20 May 2004
Allah the Exalted says in Surat Hud (11, 116-119):
Would that there had been more people with a vestige of good
among the generations of those who came before you,
who forbade corruption in the earth,
other than the few among them whom We saved.
Those who did wrong gladly pursued
the life of luxury that they were given
and were evildoers.
Your Lord would never have destroyed the cities wrongfully
as long as their inhabitants were putting things right.
If your Lord had wanted to,
He would have made mankind into one community
but they persist in their differences,
except for those your Lord has mercy on.
That is what He created them for —
so that the Word of your Lord would be fulfilled:
‘I will fill up Hell with the jinn and mankind all together.’
The European Union is in crisis. Both currency imperatives and bankers’ pragmatism drive inevitably to a post-dollar unit of exchange. This means that an expanded market euro has to force the dollar to a doctrine of currency unification. Yet beyond the unreal programmation of a monetary system from which we are all suffering, lie the deep inherited realities of our historical situation.
The last century, whose central event was the European Civil War (1914-1945) and the two-wave invasion of United States forces into Europe, was dominated by a political conflict which aimed at a unified model of governance for the continent. The unitarist doctrine of the state, Lenin’s Communism, through the expropriation of the means of production, united the finance of production with the centralised state. The Napoleonic ‘democracy’ was a dualism which, while also sustaining a centralist state, separated the financial system from it. The initial model still imagined that the state could determine financial policy, but after the trauma of the European War the Assembly system fell back on party conflicts, while the banking system dramatically evolved, due in part to the favoured status of world jewry after its horrific persecution. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Communist model had collapsed.
In order for the struggle for the self-styled democratic system to work, a series of on-going crises had to attempt to obliterate a historical past in France, the Mother Country of the modern state. The banking system in France, as we have said, had been evolving dramatically in the post-Napoleonic period. A Second Empire failed and the Republican version of the modern state declared itself. During this period, the bankers, not without cynical humour, extended the principle of Napoleon’s ‘Banque de France’, that is, private finance posing as the state’s capital wealth. To the enormous riches of the new colonial empires came the added wealth created by the National Bank of Egypt, National Bank of Morocco, etc. (see Technique of the Coup de Banque: Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir As-Sufi).
Part of the shocked reaction of French Muslims to the banning of headscarves under the militant upholding of the secular doctrine, which was that church and state had to be kept apart, was that they did not know that this issue was already a deep wound in the history of France. It cannot be understood in itself, that is, it is not about separating the Roman Catholic Church from the Republican State. Prior to the Revolution, the Church and finance were unified through their intimate alliance with an aristocratic class, the classical Three Estates. In the Revolutionary model and, let it never be forgotten, that is the Democratic model, the abolition of land-based wealth ushered in money-based wealth. The secular doctrine was not only atheist and anti-christian, it was paving the way for a new class with a completely new wealth system, utterly severed, in its evaluation, from land, which, by extension, means all the land’s mineral wealth.
This ripping away of the State from the Church and its remnants of land-wealth, massive influence, and allegiance of the common people, was causing social tremors right up to 1939. One of the major social conflicts of the French state between the two phases of the European War was the attempt to break the financing of Church schools and to give state support to the atheist ‘secular’ schools.
It must be clear from this that the most significant result of post-War Europe and the concomitant collapse of the imperial system meant a massive incursion of Muslims into Europe. To that enormous statistic must be added, while doctrinally and ruthlessly ignored by kafir media, the uncounted hundreds of thousands of indigenous Europeans who entered the Deen. From our own personal experience we know that there has never been any state recognition of the existence of a significant indigenous community of Muslims in England, and this can also be said of the rest of Europe. Any attempt to confront this has driven the squalid mass-media to denigration and insult.
Now the conservative estimate of Muslims in Europe, and this does not include the Muslim populations of Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, is put at sixteen million. Both from Cambridge and the Sorbonne we have been offered a figure of twenty million.
Today the Napoleonic model of a secular state is the basic building block of the European Union. It should be remembered that this also applies to Britain, since the monarch is a powerless puppet and the established religion, anglicanism, is now non-existent. European secularism flourished on two things. The incipient atheism of the new generation, and the fact that the christian Church, catholic and reformed, had been morally and financially broken by the European Civil War. In other words, the doctrine of secularism basically represented a fait accompli celebrating the smashing of christian power. It is based on the state ignoring the religion as irrelevant and vanishing.
In the Turkish state, Attaturk’s servile republican model aimed at achieving against Islam what Napoleon had achieved against the Church. The secular doctrine was a founding principle. Since his time, the state institutions, far from having strengthened, are all on the edge of collapse. Sclerotic rigidity is not power. When the suicide bombings occurred in Istanbul, this fragility of the state was exposed. Turkey’s excellent Prime Minister unwisely responded to pressure from behind by drafting a State Khutba which Imams were required to deliver from the Mimbar in every mosque in Turkey. This means two things have happened at the same time. If the State mounts the Mimbar, secularism is abolished, since it has joined the two official opposites, religion and the State. At the same time, if the State mounts the Mimbar, the State has become the religion. At that point, democracy reveals itself in its true colours as dictatorship.
From De Gaulle onwards, up to today, the Europeans, both by declaration and protocol, have stated their desire for Turkey to enter the EU, while distancing the possibility by a list of both real and unfair objections. In Turkey only fools and politicians can pretend that admission is possible. If there was any doubt, what has happened in Cyprus surely would settle the matter. Look at the contradiction. Greek Cypriots by a massive majority say No to unification of Cyprus. Result—they are to enter the EU. Turks massively vote Yes for unification. Result—they will not be admitted into the Cyprus membership of the EU. Equally, Turkey is a member of NATO. Turkey cannot enter the EU.
The French state has taken it upon itself, when not engaged in a massive programme on media aimed at terrifying the French public with the prospect of a Turkish Islamisation if it were to enter the EU, to attempt a state subjugation of the millions of Muslims inside its territory. The concept is that this extreme statist policy can be applied throughout Europe. Chirac’s minister, Villepin, addressed a meeting of Prefects from departments across France. In it he backed and recognised the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM).
It was Mitterand who convened the first meeting of this central state organisation. It was to be a memorable meeting. As the spokesman of the group, a venerable and distinguished ‘Alim, advanced, holding out his hand to greet the President, Mitterand, smiling, held out his hand. Before their hands could touch, the Imam froze in his tracks, and fell dead at the feet of President Mitterand. The so-far fortunate current Chairman, Dalil Boubakeur, is in charge of the Great Mosque of Paris, and is the son of the previous head of the Mosque, who was a distinguished scholar. Unfortunately, M. Boubakeur suffers from an incurable case of Tolérance, one that would make Mirabeau turn in his grave. Boubakeur has asked that the state help in financing an institute to teach imams. The late King Hassan II of Morocco, may Allah be merciful to him, informed a delegation from us that the Great Mosque of Paris had, since the Algerian War of Independence, been taken over completely by the French state.
Before we look at this matter of appointed Imams, we should perhaps look more closely at the soundness of Villepin’s philosophy. He was quoted as saying: “We will not tolerate any preacher, of any philosophy or religion, who advocates violence, abuse of human rights, hate and racism, or who has links to organisations that condone terrorism.” On the last issue, of course, he is both morally sound and, from a State point of view, correct. However, this litany begins with two terms, “violence and abuse of human rights”. Now, the second term, as we have made clear, and as is beginning to be recognised, does not mean what it says. We have defined human rights as reserved for non-citizens already on a determined path to genocide unless the doctrine rescues them and puts them into reservations.
Perhaps we should point out to Villepin the present reality of the French state. At present, large groups of rich bourgeois tourists go off into the Sahara, men and women, the women wearing men’s Islamic turbans. Note, we have not asked them to remove their turbans. However, as seen on French TV, the purpose of the holiday is to find spiritual peace, which is not to be found inside France. Of course, like every single famous French writer of the last century without exception, they are totally ignorant of Islam. At the same time as these tourists search for peace, with their Le Clezio desert romances in their backpacks, large secret police units roam the deserts from Mali to Niger, indiscriminately killing Imams and school-teachers under the pretence that they are terrorists, and in their search they terrorise and forcibly question local inhabitants. Behind these squalid events lies the most terrible crime of all, the French Foreign Legion’s documented genocide of the Tuareg aristocracy, intended to destroy utterly the leadership of a traditionally hierarchical society. When questioned about the matter, Mitterand remarked at the dinner table, “Oh well! They make good coffee table books!”
And violence? Villepin must know that in the Pléiade collection of French classics, to the outrage of the Women’s Movement, there have been published three volumes of the writings of the Marquis de Sade. Imprisoned by Louis XVI, and liberated at the fall of the Bastille by the Revolution, de Sade’s writings are a disgusting glorification of bondage, torture, rape and murder of women. It is one of the sacred texts of atheism. With the growing crime in Europe, and particularly in France and Belgium, of the abduction, sequestration, rape and murder of minors, alongside a disturbing inability of the state to bring these criminals to justice and punish them, both a medical and political linkage must tie the Sadists to the writings of de Sade. Yet Villepin expels from the country a foolish and disgruntled Imam who publicly commends a man for beating his wife, instead of condemning the Belgian government next door for waiting eight years to put on trial the murderer of a Muslim girl.
In Villepin’s book ‘Éloge des Voleurs de Feu’, Chirac’s minister, his boss the publicly-declared close friend of the mass-murderer Mobutu, agonises over the poet’s polar attractions of solitude and political transformation. He speaks of Lamartine “brandishing a flag on the Champs de Mars but longing for solitude,” and of Alexis Leger “at the head of a national diplomacy and enclosed in the pride of his intimate and limitless knowledge of the world.” He speaks of René Char and of his “anguish at the edge of action.” Villepin must face the fact that the current doctrines of secularism, a democracy voided of banking power, and the empty rhetoric of Republicanism, do not permit poets to remain silent any longer. Villepin, in his exaltation of the great French poet Rimbaud, has failed to examine his biography—that his father worked at translating the Qur’an, and that at the end of his life, despite the deliberate attempts of the catholic Claudel to cover it up, he almost certainly died a Muslim. Surely it is time that a man of such admirable erudition should take the trouble to find out what Islam truly is, and while that is not modern terrorism, it is certainly not the slogan-sodden doctrines of democracy, human rights and unquestioned bankism.
* * * * *
THE MUSLIM VIEWPOINT
The immediate responsibility of the Muslims in Europe is to come together and recognise that ‘Islamic terrorism’ is the instrument of the kuffar and a handful of Arab nihilist misfits to subjugate Islam. Our first responsibility is to discredit, disown and refuse co-operation with kafir-backed ‘national’ Islamic institutions, whether it is Villepin’s ‘French Islam’ or the paranoid Blunkett’s Muslim Council of Britain. The Muslims of Europe represent one organic body comprising the sons of three great superior civilisations: sons of the great Moghul Dawlet, sons of the great Maghribi Kingdom, and sons of the great Osmanli Dawlet. We have Arabic for our Deen. We have Urdu for our commerce. And we await the inevitable and necessary restoration of the Osmanli language and script which will mark the beginning of the Turkish uprising inside Turkey.
The Muslim responsibilities are not divisible and cannot be selective.
Allah the Almighty in His Book, in Surat al-Baqara (2, 208), says:
You who have iman! enter Islam totally.
Do not follow in the footsteps of Shaytan.
He is an outright enemy to you.
The revival and the protection of Islam in Europe is dependent on our following those essential elements which have always sustained a healthy Muslim community.
The first necessity is Jama’at. By Jama’at I mean that body of people who pray together, and pay in the Zakat that has been collected for them, not given by them. Allah the Exalted has said (al-Baqara 2, 43):
Establish Salat and pay Zakat
and bow with those who bow.
The restoration of Zakat is the missing pillar. Do not tolerate ignorant Imams who place matters of ‘amal and adab before the Fara’id. Once an agreement is reached by a group of Muslims to fulfil these absolute commands, which are non-negotiable, it follows from this that they will begin to have concern for each other. Concern means, awareness of the medical needs of the sick and the old. It means awareness of a fellow Muslim who risks going out of business, so that he can be sustained and have recovery, either through gift or investment. It means being assured that the children receive an Islamic education, in an acceptable social setting, free of drugs, and with a knowledge that will allow them to deal with every aspect of society and take on the leadership of that society. It means an active Da’wa, and the fullest meaning of establishing Salat is that it becomes paramount in the land in which you live.
As far as Salat is concerned, it must be understood that according to the School of the Ahl al-Madinah, which is the Mother of the Madh-habs, neither the Qadi nor the Imam wears a distinguishing robe. This can be found in the Tartib al-Mudarik of Qadi ‘Iyad. Further, it is Makruh that he should receive a salary, either for ‘ibada or teaching the Qur’an, although he can be paid for teaching Arabic. What this means is nothing less than a vital dividing line between the Muslim community and the Shi‘a minority to whom we owe a courteous dialogue to call them from those elements in their faith which in our eyes represent a serious bida’.
An equally serious bida’ is that of those mal-educated Imams who emerged from the modernists, the wahhabis and the qutbis. In Algeria, the modernist Badisis opposed Islamic teaching and shamefully murdered a great Maliki Faqih. When Algeria rose against the French it was the people, in majority Sufi, who fought and died. The Badisi ‘ulema, after the expulsion of the French, did not then call for Islamic governance. They remained strangely silent. The modernism they wanted had arrived with the face of Communism. Ben Bella then ordered all the ‘ulema of Algeria to attend classes on Marxist-Leninism. It follows from this that these Imams are not qualified to teach Islam due to an inescapable concordance that has been made with dialectical materialism. Put in the simplest terms, if those who speak for Islam do not accept the basic school-book summary of Ibn ‘Ashir, then they have turned their backs on a strong, self-governing Islam.
It follows from this that there is no clerical class. It does not follow from this that we do not require a minority of highly educated Fuqaha. The function of the Faqih is to inculcate into the young an Islam that will insist on a speedy evolution towards a situation where that Fiqh can become applied because its judgments can be empowered. For example, it was foolish and harmful for a Nigerian Qadi to issue a sentence of death when, not only was it doubtful in its judgment, it was impossible in its application since the ‘Amr lay in the hands of an atheist president. It must be remembered that while currently harsh on the Muslims, kafir society is very weak. For example, it is becoming almost impossible in the light of the spate of child murders in Europe, for the masses not to agree with us that the execution of such evil men is not only just, but necessary.
The leaders of each Jama’at should be the most powerful men in the community, and the Faqih must be the advisor who makes his judgments. These judgments must never speak in the kafir language of Islamic principles, but must be sourced in an ‘ijma of the community that only emerges from times and places which sustained Islamic governance. In other words, all Deobandi and Berelvi literature bases its judgments on a situation after the collapse of Moghul rulership, and is invalid since compromised by a need for acceptance by the British Raj. Thus their requirement is to use the Fataawa al-‘Amgheeri, so that any ijtihad made from that source will be secure, since it was drafted by the great mujahid emperor Aurangzeb.
The Amir of the local community, when the time comes, should appoint the Zakat Collectors and take the Zakat. Those who make the Salat and pay the Zakat, are the Muslims. There is no Islam without Zakat, and this was established by Khalif Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him. In order that the Zakat be paid according to the Shari‘at it cannot be collected in paper money, but must be paid in the Islamic Dinar of ‘Umaric weight, and the Silver Dirham.
The next responsibility will be for our Muslim traders and businessmen to recognise that the European Muslim nation of sixteen million people, unified together financially, will out-perform Belgium, to say nothing of Lithuania! To this end we will bring together a circle of Muslim traders who want to trade world-wide, and this involves further protocols now being put in place which will allow direct trading according to the Shari‘at in Dinar transactions on the Internet.
We must face the fact that at the moment we are all in the poisonous sea of world banking usury. The first stage of purification is our ability to fulfil the obligation of Zakat using real-wealth Dinars and Dirhams. The next stage will be local trading in the full currency, with the fulus, which will soon be available. In order that we become the leaders in society we must move into the halal step by step. Thus Muslim traders must come together inside the capitalist system, and as they get stronger, their iman will inspire them to move to an inner circle of traders who will be using only the unique modalities of halal Islamic trade. It will soon be apparent that success and wealth are with them, because it is the promise of Allah.
Remember, it is we who are in the strong position, and it is we who have been promised success with Allah, glory be to Him. We abjure terrorism. Equally, we abjure ‘tolérance’. The first is the doctrine of nihilists, the second is the doctrine of atheists and freemasons. From our position of strength we cannot help casting a pitying smile upon the atheist governments of Europe and their inability to show the slightest piece of tolérance to us.