Question:

My nephew lives in America and studies at university. He heard your fatwa regarding the ruling on interest-based loans for education in America and understood from it that such loans are haram (impermissible).

Does this mean that Muslims in America will remain unqualified and poor?

For what is the value of a bachelor's degree without pursuing higher education? Even teaching requires one or two more years of study to become a basic teacher.

So what about medical, engineering, and law students? According to your fatwa, are they not allowed to study?!

Here in the West, we pay hefty taxes for pensions, food, and living expenses. What do you suggest as a solution? Keep in mind that we can’t deduct the interest from taxes.

You have put the youth in a crisis. You need to correct your fatwa for them.

Answer:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

All praise is due to Allah alone, and may peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

It is actually they who have put themselves into a crisis due to their misunderstanding!

And you have put yourself in a similar crisis by following their flawed understanding, then by audaciously criticizing the scholars issuing fatwas without proper thought or verification!

We have issued a comprehensive fatwa from the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, clarifying the permissible cases for these loans. I will present it to you in its entirety so that you may correct your understanding first, then your son can correct his understanding accordingly.

You should also learn how to address scholars and avoid speaking against them in an inappropriate manner. May Allah forgive you and guide you to righteous speech!

Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, and companions.

After reviewing the issue of student loans, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America issued a ruling, which I present here word for word, as it contains the answer regarding student loans:

• The default is the forbiddance of interest-based loans regardless of whether these loans are for students or otherwise due to it falling under the clear interest that the scholars unanimously agreed, past and present, on its impermissibility. It is incumbent that all efforts are spent in finding permissible alternatives before leaping to the justification of urgency or need.
• In the world of Western Universities, academic scholarships are granted for the outstanding (students) and unable (to afford), alongside work-study opportunities that allow for combining between studying and earning, by which one can avoid falling into these loans. Also, there may be subsidized loans that the nation pays its interest if the student is able to repay all he owes within six months of his graduation. In addition, there are grants provided by some companions and institutions in exchange for employment contracts with it after graduation. It is incumbent that one spends his efforts in (trying) all this.
• If all of these are inexistent, and the interest-based loans are the only way to facilitate the beginning or continuation of a university education, or the only way to secure the Muslim communities need for what cannot be done without of professions and expertise, then this is considered an urgent necessity that removes the sin even though the ruling of impermissibility remains. This is upon the condition that the one forced to this isn’t an aggressor nor transgressor, and this is by giving the urgent need its proper estimate, and by continuing to search for a permissible alternative and breaking free of these interest-based loans when one is first able to do so in order to minimize the interest amount paid as much as possible. We emphasize the need to return to the people of Fatwa (i.e. qualified to passed a juristic opinion on Islamic Law) to estimate these needs and urgencies. It isn’t correct that for just anyone to assume the responsibility to do this, or to measure his need on the need of others.

And Allah knows best.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from fatawaalsawy.com

So far, gun violence has killed nearly 11,600 people in the United States in 2024, sparking new debate on the issue. Experts say most mass murderers are not mentally ill. This is despite politicians often attributing the shooting to mental health problems. Two teachers and students were killed, and several others were injured in the recent mass school shooting at Apalachee High School in Georgia.

Growing Epidemic

Shooting incidents in the United States are considered an increasing epidemic. With at least 184 incidents recorded in 2023 alone, violence continues. leaving a trail of death and injury. In 2022, there were 647 mass shootings, resulting in 859 deaths. In 2021, there were 693 mass shootings, resulting in 920 deaths. Since 2015, there have been More than 19,000 people have been victims of the shooting. In an attempt to understand the senseless and senseless nature of these crimes. The public and media often question the motives behind these attacks. Psychologists studying violence and extremism recognize the need for closure and comprehension in the face of such shocking and inexplicable acts of violence.

But what would constitute a satisfactory answer to the public’s question?

Media reports often focus on shooters' motives, such as insults or rejections, based on their manifestos or social media posts. These details may shed light on individual thinking but fail to address the bigger picture underlying the rise in mass shootings. Each shooter's story is unique, but there is a broader trend at play that goes beyond personal grievances. A satisfactory answer to the public's questions requires looking beyond specific details to understand the larger societal factors at play.

Quest for Significance

 The drive behind mass shootings is the universal need for significance, the feeling that one's life matters. Loss of significance or gaining recognition can trigger this need. Studies show that perceived failure can increase viewing guns as empowering and readiness to use them. Most mass shooters seek fame or attention to fulfill this need. However, not everyone pursues mass shootings due to two main factors. One, extreme significance craving is necessary to commit such heinous acts, risking self-sacrifice and death. Second, mental illness is prevalent among mass shooters, inducing feelings of disempowerment and insignificance. Even those without known pathologies may experience extreme significance issues, leading to a focus on achieving significance through violence.

Ultimately, the quest for significance, combined with perceived humiliation or exclusion, can drive individuals toward mass shootings. However, not everyone who desires significance will resort to such extreme measures.

Shortcut to stardom

 Highly motivated individuals often channel their extremism into socially accepted areas like business, sports, arts, science, or politics. However, some choose infamy through heinous acts like massacres to quickly gain significance. Achieving success through a respectable career is difficult and time-consuming, relying on unique abilities, determination, and privilege. This contrast explains why some opt for instant recognition through violence.

Committing a mass shooting represents a widely available shortcut to “stardom.”

 America currently has over 390 million guns, with many states lacking background check requirements. This allows people to easily buy assault weapons, leading to an increase in mass shootings. The perception that committing a mass shooting leads to fame continues to spread with each incident.

Killings celebrated

 In today's society, mass shooters are often celebrated by admirers on social media, leading to a dangerous trend where violence is seen as a path to significance. This is driven by the Three Ns: the shooter's need for notoriety, the narrative that glorifies violence, and the network of supporters that encourage such behavior. To combat this epidemic, it is crucial to dismantle the narrative that violence leads to fame and reduces access to weapons, as well as decrease media attention given to shooters. Furthermore, offering alternative paths to significance through different narratives is essential. Society must work together to address this issue by understanding the psychology behind it and taking effective steps to prevent future tragedies.

More than two decades have passed since the events of September 11th. Many events have occurred within America and abroad since then, but these events remain the most influential on the foreign policies of many Western countries towards Islam and its nations. They also remain among the most significant events that have led Western individuals to reassess their views on Islam.

First and foremost, we must assert that these events do not represent Islam in any way: not its religion, not its Sharia, not its spirit, and not its message. These events cannot be considered a form of ijtihad (independent reasoning) because they did not come from those qualified to practice ijtihad. They were a grave injustice to Islam and its followers. It’s enough to say that this act was criminal in its goal and means, regardless of who carried it out, their religion, or their nationality.

Islam rejects violence and intimidation directed at innocents. Imam Ahmad narrated from Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla who said: “The companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) told us that they were traveling with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) on a journey. One of them fell asleep, and some of them went and took his arrows. When the man woke up, he was startled, and the people laughed. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) asked: 'What made you laugh?' They said: 'We took this man’s arrow, and he was startled.' The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'It is not lawful for a Muslim to frighten another.'” (Authenticated by the scholars who verified the Musnad).

The description of the frightened individual as a Muslim does not imply that it is permissible to intimidate non-Muslims. It was mentioned because the frightened person happened to be a Muslim. Imam Muslim narrated from Abu Huraira, who said: “Abu'l-Qasim (the kunya of Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), said: He who pointed a weapon towards his brother the angels invoke curse upon him even if he is his real brother so long as he does not abandon it (the pointing of weapon towards one's brother Muslim).” Merely pointing a piece of iron or weapon invokes Allah’s curse!

Islam condemns the killing of any human being, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. This is evident in Allah’s words: “Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.” (Al-Ma'idah: 32)

As we observe the current state of the Ummah—with its weakness, backwardness, and oppression—we must recognize that this Ummah is enduring. Yes, it may fall ill, but it will not die; it may weaken, but it will not vanish. It may reach a state of insignificance, as mentioned in the hadith of Thawban: “You will be numerous at that time: but you will be scum and rubbish like that carried down by a torrent.” (Narrated by Ahmad and authenticated by the scholars who verified the Musnad). However, it will remain because the complete eradication of the Ummah has been denied by Allah. Imam Bukhari narrated from Mu'awiya who said: “I heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) say: 'A group of people amongst my followers will remain obedient to Allah's orders and they will not be harmed by anyone who will not help them or who will oppose them, till Allah's Order (the Last Day) comes upon them while they are still on the right path.'” Imam Muslim narrated from Jabir who said: “I heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) say: 'A group of people from my Umma will continue to fight In defence of truth and remain triumphant until the Day of judgment.'”

The Ummah may be eradicated in part, as happened in Andalusia, but it will not be completely eradicated as happened to the Native Americans or the indigenous Australians when they were exterminated by the British and their allies.

On the anniversary of September 11th, it cannot be denied that these events have had a negative impact on Muslims in the West, especially in America. Muslims, particularly women wearing hijab, have faced repeated instances of persecution and violence, fueled by written articles and inflamed by TV programs and purposefully crafted movies.

However, it must be said that despite their harshness, these events have been a blessing in disguise for Islam and Muslims. Despite the growing anti-Muslim sentiments among some, the past two decades have been a bright and promising period for Muslims in the West, both in Europe and America. The British magazine “The Economist” reported that Muslims were the most prominent religious minority in America in recent years. The magazine noted that the number of mosques has doubled and that educational levels among the Muslim minority have increased. For example, Muslims make up 15% of the doctors in the state of Michigan, despite being only 0.3% of the population. Alongside this, Muslim writers and politicians have emerged in many American states.

The current reality imposes a duty on Muslims to dispose fear and panic from the hearts of others. This requires everyone—individuals, institutions, and organizations—to strive to integrate into society through introducing themselves, communicating, and serving, as people are enemies of what they do not know. How much more so when the other party is either ignorant of Islam or is being fed hatred and malice by spiteful voices, hired writers, and institutions hostile to Islam!

However, integration must be coupled with the preservation of identity. Yes, preserving religious and linguistic constants is essential. It is necessary to integrate into society without melting into the temptations of alienation or falling under the influence of every new cultural update or trend.

We are confident that if non-Muslims knew the goodness Islam brings to all people, to society in all its forms and beliefs, they would accept this religion—either through belief or through respect.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Read the Article in Arabic

The Sunni popular dissent unconsciously raises the issue of Iran's sectarianism, its role in the region and its actual stance towards Al-Aqsa Flood, especially after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas' political bureau, may Allah have mercy on him, in Tehran without any significant response from Iran. This is also evident after the statements of Supreme Leader Khamenei about the conflict between the Husseini front (the Shia world) and the Yazidi front (the Sunni world). However, the reactions from the Sunni populace varied in their approach to dealing with the Iranian stance and its credibility. I propose some fundamental principles to clarify the importance of addressing the “Al-Aqsa Flood” event consciously. Among the most important are:

First: Iran and Sectarianism

1. Iran is a sectarian state according to its constitution, aiming to spread its doctrine in the Arab world, specifically. It has a documented and drawn-out project to control the leadership of the Islamic world.
2. Iran operates as a sovereign state, not subordinate, interacting with the West, the United States, Russia, and China based on mutual interests.
3. Iran's cooperation in certain areas for its own interests, does not prevent it from clashing with these countries in other areas.
4. Iran cooperates with some Arab countries and exchanges interests with them, while being in conflict with others.

Second: The Zionist Entity

1. The Zionist entity is an enemy and occupier of Palestine, violating all human rights of our Palestinian brethren.
2. The Zionist entity has a religious project in the region to Judaize Palestine and expand to “Greater Israel.” It is the primary enemy and planner of all strategic changes in the Arab region, in collaboration with the United States and the West.
3. “Israel” is a state that operates based on interests, cooperating with Iran and others, understanding with it on certain issues or strategic matters, ensuring Iran does not intrude on Israeli interests and sovereignty, while maintaining control over Sunni areas under a balance overseen by the United States.
4. “Israel” competes with Iran in areas of influence based on a push-pull equation without changing positions.

Third: The Arab System

1. The Arab system, according to the Sykes-Picot agreement, is not a single geographical sovereignty system. It has no comprehensive project and is unwittingly consumed by internal conflicts in various areas (Western Sahara, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq...), making it weak without vision or project.
2. The Arab system is predominantly subject to the will of the United States and the Western system, executing the will of these major countries more than mutual Arab interests.
3. All Arab countries lack the strength to change Iranian and Israeli occupations due to division and selfishness, thus lacking a geographical project, relying on protection and support from major countries.
4. Most Arab countries have surrendered to the reality of Israeli occupation, peace, and normalization, while also submitting to Iranian expansion in the region.
5. The majority of Arab countries want to end the resistance explicitly, publicly, and some covertly, thus supporting Israel in its mission to eradicate the resistance.

Geopolitical Situation in the Region

1. Iran exploited this situation by supporting Jihad and Hamas in Palestine for its interests and to create a threatening force to Israel from within.
2. The Arab normalization trend acted oppositely, supporting the Oslo Accords and normalization, thus standing against the resistance.
3. This created a conflict in vision, interests, and struggle between the Arabs and Iran, causing a significant imbalance in the Palestinian cause's trajectory.
4. Hamas, Jihad, or the resistance in Palestine found no support from the Arabs except for some developmental aid; hence, the battle became existential and zero-sum for them, relying entirely on Iranian support, which they consider a matter of evaluating harms and benefits.
5. Hamas and the resistance did not change their Sunni doctrine but altered their alliances based on changing Arab realities and interests, adjusting the positions of enemies, allies, and friends.

The “Al-Aqsa Flood” Battle

When the “Al-Aqsa Flood” occurred, it was an event within the political and military dynamics that did not change the fundamental strategic equation (Iranian project and Israeli project). This event tactically created two fronts: a predominantly Iranian and Shia front supporting the resistance, and a front supporting Israel and normalization with it. Hamas collaborated with the resistance support front as it had no choice, while Arab regime countries (the normalization path) supported Israel, not directly against the Iranian regime but to end the Palestinian cause and the resistance.

The Required Position

Therefore, the positions of the honorable and supportive peoples for the resistance and the Palestinian cause should not exceed the following:

1. Fully supporting the Palestinian resistance, avoiding any harm to it or the people of Gaza, as they are at war with Israel and its allies. This is a necessary faith-based doctrinal stance, with no choice but to cooperate with Iran due to the Arabs' cessation of support, with some countries even aiding Israel in besieging and killing them.
2. Using all means to stand against Israeli dominance and project.
3. Employing all legitimate means against the normalization project and Arab betrayal.
4. Warning against the Iranian project and its strategic danger to the Sunni population and livelihood in the Arab region without delving into sectarian disputes.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Read the Article in Arabic

Although the U.S. Constitution separates church and state, and the first thing American school students learn is that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, religion is not actually separated from American politics.

The U.S. Constitution, appears to be a secular document, beginning with the phrase “We the People,” with no mention of the words “God” or “Christianity.”

The reference to the word “religion” in the Constitution is used in a completely opposite manner to emphasize non-discrimination among citizens based on their beliefs. However, religion plays a significant and influential role in the lives of Americans and in elections.

One indication of the influence of Christianity on Americans is the phrase “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the phrase “In God We Trust” engraved on the dollar bill.

Thus, American studies suggest that America's experience represents the opposite of the European model of complete separation between church and state, where American society tends to be religious, at least outwardly.

Article VI of the Constitution states that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, and the First Amendment to the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Although the U.S. Constitution separates church and state, American newspapers and research centers focus on the religion and religious denomination of each candidate and what they have said about religion in their election campaigns, indicating that religion is not separated from politics despite the Constitution.

On June 6, 2024, the Pew Research Center stated that voters who supported Joe Biden, then Kamala Harris, and Donald Trump had completely different views on the role that religion should play in American government and politics. It seems that Trump supporters are more inclined than Biden and Harris supporters to favor a broader governmental role in supporting religion.

A greater percentage of Trump supporters compared to Biden and Harris supporters also believe that religion—especially the Bible—should have an influence on government policy.

Religion in Political Discourse

After surviving an assassination attempt on July 13, 2024, former President and current candidate Donald Trump said in a campaign speech, “In a certain way I felt very safe because I had God on my side,” according to a report on Variety on July 18. Evangelical preacher and Trump’s spiritual advisor, Paula White, quickly claimed that Trump survived because God was protecting him.

She posted on X with a picture of Trump and a figure standing behind him, claiming it was Jesus Christ, saying, “GOD IS WITH HIM! PRAY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP AND HIS FAMILY!!”

https://x.com/Paula_White/status/1812280224379519277

Prior to this, White had gathered several prominent pastors and religious leaders for an emergency 40-minute call to pray for God to support Trump against their mutual enemy Biden during the televised debate on June 27.

In January, while launching his presidential campaign in Iowa, Trump, who was raised in the Presbyterian Church, announced proudly that he has received over 300 endorsements from faith leaders in all 99 counties in Iowa.

A Reuters poll conducted in July revealed that 65% of Republicans believe there was divine intervention to save Trump, and that “God's hand saved Trump!”

In a report on the religious dimensions of the U.S. election battle, Dr. Kobby Barda, a senior Zionist researcher in the study of religions at the University of Haifa and an expert in American political and geostrategic history, stated that religion plays a role in elections, particularly within the Republican Party, which believes in evangelicalism and Christian Zionism.

He added that Anglo-Saxon whites (Protestants) feel marginalized. They are the original inhabitants and founders of the country, but they have begun to feel marginalized. After all presidents were from their group since the founding of the country (with the exception of a brief period for Kennedy), Obama (a black man) served two terms, followed by Biden (a Catholic).

This suggests that they feel threatened by further marginalization. Therefore, they used religious (evangelical) rhetoric to support someone who is not religious, which indicates that the issue is racial or factional, but it is cloaked in religious attire. Through this, a group with its own agenda (the evangelicals in this case) exerts control.

Trump benefits from the support of Pastor Robert Jeffress, one of the most prominent pastors of the historic First Baptist Church in Texas, which has 14,000 members.

Religion has also appeared in Biden's Catholic camp. Before withdrawing from the presidential race, Biden, a Catholic (who is considered “God's enemy” by Trump's evangelical supporters), stated that he had been open about his faith throughout his political career.

In his victory speech as President-elect in 2020, he referenced the Catholic hymn “On Eagle's Wings,” and mentioned that he had received public support from 1,600 pastors and religious leaders during the election, which was described as the largest religious initiative to support a Democratic candidate in modern American history.

The Role of Religion and the Church

The previous and current elections have shown that the endorsement of presidential or executive and legislative candidates by pastors plays a strong role in their campaigns.

American politicians are aware that a pastor's endorsement makes a candidate appear supportive of the values and principles important to religious Americans, adding a moral and religious dimension to their campaign and increasing their appeal to religious voters.

Dr. Tobin Miller Shearer, a history professor at the University of Montana, stated in a report in The Conversation on January 3 about the entanglement of religion and the church in U.S. elections: America describes itself as a democracy that values freedom and secularism, yet the church plays a direct role in influencing voter opinions, and presidential candidates seek the blessing of pastors and religious leaders.

He added that in the 2016 race, evangelical voters partially contributed to Trump's victory, with more than 55% of weekly churchgoers supporting him, and Trump's securing 66% of the white evangelical vote tipped the scales in his favor against his rival, Hillary Clinton.

He added that Biden won over Trump in 2020 because he successfully attracted his fellow Catholics to his camp and convinced some evangelicals to vote for him as well. Biden received support from 1,600 Catholic, Protestant, and evangelical leaders.

Dr. Tobin Miller Shearer noted three main trends that are emerging in the 2024 election, with the period leading up to the election witnessing an intensification of apocalyptic rhetoric, increased claims of divine support, and relative silence from the evangelical community regarding the rise of Christian nationalism.

The first trend is the prevalence of apocalyptic discourse, which has long played a prominent role in American politics, along with historical claims of divine authority for democracy to challenge democracy.

The second trend is the claim by many political leaders in the United States that they have a divine mandate.

He confirmed that the shift from historical claims of divine authority for democracy to divine authority to challenge democracy has already become clear and evident.

The third trend is the increasing talk about white supremacy and Christian nationalism by white racists who claim that divine providence favors whites in general.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Read the Article in Arabic