat usury debts deceptively outstanding, personal, commercial or national, they being a fiction, and the destruction of all fiat debt currencies in circulation or stockpiled. Further the removal of all corporate rights of existence, dissolving all existing corporation as unlawful, removing all rights to buy and sell land held through deception and fraud re-establishing allodial land ownership, the removal of all legislation now in place contradicting common law, the dissolving of the state and monarchy, including all lords, barons, dukes, kings, princes, queens, duchesses, etc.-
SO I WILL WITHDRAW And withhold all perceived allegiance & obedience to the Person and Crown of their Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) their Queen, and those who falsely claim to speak &/or to act in Her Name, and by such action, I will remove myself entirely from the legislated authority of those Evil Persons who now seek to abuse & misuse me in the name of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) their Queen, in absolute violation of the Common Law of the People to which I belong ?
AND I GIVE NOTICE that I will never return to the groundless perception of implied full allegiance to the Person; fictitious Estate & fictitious Imperial Crown of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) their Queen, established, as viewed by the corporate state being the Crown Corporation, through silent consent, but only Uphold the Common Law that is my birthright, and to ensure for all time to come that I shall conduct myself in full accordance with the common laws as established within Albic customs (before the subjugation initiated in 1066) of my people and claim membership of a society that only exists in Common Law jurisdiction. The world Freeman Society.
I CLEARLY STATE I will take no actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the population, or any individuals of the population within Albion, commonly known as the United Kingdom. Neither will I conspire against the population of Albion, or people of the world. Further I will not attempt nor conspire to overthrow the government with any act of violence or deceit, even if, without any support from me, a foreign country is aided or involved by such refusal, concurrently I would not aid the government in the prevention of collapse, removal or replacement, nor any perceived sovereign representing that authority. I withdraw utterly all perceived allegiance or cooperation required or demanded through the fiction of a state, nation or sovereign.
I FURTHER DECLARE I will defend myself and those holding the same values from unprovoked attacks, through the coercive monopoly of government, manifest through physical subjugation by its minions, this will be defended to the best of my ability.
May the One, who neither is, nor (ever) shall be a deity for worship and adoration, with Mercy, Defend the Right & May those who now hold the people in an Unlawful Capacity be brought to swift justice.
__________________________.
Before me, An Officer of the Court, or Solicitor
Print Name____________________Date_________
(Signed & Sealed)Sworn at_________________________________
This is an example of the second affidavit
Second Affidavit of
WHEREAS It Is Now Made Plain To Me that Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) the perceived Queen has deposed common law Freedoms; established Crown Authority, by the devious machinations of traitors and by all of those evil persons who have formerly, or do now support the enterprises of treason, contrary to the common Laws of Albion, and contrary to the known laws and customs of the people of the Isles of Britannica-
AND WHEREAS the said Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) their Queen is now entirely deposed from her perceived legislated power and authority to Govern the Nations & Peoples of the fiction of the United Kingdom, with Northern Ireland ?
AND WHEREAS the said Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) their Queen has been and has now failed to provide a common law support in defense of her perceived authority, providing a full and adequate response to the content and requirements of an affidavit that I have served upon her in a lawful manner ?
NOW I, , now resident at .
MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS ?
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN within the content of the preamble to this present document, I Must and Do Now Remove Myself from All and Any perceived Allegiance to Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) their Queen, to the purpose of removing myself at law from the authority of all of those Hateful & Evil Persons who have taken it upon themselves to hold the free human beings prisoner and slave to legislation in their own land ? and or who have taken it upon themselves to misgovern the fiction of the United Kingdom in their Queen?s Name, by the process of laying an unlawful claim to subjugate to themselves the True Authority of personal sovereignty; such claim to this Authority being entirely contrary to the known and most ancient laws and customs of the realm and being most clearly an expression of Treason against the Albic people and person freedom itself.
I DECLARE that as from and including this present date, and for all time in perpetuity, I restore my personal Freedom and establish the authority of The Common Law, through which I DENY AND WITHHOLD ALL ALLEGIANCE AND OBEDIENCE TO THE FALSE SOVEREIGN ELIZABETH SAXE-COBURG-GOTHA (WINDSOR) THEIR QUEEN, to the precise purpose of providing some defense to Personal allodial property rights and common law Freedoms, by the process of denying all and any legislative recognition to those Evil Persons who now hold the people captive and hostage to their Treasons; Evil Designs and Unlawful Purposes, contrary to common law -
AND TO THE FURTHER PURPOSE that my own Security and Safety under the Rule of those common Laws that are my inalienable birthright may be safeguarded against the threats to Freedom & Liberty now being posed by Divers Evil Persons, contrary to common law.
I NOW DECLARE to All Persons claiming a legal authority to exercise the power of government, in the name of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) their Queen that their authority to govern me in any way whatsoever is both denied and ended.
I FURTHER DECLARE to all such persons that my personal freedom comes directly to me from the One, who neither is, nor (ever) shall be a deity for worship and adoration, and that the walls and doors of all and any prisons now under the control of Traitors existing parasitically upon the People of the fictitious United Kingdom, will crack wide and will open at the behest of the One, who neither is, nor (ever) shall be a deity for worship and adoration, if they should seek to impose penalty upon me for my departure from their mischiefs.
FINALLY, I give Full Notice & Assurance that I will not return to a perceived allegiance and obedience to the Person; fictitious Estate & fictitious Imperial Crown of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) their Queen even when the figure head of Her Majesty is entirely released from actual or perceived authority; which perceived authority requires Her to Defend the Peoples; Her perceived Kingdoms; Her perceived Realms and Her perceived Territories in full accordance with the terms of the broken Oath that was Sworn before the fiction of Almighty God & The People of the fiction of the United Kingdom on 2nd June, 1953.
THE COMMON LAW OF ALBION, as formally known, now falsely titled ENGLAND, is my birthright and at any future time of returning to a condition to the authority of personal sovereignty, I will require and expect to receive nothing more from Their Queen Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) or her minions, and demand that the activities of all and any parliaments and governments of the fiction of the United Kingdom be constrained to act within those provisions of common law that provide for the existence of no parliaments and no sovereign governments, that hold absolutely no cogency under common law, as no state, nation, corporation or sovereigns can or could be recognised, only a real human being is lawful.
May the One, who neither is, nor (ever) shall be a deity for worship and adoration in Mercy, Defend the Rights of common law and the One, who neither is, nor (ever) shall be a deity for worship and adoration hold all those subjugating others to be accountable for all actions.
__________________________.
Before me, An Officer of the Court, or Solicitor
Print Name____________________Date_________
(Signed & Sealed)Sworn at_________________________________
-
Definition 'The premeditated theft of the fruits of someone's labour.'
Superb definition, those are the exact words I use to describe usury.
Something to note; reality intrinsically works via the rules of truth and logic. Reality has units of money as well, don't get me twisted, reality's money is measured in joule-seconds by us (Planck's constant being what we deem as the fundamental dollar of reality).
There is no usury with reality. One cannot charge more Planck units or less for a given process because to do so would upset the energy balance by taking it in from elsewhere. In essence we are trying to suck more energy from the Sun than it can deliver.
In fact, with usury it is like one is telling ALLAH the sole consciousness to hurry up when the way in which reality works is that ALLAH takes His time - whether or not you like it!
Our money system is a poor imitation of the money system of reality. If our money system is innately the thing that causes every disturbance in equilibrium then surely we are innately incapable of majorly restoring any balance until it is sorted.
If markets can come crashing down within seconds and a lot of imaginary money disappears in that time then one must wonder, in which reality are the economists working in? Energy does not disappear yet suddenly all the fruits of the collective labours of people from all walks per nation appear to do so? Something stinks of falsehood and I think it might be the dollar!
Actually the most harmony and balance would come when one surrenders their will to ALLAH and everything is guided to peace by the natural ebb and flow of things rather than trying to superimpose their wishful rules of reality on THE rules of THE reality.
-
Salam,
so you think the Qur'an is stating a clear and defined contradiction, it states clearly you may have no earthly sovereign of any sort, not even Muhammad can be your sovereign and you believe it states you must have sovereigns to dictate upon you?
Would you mind showing where the Qur'an says you can have no earthly 'sovereign'?
-
Salam,
2526 On that Day it will become obvious to all that the Sovereignty belongs to the Most Gracious alone. Hence, a Day of distress it will be for all those who had been rejecting the Truth.
Thanks, but that wasn't really what I was looking for. That's because what I was looking for doesn't exist in the Qur'an anyway.
It's important to define what we mean by sovereign. Although there may not be a single, comprehensive definition, we can agree that a true sovereign has the power to rule and make laws with no obligation to provide an explanation or justification. So a monarch, like the old royalty of England, could decree any law with absolutely no checks in place. The contradiction you've identified in Qur'an and attitudes of Muslims doesn't exist. Even in today's corrupt world, there are no governments that can pass any law without potential backlash from the people. In an Islamic system, the state indeed has authority over the people, but it is not a true sovereign, as it is bound by the laws of the Qur'an. A shariah compliant state could not pass unQuranic legislation because the people would not stand for it. The state acts as a guardian of the people. It is not sovereign the way you want to understand it. If you want to argue semantics, then yes I will concede that in political terminology such a system would be considered a sovereign state, but that's not what sovereign means in the Qur'an. Allah swt is the ultimate sovereign. Only He does what He wills with no reason required. He has no obligation to anyone. A Muslim state does not have this sovereignty, as it must justify all its acts in the light of Islamic teachings. If it does not, it is no longer an Islamic state but a dictatorship.
The are numerous verses in the Qur'an which call for a system of leadership, and thus a state.
One of the most beautiful is the following
And He hath cast into the earth firm mountains that it quake not with you, and streams and roads that ye may find a way.
(1615)
The common interpretation of this verse is a literal one ie the mountains stop the Earth's crust from shaking. But a deeper reflection of the verse reveals a possible alternative meaning; that the firm mountains are actually governments or civil institutions, to stop our world 'shaking.'
Are you suggesting that the deen advocates anarchy?
-
Salaam Mushu,
I suggest freedom, you are the one advocating Chaos, government enslaves the population, extracting the labour from the population and suppress all true growth and development.
The education system and media implant the idea that without a sovereign all would be chaos and anarchy, war and starvation would fill the earth they suggest, when with sovereignty all is anarchy, war and starvation fills the earth, people view things within their own experience, few look wider, examine the results of the lie of democracy and sovereign control, see the misery within this small world, examine the past, filled with murder and hardship.
Have you considered the concept of democracy, let me give you a simple example.
You have a group of 10 people who have decided to follow the will of the majority as a system of governance, two of the members Bob and Joe find Ann very beautiful, so vote to rape Ann, the other three men in the group, when presented with the prospect of having sex with such a beautiful women, consider this a good idea, having now the majority Ann is raped by the men.
This is the corruption of democracy, it is not freedom or justice, it is enslavement and exploitation.
You should consider the next two models of Islam, all four work together, before making a conclusion. -
Salaam Mushu,
Walaikum assalam Abdun Nur
I suggest freedom, you are the one advocating Chaos,
To be fair, I said anarchy, not chaos. That is what you seem to be suggesting. You're equating governments with chaos, which I don't agree with.
government enslaves the population, extracting the labour from the population and suppress all true growth and development.
Although I'm more than willing to have a philosophical debate about governments vs anarchy, I think there's much benefit in clarifying the Qur'anic position. Clearly, ultimate sovereignty belongs to Allah swt, as demonstrated by the numerous verses you have referenced. However, limited or conditional 'sovereignty' has been granted to governments as well, as also demonstrated by Ayisha with
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.
459This 'limited sovereignty' is not the same as true sovereignty as these leaders are bound by Qur'anic injunctions and will be held accountable for their actions. This is unlike Allah swt, who is accountable to no one. So will you concede that there is in fact no contradiction in the Qur'an regarding sovereignty of Allah and authority of governments? If you do, we can go on and explore the merits of anarchy.
The education system and media implant the idea that without a sovereign all would be chaos and anarchy, war and starvation would fill the earth they suggest, when with sovereignty all is anarchy, war and starvation fills the earth, people view things within their own experience, few look wider, examine the results of the lie of democracy and sovereign control, see the misery within this small world, examine the past, filled with murder and hardship.
I don't actually think conditioning is what maintains nation states and sovereign institutions. You're implying that with better education and freedom of thought, people would reject governments and freely choose anarchy instead. I would argue that this opinion ignores what is the fundamental nature of humans i.e. sheep mentality.
We are told that all Prophets were shepherds because the caring of sheep is much like caring for people. Sheep huddle together because they feel safer in numbers. Not only that, sheep look for guidance. Humans behave in similar ways, albeit with greater variety and complexities. But the core concept is the same.
The shackles of government are self-imposed, if you will. From birth we can only survive through recognising the authority of our mothers. From a young age we are able to identify the positive roles of our elders; they protect us, sustain us and enjoin good on us. It would be impossible for a child to grow up with all their faculties intact without this system of authority and 'subjugation'. Thus, the desire for system and hierarchy is part of the human psyche and is ineluctable. This manifests as the natural phenomena we see all around us people who lead and people who choose to be led. The arrangement is 99% of the time mutual. There is little or no coercion involved in the vast majority of instances when leaders emerge who gain the acceptance of those wish to be led.
Have you considered the concept of democracy, let me give you a simple example.
You have a group of 10 people who have decided to follow the will of the majority as a system of governance, two of the members Bob and Joe find Ann very beautiful, so vote to rape Ann, the other three men in the group, when presented with the prospect of having sex with such a beautiful women, consider this a good idea, having now the majority Ann is raped by the men.
Then consider this
You have a group of 10 people who have decided to govern themselves and are accountable to no one for their actions. They agree that they can do whatever they want, provided they do not infringe on the rights of the others to do the same. Bob and Joe find Ann very beautiful. They wish to have sex with her but she refuses. Having identified that violating the one condition they promised to uphold cannot actually be enforced, they go ahead and rape Ann. The rest of the group, after finding out about this violation are presented with a dilemma. If they are to punish Bob and Joe, they would require some sort of structure and organisation to ensure some sort of fair trial and a mechanism to come to a conclusion in the event of split opinions. If they go ahead with this, they end up creating the very thing they were trying to avoid. The group are at a loss. The weaker amongst the group, particularly Ann who has had a horrific experience, are wide-eyed and scared. They look to the most dominant character in the group, Muhammad, to see what he has to say. Muhammad, who doesn't want to be a leader, is perplexed that the group are now looking to him to provide a solution. He tries his best to be inclusive and keep the group as a flat organisation, but he is fighting a losing battle. The group want him bring some justice to the situation, as he comes across as just and measured, and they have raised his status. Muhammad agrees to chair the trial and ends up having to decide what the punishment for Bob and Joe is. After this episode, the group go back to anarchism, putting the sorry affair behind them. But as the years go by, every time a problem arises, the group look to Muhammad to provide a solution, even though he has no desire to take on a position of leadership.
This is the corruption of democracy, it is not freedom or justice, it is enslavement and exploitation.
You should consider the next two models of Islam, all four work together, before making a conclusion.Okay bro, I'll wait to read what you post.
-
Salaam Mushu,
your analogy ignores the lawful model I presented of surety, with a Rex, who holds no authority to legislate only functions as the facilitator of the lawful court. No democratic or representational structure is needed, we do not require complex legal systems, just two laws with the guidance of the Qur'an applied, as I explained within the second model of Islam the Common Law.
-
Salam Abdun Nur, all
I have read your posts in this thread, and i think some of your views are interesting and radical. Your views are rational, and not uncompatible with the Quran . People can learn a lot from your views in your posts in this thread. I have actually had similar views about islam in almost a year now. I will study these things more, and maybe write my thoughts on it in the future. But nowadays I am busy with other concepts and ideas in islam.
I think the reason why it might be hard for some people to accept radical ideas and models, is because of selective hearing. Sometimes people only hear what they want to hear. And they block out what they don't want to hear. I once read about a guy that said he couldn't hear what people were saying to him when he was younger. When people told him things about reality he couldn't hear what they were saying. The reason why a person can't hear things others say to him, might be because others are using reason when they speak to him. Many people think human beings hear with their ears, but human beings actually hear with their brains. When a human being have sufficient knowledge, he will most likely hear and understand what people are telling him when they tell him something rational. The brain of a person, can be compared to the engine of a car, while the ears can be compared to wheels of a car. And things people tell him can be compared to the road in front of the car. If the engine of a car works, then the wheels will spin, and the car will drive on the road. If the engine does not work, the car will not drive no matter how great the wheels are or no matter how great the road is. So if a person does not have sufficient knowledge, he will most likely not hear what people are telling him when they speak about rational things.
Only Allah is our provider. Not governments, not presidents, not politicians, not corporations, not monarchs, not kings, not churchs, not priests.
Allah owns the the entire universe and everything in it. Allah owns the earth and everything in it.Quran 3513
He merges the night into the day, and
merges the day into the night. He has
committed the sun and the moon, each
runs for a predetermined period. Such is
God your Lord; to Him is the
sovereignty. As for those whom you call
on besides Him, they do not possess a
seed's shell.When human beings create something, it does not live. It does not have a soul. It is not organic. And as most of you probably know, every thing scientists create, are made by earthly materials which God has given them. They have not created the materials out of nothing. Without earthly materials they would not be able to create anything. They would not be able to even create something as small as a fly (See 2273). And as I have mentioned in my first post in this thread, things which are made by God are always more advanced than things which are made by human beings. Let me give you an example. If you compare an airplane to a bird, you will see that the design of the bird is more advanced than an airplane. An airplane needs fuel to work, has a high and uncomfortable sound and does not fly as smoothly and flexibly as a bird. It also need service regularly. When a bird claps its wings, it does not make any uncomfortable sound like an airplane does. Allah has created everything perfect. A bird does not need improvement in its design. Because something which is perfect does not need to be improved. But airplanes are yearly improved,
and new airplanes replace old ones.Quran 464
Say, "Do you see those that you call on
besides God? Show me what they have
created on the earth, or do they have a
share in the heavens? Bring me a book
before this, or any trace of knowledge, if
you are truthful."Human beings does not own things which Allah has created
Human beings don't own the rain.
Human beings don't own the wind.
Human beings don't own the earth.
Human beings don't own the air.
Huuman beings don't own the seas. .
Human beings don't own the plant.
Human beings don't own the wild animals.All these things mentioned above, should be shared with whole mankind. Human beings can use all these things for their benefits as long as they follow the laws of Allah. Allah has given human beings these blessings, so they can live a sustainable life. Human beings only borrow all these things as long as they live here on earth. They only borrow them, they don't own them. And when human beings die, the next generations will borrow them (for a period). And this cycle will continue until the judgment day.
Hoarding is not compatible with islam (see 171.
Monopoly is not compatible with islam (See 597).Some people believe that a human beings can not live without a government. They are brainwashed, and believe that a society can not exist and can not prosper without a government. This belief is false. When people unplug themselves from the matrix, they will realize that in an ideal society, a government is not needed.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively
by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse,
the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher." - Thomas Paine. -
Salaam Someone,
you give me the impression you believe the Islamic models will render all humanity paupers, living in the wilds exposed to the elements without the ability to cover their naked bodies?
A strange perspective for a declared Muslim.
That is the problem behind your Models, You have already decided that these Models are Islamic, and based on Quran. Now if some one disgarees you are quick to label him "A strange Muslim", Not a Muslim, Blah blah.
Realize, what you are doing is very similar to what Mullah's do.
First try to prove are they realy Islamic?, are they Practical?
Can they be implemented just show us an example?
You remind me of a Phd. doctor of economics in Pakistan who kept on appearing on TV shows and Seminars telling that he has an alterante system for money that will change the life of Pakistanis and so on, but when the students of some university tried to give his system a practical try at small scale, it had many flaws, it failed. -
Peace all
It is only through putting value on land that you can truly enslave man kind take the value away and you have one less tool to enslave .The question is rajja correct who advocates putting value on land or abdun who advocates against putting value on land ?
Peace
live long and prosper
Salim
-
Salam,
@Abdun Nur
your analogy ignores the lawful model I presented of surety, with a Rex, who holds no authority to legislate only functions as the facilitator of the lawful court. No democratic or representational structure is needed, we do not require complex legal systems, just two laws with the guidance of the Qur'an applied, as I explained within the second model of Islam the Common Law.
Your analogy did something similar. You implied that a democratic system could legalise criminal acts, with enough votes. This is true, but not relevant to the discussion regarding what the Qur'an teaches. In a shariah system, the Qur'an would be the constitution. It would be impossible for any legislation to contradict the Qur'an, because this would be deemed unconstitutional. It is also true that in a highly populated community, a Rex could be undermined with enough propaganda. Your example focusses on small groups of people who enter into such agreements. But the world today is made up of billions, with millions living in cities in close quarters. Enough people who do not want to be under the influence of a Rex could rebel and expose the Rex as impotent. What checks are in place to prevent this from happening? Your example speaks of 'exclusion' as a strong deterrent for those who consider breaking common law. Are you seriously implying that exclusions would effect people who live amongst millions in a city like London? How big would a Rex have to be? How many people would fall under its influence? Bring us some practical examples of how a Rex would work in a modern society.
Men served a Rex voluntarily. A Rex had to offer battle gear, food, and plunder to get others to follow him into battle, more importantly, they volunteered to champion the cause of the weak -- for a fee.
Hang on... If I have to pay a Rex to provide justice, how is this any different to paying taxes to a government who provides me with police and courts? What is the practical difference between the two? If justice is provided by ability to pay, you put justice in the hands of the rich.
@DK
Only Allah is our provider. Not governments, not presidents, not politicians, not corporations, not monarchs, not kings, not churchs, not priests.
Allah owns the the entire universe and everything in it. Allah owns the earth and everything in it.This is all very nice, but you ignore the verse
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.
459So how do you explain this command? Authority requires structure and hierarchy.
Some people believe that a human beings can not live without a government. They are brainwashed, and believe that a society can not exist and can not prosper without a government. This belief is false. When people unplug themselves from the matrix, they will realize that in an ideal society, a government is not needed.
Then let's see your model and allow it to be scrutinised. Explain how civil institutions that you see today would come about in a flat organisational society. If you can't provide a practical model then it is not your opponents who are brainwashed. Could you show me an example where anarchy has worked? Don't get me wrong, anarchy is the ultimate dream for everyone, but is it practical?
-
Salaam Mushu,
you have failed to understand the model, a rex can be any person you as the victim ask to serve and execute the wite, or writ as it is termed in the modern age, you as the victim do not pay a thing, only the guilty would pay the rex, after the court has finished the case the wite cost of the rex is added to the bill of the guilty party, if they turn up to the court without the need to be brought there is no charge for a rex, as the service is not used.
The Rex has no political function, it is just a service.
The victim applies at the court for a wite, this states the details of the accused and the injustice, and the details of the accuser and the remedy they wish to receive, the court is a function of the community, this is a model that functioned for thousands of years with Britain before the Roman Catholic invasion of 1066.
As for Sharia, you must apply it as I suggest, you can not allow the insane religious fanatics to create any legislation, legislation is not required, if you read the examples I state, they are held within common law, also known as natural law.
-
Abdun nur
Thousands of years Before Roman catholic invasion of Britain this model was functioning? and it is from Quran? &Yes, it may have been existing thousand years before Prophet Muhammed came. Because islam is timeless. And islam did not start with Muhammed, it started with Abraham. And the creed of Abraham existed thousand of years before christianity. Many of the laws in the Quran has existed before the quran came. These laws have existed in earlier scriptures before they were corrupted.