Islamic Revival

Assalamualaikum, Some follow up questions regarding the bitcoin Q&A My question on majhool is- what do you mean the source of Bitcoins in unknown. Do you mean that the mining is done by unknown entities or that the actual founders of Bitcoin (i.e. Satoshi) was anonymous? Answer To reiterate what we said in the QnA previously as well, cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin are ‘assets’ issued by an unknown (majhool) source which have no real value and no real backing and Majhool here is related to the subject of the issuing the currency. The shari view towards the issuance of currency is that It should be issued by a centralized authority which undertakes the responsibility of issuing the currency (dirhams and dinars) i.e it is a known body and not unknown (majhool). This is one of the major problems with cyptocurrencies such as bitcoin. So Majhool is not linked to Satoshi or one particular miner, rather it is linked to the whole mining community which is an unknown entity

Question  by:  SchukranJaan Bismillah Ar-Rahaman Ar-Rahim, Dear honourable Sheikh. We hope this finds you in the best health. We greet you with the warmest and noblest of all greetings: Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuhu. A brother and I were talking about the Hukm regarding the buying and selling of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dash, Ripple etc.) We both read the ijtihad by Ustadh Abu Khaled al-Hejazi but we weren’t quite content with what the sheikh had deduced. We have some problems with how the sheikh analyzed the reality of cryptocurrencies and the comment section under the article too is filled with brothers disagreeing and discussing about how  tahqeeq al-manaat was not completely correct. We would like to know the Hukm regarding selling and buying of cryptocurrencies. Could you bring light into this subject, because it still doesn’t seem clear for us. Wajazaakumullah khairan May Allah strengthen us all on his path and let us be

Imam Muhammad (d. 189), the companion of Abu Hanifa (d. 150) – Allah’s mercy be on them both – the main transmitter of his madhhab and a mujtahid in his own right, said: ولا بأس بأن يستعين المسلمون بأهل الشرك على أهل الشرك إذا كان حكم الإسلام هو الظاهر عليهم. “It is alright for the Muslims to seek the help of polytheists when fighting against (other) polytheists  if the rule of Islam is dominant over them .” (al-Siyar al-Kabir السيار الكبير , 4:191, emphasis added) This is the authoritative statement on the matter in the Hanafi madhhab. Imam Muhammad clarifies the hukm of what is designated in fiqh as the issue of seeking assistance in war from the disbelievers. He notes that assistance can be sought when Islamic rule is dominant. The implication of this condition is operative. That is, when Islamic rule is not dominant, seeking assistance is not allowed. In other words, seeking assistance is strictly conditional. If, and only if, the rule of Islam is dominant, it is allowed for t

On Wednesday the 6th of December 2017 Donald Trump made an  announcement of al-Quds (‘Jerusalem’) being officially recognised as the capital of Israel which drew reactions from world leaders across the globe. Here we present a few points regarding this development. 1. The US administration is intentionally provoking Muslims globally. That does not come as a surprise, particularly from Trump. But gratuitous provocation against the sanctities of people usually attracts uncontrollable reaction. If the new US embassy in Jerusalem, whenever it is built, or other US interests around the world, get attacked, the US administration has no one to blame but itself. 2. The reaction of world leaders is laughable. European leaders (France, Britain) and leaders of regimes in the Muslim leaders (Turkey, Gulf States, Saudi, Pakistan, Jordan) are feigning concern about the peace process and the now-allegedly-compromised neutrality of the US, as if the US were a neutral adjudicator in the fi

Download the book  The Transition Introductory Remarks In his tract on monetary reform, John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as a barbarous relic, whose rigidity had fettered the world from economic freedom and prosperity. He spoke at a time when the Occident were suffering from macroeconomic anaemia and were yearning for a solution. In sheer desperation, fiat money became the drug that gave growth-addicts what they craved for in the short-run. However, years after its introduction, the fiat system has induced far more volatility than it sought to resolve. In truth, Keynes failed to realise that barbarity was a trait not of gold but of fiat, insofar as it has plagued the world with monetary anarchy. In fact, the very system he consigned to history has never been more relevant than it is today. Islam’s imminent arrival as a political entity has necessitated a vital discourse, in which its ability to purge the world of its monetary woes by way of bimetallism must be explicated.