Sheikh Eyad Qunaibi comments on the IMF loan to Egypt from an Islamic perspective, and the consequences for all countries that receive IMF's loans. Didn't the same thing happen in Indonesia? Personal page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EyadQunaibi
Twitter account: @EYADQUNAIBI
In the name of Allah, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah. Dear brothers, peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
As a brief comment on the discussion about Egypt borrowing from the International Monetary Fund, I would like to draw attention to two important points that followers should indeed give more consideration in the discussion.
The first point is that some people oppose criticizing the current situation in Egypt on the grounds that it weakens the new parties and presidency against the secularists and remnants. Here, it is necessary to remind that sins are much more dangerous than these enemies; Allah the Almighty said: "And if you are patient and fear Allah, their cunning will not harm you in the least" (Surah Al-Imran 3:120), and He said: "He will not harm you in the least if you have gone astray after the guidance has come to you" (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:105).
Political practice that lacks the fear of Allah means losing the divine protection that shields them from the plots of their enemies. Otherwise, if we gain the support of Allah, we would not consider the secularists and remnants of any weight. How can we talk about an abomination that exposes us to a war from Allah? Do we not all know His saying: "O you who believe, fear Allah and give up what remains of the riba if you are believers. If you do not, then be warned of a war from Allah and His Messenger" (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:278-279).
Ibn Jarir al-Tabari mentioned in his interpretation of the verse that this warning includes the one who eats riba and the one who deals with it; the taker and the giver. This is evidenced by the fact that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) cursed the one who eats riba, the one who gives it, the one who writes it, and the two witnesses, and said: "They are all the same in sin." Thus, the war includes both the borrower and the lender of riba.
It is astonishing that someone wants us not to warn against an act that exposes us to a war from Allah, fearing that this warning might lead to a war from the secularists and remnants! "If Allah helps you, none can overcome you; and if He forsakes you, who is there after Him that can help you?" (Surah Al-Imran 3:160). We strive for Allah to be with us, not to do what causes His wrath upon us.
If we want Allah to bless our sustenance, we have no choice but to establish His law: "And had they established the Torah and the Gospel and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet" (Surah Al-A'raf 7:161), and His saying: "And if the people of the towns had believed and feared Allah, We would have opened upon them blessings from the heaven and the earth" (Surah Al-A'raf 7:96). Also, His saying: "And whoever fears Allah, He will make for him a way out. And will provide for him from where he does not expect" (Surah Al-Talaq 65:2-3) is a promise to societies and states as it is to individuals.
The second point: It is superficial to discuss the problem of borrowing from the perspective of it being riba only - although that is dangerous as mentioned - but there is another very important matter, which is that loans from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank come within a comprehensive methodology used by the United States to achieve the subordination of the countries of the Third World to it and to appropriate their wealth.
The American writer Noam Chomsky made this clear in his important book: "What Uncle Sam Really Wants." We do not rely on his book because he is Jewish, but because he gathers evidence and facts that prove the American strategies he talks about. The writer mentioned this American policy in a chapter entitled: "The Good Neighbor Policy," where he explained that the United States uses the military institution in the countries of the Third World to create chaos and turmoil in the country, leading to an economic catastrophe, and then the problem is inherited by the civil authority, which the International Monetary Fund begins to blackmail for loans.
Thus, policies are imposed that subjugate the country economically, make its resources plunder for the United States, and reduce the services provided by the state to the citizen. These policies deepen the polarization in society, so that the wealth of the privileged class with loyalty to the United States increases at the expense of the oppressed majority, which does not increase except in poverty, making it easier to control the state at that time.
This meaning is also emphasized by "John Perkins" in his book: "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," where he explained that lending is the way for the United States to subjugate countries to its political, economic, and military desires and to intervene in their affairs; lending through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
The issue is not only the prohibition of riba, but it is necessary to recall this reality: that these loans come within a comprehensive policy to enslave peoples. And I think that when Allah Almighty prohibited this great prohibition, it was from His wisdom that He knew its effects in enslaving peoples.
The parties agree with us that there is no rise nor revival for this nation unless it is liberated from Western subordination, so is this loan a step towards this liberation? And if we reach the stage of justifying participation in the "war on terror," justifying the maintenance of the "Camp David" treaty, justifying the permission for two Chinese ships loaded with weapons to kill Muslims to pass through the Suez Canal, and justifying borrowing from the International Monetary Fund... If we allow ourselves to justify all of that, then why should we not justify for other systems in the Islamic world?
Are good intentions and resonant slogans considered significant differences in Sharia that turn the forbidden into the permissible? Are these the steps towards the application of Sharia? Then what is the difference between secularists and non-secularists? Is it only the name or the personal manifestations of religiosity? Are not the policies affecting the state level the real difference that makes us describe a system as Islamic or secular?
O Allah, the affliction has prolonged and the people have resorted to confusion and darkness, so finalize the matter of Your beloved Muhammad (peace be upon him) with guidance, and guide the Muslims who have gone astray, for You are the Most Gentle, the Most Forbearing.
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.