Judeo-Christian mobilization. Breivik’s challenge

Harun Sidorov

Judeo-Christian mobilization.

Breivik’s challenge

Judeo-Christian mobilization: plot story

Almost a year ago in my article «Judeo-Christian mobilization» I came to the conclusion, that European and Russian Muslims will quite soon face the phenomenon of cultural and political mobilization under Judeo-Christian banner. This mobilization will be targeted against Islam.

Currently we may notice this process in various areas, from mass media’s hysteria on default of the multiculturalism to political success of antiIslamic parties.

Massacre, organized by Andreas Bering Breivik in Norway evidences that this mobilization has got one more dimension. We have faced the antiIslamic terror that is direct and immanent danger.

It is obvious, that all current events are units of one chain and Breivik is neither a lone psychopath, nor neo-Nazi marginal. Indeed, his act is extreme, but quite logical consequence of Judeo-Christian mobilization. 1518 pages of Breivik’s Manifesto (2083: a European Declaration of Independence) crush any doubts – we have met the new phenomena that origins directly form Judeo-Christian discourse.

Bloody humanism of the Modern

Notwithstanding its compiler nature, Breivik’s Manifesto is quit mature work that can bring honor not only to the single author, but to the think tanks and deserves serious analyzes.

Certainly, while analyzing the Manifesto we should keep in mind circumstances of it’s “declaration”. No only for the humanitarian reasons, but rather to understand what phenomena we have faced and to distinguish between declaration and nature.

Reading the Manifesto chapter to chapter I always returned to the idea of dramatic disproportion between quite serious intellectual level of this work and primitive, barbarian way of its positioning to the society. Frankly, the quality of Manifesto is high enough to start a serious discussion, especially among Breivik’s target groups, including «cultural conservatives».

One may response, that without bloody PR, the Manifesto will never get a fraction of its current publicity, on the other hand due to this publicity the work is non grata in respected intellectual society.

In my perspective, Breivik unintentionally demonstrated the true nature of his own declarations.

So, who is Mr. Breivik? Neither a neo-Nazi, nor Christian fundamentalist. This classification Is totally wrong. Mr. Breivik is indeed a true humanist, raised on ideals of Renaissance and the Modern.

The values of Modern are under Breivik’s protection against «Islamс retrogrades». And multiculturalists and “cultural Marxists” open the gate to the barbarians. It does not really matters that Breivik is literally amazed only by Renaissance, but does not directly speak of it’s twin brother Modern. Modern it the final reality that backs and determines all values of the Norwegian Templar: secular society, democracy, capitalism, nation state.

Breivik is quite consecutive – having assumed that Moredn (in Breivik’s terminology “cultural conservatism”) could be transformed into something unacceptable for him, Breivik sees the final solution in civil war and tactical nuclear attacks in Europe, deportation of millions, chemical and biological “liberation” of some territories (Islamic Bosnia, Albania, East and West Anatolia).

And this all goes under appeal towards humanism and human rights protection. Such cover shall not mislead us, starting from Jacobins terror, through two world wars, to Hiroshima, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, millions and millions of murdered, raped, wounded, trampled, wretched, every action was undertaken under banner of «Liberte, Egalite en Fraternite» and almost always in order to protect this values against «reaction and retrogrades». That is the reality of Breivik’s democracy, humanism and New Renaissance.

European Muslim’s can only dream about the level of religious autonomy, that is recognized and protected on the territories of Islam in favor of Judaic and Christian minorities. As the real democratic alternative, Breivik offers baptizing or deportation to Muslim minorities in Europe.

Turks, according to Breivik, are responsible for genocide of Armenians and Greeks in Anatolia, (he is silent about terror of Armenian and Greek guerillas against Muslim citizens and humanitarian catastrophe of Muslims in Balkans, that precede tuff reaction of Turks). As a reasonable answer Breivik suggests «humanitarian» mass extermination of Turks today.

Muslim immigrants are responsible for crime in Europe? To get rid of that Breivik suggests tactical nuclear bombing of European cities, perhaps under assumption that this strikes will damage only Muslims and multiculturalists.

However it is quite naive to take this seriously after massacre in Utoeua. During almost two hours he has being systemically exterminating dozens of Norwegian teenagers. Besides here we can not blame the blind bomb attack, that is not distinguishing victims; otherwise, Breivik killed everyone “personally”.

But why?! Because all these teenagers are, in Breivik's opinion, accomplices of Muslim immigration to Europe, and it does not matter if victims are Whites and “cultural Christians” themselves. Bloody face of dogmatic humanism came here in person – having started with idea of exterminating of reputable multiculturalists (politicians, scientists, artists), Breivik finished with holocaust of armless teenagers, whose political position could be changed several time in the next couple of years.

Even “jihadists”, who are declared to be the cancer of this universe, will be more tolerate to their nation. It is hard to imagine the Chechen guerillas killing dozens of Muslim teenagers at some pro-federal camp.

Summarizing, call for nuclear-chemical Armageddon and massacre of Norwegian teenagers under humanitarian banners, reminds me old time Soviet joke “we will burry in hell everyone, who doubts our peacefulness».

So it is not surprising, that when somebody speaks about progress and democracy, on the horizon we notice concentration camps and gas furnaces. The same today, nuclear bombs become main means of support for “cultural conservatism”. Let us thank Breivik for the shocking demonstration of this paradox.

Breivik – national democrat

What is the philosophic background of Breivik’s ideas?

In fact, Breivik is a classical example of national democrat (nazdem). This ideology is currently on rise in Europe and Russia. Breivik’s “Cultural conservatism” is a typical right version of liberalism. Breivik shares all its basic concepts, like secularism, capitalism and nation state, but points out, that they should fit within frames of classical Modern, i.e. by cultural frames (this is the origins of his «cultural conservatism»).

From this angle it becomes clear, why Breivik’s golden century of Europe lays neither in the medieval ages (as for the Christian fundamentalist), nor in 20-40^th of the XX century (as for the classical Nazi), but in the first decade after the second World War, when the “barbarian national socialism” was destroyed, and “holy” Churchill declared cold war to the communism.

Manifestо starts with the ideal of 50^th – secular society but still based on Christian cultural values, capitalism, but not global, democracy, but ethnically homogeneous. Who is responsible for destruction of this idyll? According to Breivik, it is so called «cultural Marxists». This definition covers left scientists and artists, who have initiated sexual revolution in the West, as well a postmodern and multiculturalism.

To keep it serious, every true European traditionalist and conservative revolutionary will never share position of Norwegian terrorist. Besides latter term although occurs several times in Manifesto, should not mislead, as Breivik’s ideas have nothing in common with European Conservative Revolution.

For European traditionalists the point of no return for collapse of Christian West certainly lays not in thе 70^th of ХХ century (This period Julius Evola described as total and final death of the West) but rather XIV century, i.e. appearance of Modern and consolidation of future nation states. Breivik’s favorite Renaissance in the eyes of European traditionalists is time of apotheosis of break-up of the Tradition.

Unfortunately Breivik did not study the real Marx theory. Otherwise, he would know, that according to Marx, the objective reallite determines the consciousness, forces of production determine production relations, basis determines superstructure. It simply means, that European postmodern can only be the result of new life style, but not it’s reason.

But what is the reason then? According to real conservative Oswald Spengler (the author of famous “The Decline of the West”), the reason is transformation of the West from the living culture of nature to lifeless techno-financial civilization of global megalopolises. Besides, ancient Rome offers the very similar example, where we lack “cultural Marxists” but have all other «fascinations» of globalization, multiculturalism and consumer society.

In Breivik’s perspective, the major mistake of western Tories, leaded by Churchill is the lack of decommunisation after successful denazification.

Again Breivik does not know that in former socialistic states there was no multiculturalism. Communist Party provided separate existence of various ethnical cultures. There was no mass migration in the USSR and Eastern Europe and each ethnic group have lived on its land. Simultaneously, internationalism was the official ideology.

On the other hand, conservative policies from Adenauer to de Gaulle and Tatchier could not prevent babylonisation of Europe. Declarations newer determine nature of the culture. It is the development trend, that forms the reality. Both Marxists (not the mythical “cultural” but real) and National Socialists understood this simple truth. So why German Nazis are as bad as Marxists for Breivik? Because they have attacked inner sanctum of his «cultural conservatism» (we may also call it Jewish Modern) – capitalism and democracy.

Unlike many bourgeois nationalists, that exist in 20-th in Germany and whose failure Breivik counts for tragedy of Germany and Europe, National Socialists understood that formal victory of nationalist ideology without destruction of global capitalist civilization based on international financial capital is useless. According to the National Socialist the true nation state may be based only on organic socialism, the type of social feudalism. Otherwise, any nation state becomes the mask of transnational capital.

Breivik sees the alternative in special form of the capitalism that we may found in Taiwan. Japan and South Korea. In his opinion it is the existing Eden with democracy and capitalism, but without multiculturalism and migration. Interesting, that here he sings in unison with patriarch of Russian national democracy and national capitalism Alexander Sevastianov. However Sevastianov sees the reason of immunity of Asian tigers in their non-Judeo-Christian roots. So when Breivik presents Judeo-Christian values as the victim of the multiculturalism, Sevastianov points them to be the reason for the decline of Europe.

A system analysis, which is the weak point «right» ideologists, explains Asian phenomena via their subordinated role in international capitalist civilization. The same explanation works for Central and Eastern Europe, irrespective of multiculturalists there are not much immigrants. First, there is a direct connection between level of migration and level of involvement in global economy. Second, demographical situation is the other explanation, and it is much better in states with no Judeo-Christian roots and weak liberal tradition.

Judeo-Christian capitalist and democrat Breivik does not understand neither first, nor second point. As a result, he mixes contradicting calls for national homogeneity in European states with attacks on National Socialists, who tried to provide this homogeneity trough social revolution and confessions of love to Judeo-Christianity, which is actually responsible for current problems of Europe.

Mirage of «cultural Christianity»

Currently Judeo-Christian banner against Islam raise total strangers to all traditional values like German left ideologist Ralph Giordano or Dutch homosexual Geert Wilders.

Breivik’s case is more complicated. On one side, he confesses that he is not religious and is against Christian theocracy and supports secularism. On the other hand, unlike common liberals, Breivik advocates pro-Christian conservative program, limitation of feminism and sexual dissipation. What are reasons for such dualism and how these two paradigms can be mixed?

In his naive view, Europe in 70^th is Christian democratic capitalist heaven until the barbarians, the “cultural Marxist” came and attacked traditional culture of the West. This attack made the Western lifestyle venerable to aggressive Islam. So it is logical, that crusade against Marxists and Muslims, that he had started on Utoeua, shall come in line with rebirth of Christian traditional values as they were in 50^th – 70^th.

In this scenario the unexpected “cultural Marxists” are the bad guys, but liberals are the alliances, if they are ready to give up multiculturalism.

This approach contradicts with the authentic Christian views – the Christian traditionalists from Donoso Kortes to Konstantin Leontiev positioned liberalism as the major enemy of Europe, more dangerous, then communists.

Fyodor Dostoevsky once wrote: «Russia will be destroyed not by communists, not by anarchists but by damned liberals». This forecast is applicable also to the West.

Let’s not forget, that Breivik declared himself to be a freemason. Simultaneously he blames “cultural Marxists” in all sins although masonry has being fighting Church for centuries in favor of capitalism and democracy, that were not much respected in traditional western culture.

Today masonry somehow becomes defender of the Christianity. How could it happen? Simply because, having destroyed Christianity, they faced more powerful enemy – Islam. And it is quite difficult to attack Islam from the secular basis.

We can remember coquet of the Soviet government with the Church that have started exactly when Wehrmacht appeared in Moscow suburbs. Not surprising, that when the threat was over the government came back to its initial policy and Khrushchev brought new persecutions.

Leaders of Judeo-Christian mobilization against Islam prepare the same future for Christianity in Europe.

Breivik’s call for Christian renaissance in post-Marxist and post –Islamic Europe shall not mislead, because «New Renaissance» society shall coexist with «liberal zones» (megalopolises, inhabited by liberal alliances of “cultural conservatives”, but clean of cultural Marxists and Muslims).

Certainly Breivik is not even thinking on fighting against capitalism, he just wants to fit it within national and conservative limits.

For how long will the conservative-modern order survive in such circumstances? The answer may be found in modern European history, when traditional lifestyle was hacked by the global capital.

Obviously the hegemony of megapolises within the worlds international financial system is protected by Breivik. In this situation traditional Christian province will be under serious economic, cultural and political pressing, and that will bring us back to the current situation.

We may again conclude, that Breivik has nothing in common with conservative revolutionary, as he claims in Manifesto. His nuclear dreams of third world war are aimed to reinforce Modern without changing the basis. That is the exclusive circle for Europe.

Islam in Europe: liberal Zionist view

Not surprising, that liberal extremist Breivik sees the principle danger in Islam, that unlike his “conservative revolution» indeed is a true opposition for civilization of global capital. Breivik looks on Islam in light of liberal fundamentalism, cooked on the Zionist fire.

That is why Breivik’s nationalism (he declared himself to be a nationalist) is not self sufficient, but is only the weapon against Islam. Otherwise, even being in opposition towards Islam, Breivik would be more rational like the old school European nationalists, who divided migration problems and relations of Europe with Islamic world. And it would be then clear for him, that roots of European problems, roots of “cultural Marxism” do not lay in Islam, but in «Judeo-Christianity», that is widely advertised today by his Zionist friends.

It is obvious that decline of Europe is not caused by Islam, but Islam came to Europe because of this decline. Moreover, many Europeans recognize in Islam not the source of their problems, but the key of solution of these problems, the unexpected chance for rebirth and development.

However Breivik is not interested, a liberal, trained by Zionists, he a priory takes Islam as personal enemy that should be destroyed. As we have shown above, although he is not removing the fundamental reasons of the Western crisis, his solution of Muslim problem is final and radical.

On this stage many readers may doubt weather there is any sense in taking single psychopath so serious. I would argue, that Breivik should be treated very seriously at least for three reasons.

First, Breivik is acting in a group of like-minded people. Taking in regard the self identification with masonry, we may not exclude that Breivik and his Manifesto are just visible part of big scenario of Judeo-Christian’s hawks (analogical to Turkish Ergenekon), that precedes establishing of death squadrons in Europe.

Second, it is ever worse if Breivik and Co are not tied with any elites. It means that ideas, that were adopted by Breivik can currently motivate young gifted Europeans (and Breivik is among them) for murder and self-sacrifice.

Third, although the Breivik’s plans for 2083 look like utopia, we are only at year 2011 now and life flows fast. Because Manifesto is aimed against European Muslims, it’s possible realization becomes the matter of life and death for European Muslims.

So the situation challenges us for deep analysis and adequate response.

Islam and Europe

Many cities and towns in the south of Spain bear the unmistakable imprint of their Islamic past. The magnificent great mosque of Cordoba, the breath-takingly beautiful Alhambra Palace in Granada and the splendidly proportioned Giralda minaret in Seville, are supreme examples but almost every town and village you pass will contain some historical remains dating from their Muslim days. The same in fact applies to almost anywhere you travel in the Iberian Peninsula. You will continually come upon reminders of the fact that for many centuries the population of Spain was overwhelmingly Muslim. So it is undoubtedly true that Islam was the past of that particular part of Europe. The same can be said of large areas of Middle Europe where the Ottoman Muslim presence is clearly visible in many towns and cities in the Balkans and where a lot of the population has remained Muslim up to the present time.

This historical Islamic presence can, however, only be seen in a small part of Europe so how can any claim that Islam constitutes the past of Europe as a whole be justified? To understand this it is necessary to view Europe, not so much as a geographical area, but rather as a common cultural inheritance.

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Europe disintegrated for several centuries into a large number of warring factions. It was the reconstitution of the European part of the Roman Empire, in the name of the Roman Catholic Church, which once more started to give Europe a unified identity. This was in a large part brought about by the pope giving the rulers of different areas of the continent a common, military project, which gathered them all together under the banner of the Church. This project was the crusades.

By means of the age-old trick of positing a common enemy, the pope managed to persuade the European kings to set aside their own quarrels and concentrate as one body against the Muslims. The crusades were used by the Church for more than two centuries as a means of consolidating its power throughout Europe. In this way Islam can be seen to have been an important factor in the creation of a common European identity and to have indirectly played a vital role in Europe’s past. There is, however, a way in which Islam had a far more direct effect on Europe; one which fully justifies the claim that Islam is Europe’s past.

It is with the Renaissance that the phenomenon of modern Europe really got started. The mythology now surrounding this movement has it that the knowledge of classical Greece, which had been hidden for a thousand years, suddenly re-emerged and brought about a rebirth in the intellectual and artistic life of Europe. The truth is, however, that the torch of classical scholarship had been taken up by the Muslims seven centuries earlier. They worked on it, developed it and added to it during the whole of that period. What the Europeans received – what was to form the basis of the astonishing technological advances witnessed by the past four centuries – was passed on to them by the Muslims.

The classical texts themselves, the writings of Plato and Aristotle and other ancient Greeks, which were considered the basis of European culture, had been preserved by the Muslims. Indeed some of them only existed in Arabic translations and had to be re-translated from Arabic into Latin. It is widely recognised that the famous Muslim translation school of Toledo was the source of many of the texts that formed the basis of the European Renaissance. But it was not as transmitters of ancient learning that the Muslims played their most important part in the rebirth of Europe. There is almost no area of learning in which the original scholarship and research of the Muslims did not have a fundamental influence. But it is worth looking at five areas in particular which were all to play a pivotal role in the new European project, namely: philosophy, mathematics, cartography and navigation, optics and medicine.

Every intellectual movement must necessarily be defined and underpinned by a philosophical understanding, which lies behind it and enables it to flourish in the world it inhabits. There is no doubt that the ancient Greeks, in particular Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, provided the philosophical bedrock on which Western civilisation is based. But it is also clear that there has had to be continual development of thought over time to develop their thinking in every age since, which has enabled things to develop in the way that they have. This thinking process, which was all but completely abandoned by Europe in the Dark Ages, was taken forward during that time by many distinguished Muslim thinkers culminating in the work of the great Cordovan philosopher, Ibn Rushd, known in Europe as Averroes. He proved to be the stepping-stone to much of the European philosophy that has followed since.

It is clear that the Renaissance triggered off what has become known as the “scientific age” and that Europe and its North American offshoot owe their present dominance to the scientific advances which took place and the accompanying technological innovations to which they have given birth. Without the mathematical tools inherited from the Muslims none of these things would have been possible. Mathematics is the sine qua non for every scientific endeavour. We owe the very numbers we use to the Muslims. The Muslims developed every area of mathematics and, moreover, invented new disciplines such as algebra (named after its progenitor al-Jabir). This enabled later scientists such as Galileo and Newton to make the kind of calculations they needed in order to formulate their theories, and enabled those who have followed them to find practical applications for those theories.
Another factor leading to European dominance were the journeys of exploration made by European adventurers. These opened the way to the colonial empires of the European powers and the enormous wealth which that enabled them to amass. These voyages were greatly facilitated by the accurate and sophisticated work of Muslim mapmakers. But the greatest assistance to these power-hungry mariners was afforded by navigational aids, such as the astrolabe, which had been developed by the Muslims and which, in European hands, led within a very short time to the engridding of the globe and the world domination which followed in its wake.

The enormous scientific advances made through the use of the telescope and microscope in the fields of astronomy, physics and biology need no further elaboration. Without them these sciences would still be in their infancy. Their development was made possible by Muslim optical research. The same applies to medicine, whose development relied greatly on the vast amount of theoretical and practical work carried out and recorded by hundreds of Muslim physicians, in particular the great Ibn Sina, known to the West as Avicenna.

Much much more could be added to this sketchy account of the way in which Muslim learning influenced the development of modern Europe but, hopefully, this has been sufficient to demonstrate that Islam can truly be said to have played a foundational role in Europe’s past. What, however, needs to be categorically stated at this point is that what the Europeans received from the Muslims and what they then proceeded to do with it are two entirely different things.

The science of the Muslims, both in terms of research and practical application, had always been carried out within the parameters defined for them by Divine Revelation as set out in the Qur’an and then implemented under Prophetic guidance. So the technology of the Muslims was always on a human scale and firmly under human control. But once the business passed into European hands something very different began to happen. The knowledge of the Muslims had a direct connection to Divine Revelation. The Europeans removed it from its proper context and used it indiscriminately and without the checks previously imposed on it by Divine legislation. The result has been the false god of monstrous proportions worshipped by so many millions today: scientific materialism.

With the Renaissance a crucial shift in perspective took place which led gradually towards people viewing the world and themselves in a completely different way. Human beings started to measure the universe not, as they had before, by Divinely revealed truth, but by their own perception of it. In other words, man made himself the measure of the universe. The relationship between man and the universe changed from being one of caretaker to being one where man considered himself the lord of creation. By the end of the Renaissance European man viewed himself as the master of existence and the arbiter of his own destiny. The Renaissance, closely followed by its sister phenomenon, the Reformation, truly proved to be a Pandora’s Box. The economic, political, philosophical and technical repercussions resulting from them form the background to the world we live in and, indeed, make up the very atmosphere we breathe.

The decisive step in the economic domain was taken by John Calvin, in Geneva. He took it upon himself to legalise, in the face of all precedents, the lending of money at interest, which had always previously been universally known as the crime of usury. This one thing, probably more than any other, is responsible for the ravaged social and physical landscape of the world we have inherited. It led to the rapid growth of banking first in Italy and Holland, and then England, culminating in the foundation of the Bank of England in 1692 and the first national debt. After this came the proliferation of international banking. That brought with it, in ever increasing quantities, international debt. Now we have reached a point when economic activity has changed from being merely one aspect of human existence into its central focus. Every single person in the world is now born hopelessly in debt and interest rates and market prices have become almost the most significant factors in our lives.

These developments have been inextricably bound up with the changing political landscape. Any remaining influence of the Church, with its traditional prohibition of usury, was first marginalised under the absolutism of Henry VIII and Louis XIV and then totally discarded as these regimes, in their turn, were replaced by the myth of democracy. First came the so-called "glorious" revolution in England, then much less glorious one in America, then a frankly appalling one in France and finally the absolute disaster of the Russian revolution. The only tangible result of each of these was the accelerating economicisation and technicisation of the world and the gradual accession to world power of a new extra-national elite exercising increasingly dictatorial control through financial structures beyond the reach of any national government. The First and Second world wars enabled this elite to consolidate their power under the name of globalisation. The World State is no longer the projection of visionary writers. We are living in it.

Every one of these political developments, which have enabled the present situation to come about, has had its theorists and philosophers. However, rather than being the source and inspiration for what happened, they in most cases merely acted as apologists for it, justifying at each stage the new status quo. We might name among them Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Marx, and Sartre. All of these in their time and in their way justified and supported the political, economic and technical developments going on around them together with the ever greater restriction of true human freedom that these things brought with them.

Finally and equally importantly we come to the practical exponents of the new thinking who turned the idea of man‘s control of the world around him into an ever more destructive reality. Building on the speculations of Copernicus and the experimentation of Galileo, Newton, with his magnum opus, Principia Mathematica, in which he formulated the laws of mechanics and gravity, constructed a model of the universe which formed the foundation for the technicisation and structuralisation of the world that has been taking place ever since. Using the laws he discovered, scientists have come up with technical applications of them which have been wielded with increasing effectiveness by those in power to ensure a measure of control and domination never before experienced in the whole of human history. However, as we know, this very technical expertise has created a Frankenstein, which is now out of control and from which there is apparently no escape.

While this has necessarily been a sketchy and generalised overview, the basic perspective it puts forward is in no way revolutionary and can be found demonstrated and clarified in the writings of many well-known and respected historians.

Here we are, then, in 2008 living at the receiving end of all this, in the world that has resulted from it. A world ensnared in a web of unpayable debts of unimaginable magnitude whose reality is no more substantial than impossibly high numbers flickering as electronic signals between one computer screen and another and yet by which whole populations are controlled. A world polluted almost beyond the possibility of clean-up and subject to the vagaries of the untried science of genetic modification whose consequences may well prove catastrophic to the natural world. A world whose natural resources have been plundered to the point of exhaustion by the demands of a rapacious system of consumption which the present power structure, for all its protestations to the contrary, does everything to encourage. A world hypnotised by the myth of democracy where people vote in ever decreasing numbers to elect puppet governments for states that are, in fact, no more than colonies of a financial oligarchy who have no national loyalties and are elected by no-one. A world whose inhabitants are free to do little other than consume as much as possible in whatever way is open to them as drugged and pacified dependants of a World State.

This may appear to be an excessively bleak portrayal of the world we live in but if you remove the gift-wrapping and look behind the surface glitter of our consumer paradise you will find it to be the stark truth. There are certainly some aspects of the European project which have run counter to this general nihilistic trend but time constraints do not permit me to elaborate on them on this occasion. What is certain, however, is that both the negative process I have outlined, and the few positive elements contained within it, all lead to one conclusion: that it is time for the re-emergence of Islam after its five hundred year absence to lead the way into a much brighter future.

To understand why this is the case it is first necessary to understand what Islam is and, indeed, what it is not. Most Europeans see Islam as a foreign religion. It is not. Islam is not Arab or Turkish or Pakistani. Islam has nothing to do with ethnic origin or eastern culture. No, Islam is, and always has been, categorically universal, equally valid for any people in any part of the world.

There is, and always has been, only one authentic spiritual tradition which is at once the birthright and raison d’etre of every human being. All the various great world religions constitute manifestations at various times throughout human history of this primordial natural religion. Christianity, for instance, is simply the penultimate version of this great tradition. Islam is it in its final form. We must put out of our minds all geographical and cultural preconceptions. All that is involved is recognition and worship of the One God, whom all of us in our heart of hearts and times of greatest need knows to be there; the Source and Creator of the Universe; Reality itself; that Unique Power on which everything else is totally and continually dependent but which is Itself beyond need of anything.

Early in human history it is clear that awareness of God and living in harmony with the laws which govern existence were almost instinctive to people. However as time went on, human beings became more and more opaque and people began to more and more overstep their natural limits, causing increasing corruption and discord within the human situation. But because the Divine nature is fundamentally merciful and compassionate, Divinely inspired men appeared periodically to remind people of their true nature and to guide them back to the path of belief, balance and justice which they had abandoned.

The final Divine reminder to the human race came in the form of the Qur'an revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be on him. It was specifically and explicitly intended to be a universal message to answer the spiritual and social needs of every human being from that time on. By the time he died, he had fulfilled his task by establishing, under Divine guidance, a flourishing human community with a just political, economic and legal structure. It produced a radiant, compassionate social reality and permitted the flowering of as deep a spirituality as has ever been witnessed on the earth's surface.

It is this total picture, containing within its compass the correct functioning of every aspect of human existence, which is Islam. It is this complete model of Divine guidance in action in every sphere of life that we need now, that we must have, if we are to survive as a human community. At its core is the relationship between each individual and his Creator but this cannot survive and flourish in isolation. It can only grow if people stay within the moral limits that in fact constitute their natural form. These parameters in their turn need the laws and economic restraints prescribed by Divine Revelation if they are to remain in place. Only Islam still contains all these elements.

It is astonishing how, in each area where this society is sick and troubled, the specific cure is to be found in the teaching of Islam, although in fact it is not so surprising when one remembers that it was revealed as a universal guidance for this last period of human history by the One who knows exactly what His creatures need. Let us take a few examples.

Usury, particularly in its most prevalent form of lending money at interest has already been mentioned. One immediate effect of it is ever-increasing consumer debt which has now reached unprecedented levels. The human cost of this is increasing distress and discord in a great number of families and for many absolute despair at not being able to make ends meet, leading to a growing number of suicides. On the international scene, the situation is even worse. In some countries the gross national product is not enough to pay even the interest on the money that has been borrowed. This means that everyone in those countries is in effect working for foreign banks.

The underlying effects of usury have corroded every aspect of human life. There is no time now to go into this subject in detail but much work has been done on it and is available for anyone who wishes to find out more. Suffice it to say that usury is a poison which pollutes all it touches. Its prohibition in the Qur'an, the use of forms of business contracts which preclude it and the re-introduction of gold and silver coinage which they require mean that Islam truly provides the means to escape this curse which has all but enslaved the whole world.

It is generally recognised that a large proportion of the crime, which has reached such epidemic proportions in our time, is closely related to the consumption of alcohol and drugs. If you add to this the vast percentage of alcohol induced accidents, the growing incidence of alcoholism with its attendant social problems and the unprecedented number of people dependant on drugs of all kinds, the Qur’anic injunction forbidding intoxicating substances clearly provides an urgently needed radical solution to a pressing social problem.

It cannot be denied that the spread of the scourge of AIDS which still threatens so many millions of lives has been almost exclusively due to sexual promiscuity on a scale never before witnessed by the human race and, more particularly, to homosexual practices which were until very recently recognised as unnatural and illegal by every society in the world. Alongside this there are the terrible crimes of rape and incest whose regular and increasing occurrence has made them seen almost commonplace. Again, in this vital area of life Islam holds the key.

Far from being suppressed, sexuality is explicitly encouraged within Islam and ample space is given for its expression. However its limits have been made clear and the penalties for overstepping them extremely severe. At the same time opportunities for sex outside the prescribed limits are kept at a minimum. Because extended families and the giving of hospitality are part and parcel of Islam, Muslim family life is full and open and the dangerous emotional currents, which frequently lead to crime in the nuclear family situation, are far less prevalent in Muslim society.

The last and perhaps most important way in which Islam can heal the sickness of our society is by means of the incalculable effect of the physical act of prayer which punctuates the day of every Muslim. This act puts the worship of God back where it belongs at the centre of the life of every human being and ensures the health of society as a whole. It gives people a correct perspective on existence so that they do not become totally engrossed in the life of this world. It is a continual reminder of the insubstantial nature of this life, that death is inevitable and that what follows it depends on the way we live and goes on forever. The acceptance of accountability implicit in this attitude makes people prone to live within the limits rather than wantonly transgress them. It creates a situation where people see that immediate self-gratification is not necessarily in their best interests and that generosity and patience and good character have real and tangible benefits in them.

For all these reasons and many more which have not been mentioned here Islam has been growing in strength in Europe as a whole and in Britain in particular over many years now. Goethe, Carlyle and Bernard Shaw were among many clear-sighted Europeans in the past who saw that it is precisely this guidance that is needed if Western civilisation is to be turned back from its present self-destructive course. Over the past half-century literally thousands of British people have become Muslims and swelled the ranks of the great number of other Muslims who have come here mostly from ex-British colonies.

This phenomenon was acknowledged recently by what might be considered as a slightly unlikely voice: Norman Tebbit. Lord Tebbit said in an article he wrote considering the demise of the Church of England: “So who is left? Watch out for the challenge from the mosques. An Islam with a modern face will soon begin to present itself as the natural home for those who long for moral certainty and a new sense of discipline within society… And with no other options on the table, they may soon find that they have an awful lot of fellow travellers with whom to bolster their ranks. The task for the imams will be to… replace a Christian church that has lost its sense of history and direction with a mosque that has a strong ingrained sense of both.”

He is right. If what is desired is for each individual to have the maximum possibility of fulfilling their true human potential within the context of a compassionate and just human society then Islam can truly be said to hold the key to the future of Britain in particular and indeed to Europe as a whole.

Shaykh Abdalhaqq Bewley

Declaration of the European Muslim Union

Declaration of the European Muslim Union

Our position has always been:

1. Islam is not a culture.

Therefore Islam and the European inheritance can be in harmony.

We dedicated time, intellect and capacities to find bridges between Europe and Islam.

Locations like Weimar, Sarajevo and Granada have a great relevance for EMU, because they stand (symbolically) for the relationship between Islam and Europe, for a new generation of Muslims who feel home in Europe.

2. The identity of a human being is in his language capacities.

EMU´s position is that whoever speaks fluently an European language and who wants to live here constructively with his neighbours is an European himself.

We oppose any racial argumentation; like f.e. Geert Wilders, who argues that even a fourth generation immigrant cannot be dutch.

3. Something like "Islamic terrorism" is impossible by Islamic Law.

We are not defining ourselves by the existence of enemies, but we define ourselves by positive aims.

Whoever lives a true Islam will see people embracing the Deen.

To create trust, we have not only to argue what Islam is not, we have also to show and define what it is.

We have to present Islam, his views, his beliefs, his way of life - especially his social and economical dimensions (see f.e. the market programme of EMU)

4. The European Muslims have now a special responsibility.

We can discriminate between Islam and Culture. We can present the message of Islam, according to our time and needs.

We can naturally lead the Muslims of Europe, giving them strategy and understanding.

We need therefore to interconnect between all European communities. This has to be done by an organization, which is more then just a national entity.

5. EMU has good relations to all immigrant communities in Europe.

Our advice to them has always been to learn European languages and we have always warned them to create ghettos.

We do not believe that ethnical grouping around being Turkish, Arab or Bosnian has a future. We believe that the (forgotten) rules of Zakat, and the creation of community around an Amir is more important then any ethnical difference.

6. A strong unified network of Muslims in Europe is necessary.
To do this job we need a strong organization like EMU, also to create embassies in every important European capital.

We need strong media houses to counter the propaganda against Islam.

We need to promote a positive image of the Muslims and their intentions. We have to create projects, which show the contribution of Islam to the public life.

We consider that EMU is one of the few organizations who link the spirit of the European Muslims to the Ummah.

7. The recent attacks of the militant wing of Islamophobic persons are a serious warning.

These criminals act integrated in the new European parties against Islam. They are acting as individuals, but they are also inspired by intellectuals and politicians.

They associate any behaviour (islamically acceptable or not) of any immigrant with Islam. They force us to draw a line to people who are acting islamically incorrect.

The known intellectual supporters of these new anti-islamic forces need to be opposed at every level in Europe.

Islam and the world financial crisis - Shaykh Abdal Haqq Bewley

Islam and the world financial crisis - Shaykh Abdal Haqq Bewley from Mezquita de Granada on Vimeo.

British Actress Inspired by Prophet’s Life

British Actress Inspired by Prophet’s Life

The opening of Al Fatiha, with its address to the whole of mankind, psychologically stopped me in my tracks. It spoke of previous scriptures in a way which I both recognized, but also differed. It clarified many of the doubts I had about Christianity. It made me an adult as I suddenly realized that my destiny and my actions had consequences for which I alone would now be held responsible.

Myriam Francois-Cerrah Embraces Islam

I embraced Islam after graduating from Cambridge. Prior to that I was a skeptical Catholic; a believer in God but with a mistrust of organized religion.

The Qur’an was pivotal for me. I first tried to approach it in anger, as part of an attempt to prove my Muslim friend wrong. Later I began reading it with a more open mind.

The opening of Al Fatiha, with its address to the whole of mankind, psychologically stopped me in my tracks. It spoke of previous scriptures in a way which I both recognized, but also differed. It clarified many of the doubts I had about Christianity. It made me an adult as I suddenly realized that my destiny and my actions had consequences for which I alone would now be held responsible.

In a world governed by relativism, it outlined objective moral truths and the foundation of morality. As someone who’d always had a keen interest in philosophy, the Qur’an felt like the culmination of all of this philosophical cogitation. It combined Kant, Hume, Sartre and Aristotle. It somehow managed to address and answer the deep philosophical questions posed over centuries of human existence and answer its most fundamental one, ‘why are we here?’

In the Prophet Muhammad, I recognized a man who was tasked with a momentous mission, like his predecessors, Moses, Jesus and Abraham. I had to pick apart much of the Orientalist libel surrounding him in order to obtain accurate information, since the historical relativism which people apply to some degree when studying other historical figures, is often completely absent, in what is a clear attempt to disparage his person.

I think many of my close friends thought I was going through another phase and would emerge from the other side unscathed, not realizing that the change was much more profound. Some of my closest friends did their best to support me and understand my decisions. I have remained very close to some of my childhood friends and through them I recognize the universality of the Divine message, as God’s values shine through in the good deeds any human does, Muslim or not.

I have never seen my conversion as a ‘reaction’ against, or an opposition to my culture. In contrast, it was a validation of what I’ve always thought was praiseworthy, whilst being a guidance for areas in need of improvement. I also found many mosques not particularly welcoming and found the rules and protocol confusing and stressful. I did not immediately identify with the Muslim community. I found many things odd and many attitudes perplexing. The attention given to the outward over the inward continues to trouble me deeply.

Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) said: 'Forgive him who wrongs you. Join him who cuts you off. Do good to him who does evil to you and speak the truth even if it be against yourself.'

There is a need for a confident, articulate British Muslim identity which can contribute to the discussions of our time. Islam is not meant to be an alien religion, we shouldn’t feel like we’ve lost all trace of ourselves. Islam is a validation of the good in us and a means to rectify the bad. Islam is about always having balance and I think the Prophet's (peace be upon him) message was fundamentally about having balance and equilibrium in all that we do.

The Prophet's message was always that you repel bad with good that you always respond to evil with good and always remember that God loves justice so even when people are committing serious injustices against you, you have a moral responsibility and a moral obligation in front of God to always uphold justice and never yourself transgress those limits.

Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) said: 'Forgive him who wrongs you. Join him who cuts you off. Do good to him who does evil to you and speak the truth even if it be against yourself.'

Islam's beauty really becomes to its own when it becomes manifest and it becomes manifest when you make it into a tool for the betterment of society, human kind and the world.

The ideal from an Islamic perspective is for ethics to become lived ethics, to become an applied body of values and not remain unfortunately as it often is cloistered in the mosque of somewhere which is some more divorced from reality.

Myriam Francois-Cerrah became popular when she was a child for acting in the 90's hit film 'Sense and Sensibility.' Now she is gaining more popularity for being one of a growing number of educated middle class female converts to Islam in Britain.

She has recently contributed to a series of videos on Islam produced in the UK titled (Inspired by Muhammad).

Also read 'When truth touches you.'

Courtesy On Islam

Islamic social movement for Europe

The political class is finished. And when this reality becomes apparent is only a question of time. The more important question however, are the practical implications for us in Europe.

The great comedy of political parties, representing the so called “center”, still continues. This is because of the continuing existence of the institutes of manipulative democracy (plutocracies), within the framework of the National-State. However, all thinking people properly understand is that the “show can’t go on”. This failure of the political class is giving rise to the growing popularity of two extreme opposites: ultra-right and left-radical.

Surely Europe will be one of the main victims of the collapse of capitalist system. America still has significant military strength and resulting dominance in the world. China has clear opportunities to become the world-wide economical leader of the XXI century. Even Russia has its vast natural resources, which helps sustain the country. Europe depends upon these regional-economic centers but has little to offer itself. The economic logic of Capitalism doesn’t allow Europe to develop alternative sources of energy. This, alongside a financial structure which does not encourage capital flows to foreign territories such as China with its cheapest labor resources for example, is making Europe one of the most depressive and economically stagnant zones in the world.

Depression provokes neurosis and phobias, that’s why European societies need internal enemies upon which to direct their fear. The political class of depressive nation-states also need to explain the failure of their rule to their citizens, providing an internal enemy as a scapegoat is easier than taking steps to change the situation they are in.

The real internal enemy of Europe and the real source of its civilization decline is plutocracy, a governance structure based on usury-capitalistalism. These plutocrats know that the welfare-state system created by them is not sustainable and will collapse in the future. What will they do in that case and how will they maintain power? The only possibility is to keep Europe fragmented and occupied by foreign military bases, and then to make it economic colony of the great transnational capitalist empire of future – totalitarian China. This is, of course, not at all a positive outcome for the future of Europe.

One serious factor can crash their plans. This factor is the 35 million Muslims inside the European Union. The point is not only the intolerance of Islam towards, amongst other things, homosexuality and open adultery – deviations which in many cases are the life-style choices of many members of the political class and behind-the-scene financial oligarchs. The direct threat to them is that Islam is not only an internal enemy, but has the proactive ability to pose as a working alternative to the collapsing model, based on a riba (usury) capitalism and manipulative democracy (plutocracy).

From this point of view, Muslims have to understand that the ruling elite of modern Europe, not the media manipulated masses, will not allow the evolutionary growth of Islam within society, having as a consequence, the Muslims populations in Europe becoming a demographical majority with our own healthy social and economic models.

The Political class won’t be able to reach a final solution to “the Muslim question in Europe” – as it is too helpless for such a task. Its intermediate task is to keep growing Muslim communities under the thumb of neurotic nation-states, where Muslims do not have the possibilities to take serious power. And at the same time it keeps divided Europe itself, because the main factor which prevents the consolidation of the vast potential of a United Europe are indeed, farcical nation states, existing under the control of the banking system and un-transparent esoteric clubs.

But they understand the need to solve the Muslim problem of today before it becomes a greater one in the future. The case against minarets in Switzerland or permanent discussions about national identity, integration of immigrants and compatibility of Islam and European values in the media and during election campaigns is a signal of this initiative.

For us Muslims, it is very important to be realists in this situation. Islamaphobia is spreading in Europe. Not only nationalists, but also liberals and even some leftists now have this fear. Ultra right-wing parties during last ten years have gained a lot at a national and regional level, owing to these fears.

If this crisis deepens we can not exclude the victory of nationalist parties taking power in large European countries. France and Italy are states where leaders have used heavy handed nationalist ideas to gain support.

What does the ultra right perspective mean?

First – not just immigrants, but all Muslims, including those with European citizenship, will be totally oppressed in these countries. During the last election in Spain, conservatives declared that they will prohibit the wearing of the Hijab. We also hear of plans to edit the Quran, enforce Muslims to allow homosexuality into their religion, etc. The point being that repression and assimilation will be key to weakening the social and political potential of Islam in Europe.

Second – this will be the end of a United Europe, because really the ultra-right parties are the open enemy of European Integration.

Third – the result is likely to be the emergence of neo-fascist regimes, dressed up in the ideas of democracy and European values. The likelihood of a socio-political dictatorship emerging, with the creation of apartheid i.e. the isolation of Muslim districts based upon the Israeli model in the West Bank and Gaza, is a distinct possibility.

What to do?

The first reaction of course is to resist. This will be seconded as a tendency in European society as reaction on neo-fascism.

We also see the growing anti-globalist movement and street-riots against police in many European cities as a backlash against this new totalitarianism, while they often only serve to tighten control.

Some of these movements and politicians portray friendship to Islam. So it can be tempting to join them in their struggle against racism and injustice. But the problem is that left-radicals are part of the same game, where fears of nihilistic terrorism can feed phobias in the population and therefore advance repressive state policies.

Frankly speaking, both sides – right-wings and left-wings have elements of truth in their vision, but are both at the same time affected by nihilistic philosophy (kufr) and unable to give a positive alternative for Europe. Struggle between dictatorship and nihilists is not the point of Muslim politics – our goal is one of social renewal through Islamic beliefs and practices, particularly in the area of finance, and, therefore, to establish a new and healthy society - something which the secular political parties have failed to do!

So, we Muslims have a real potential to establish what I call the third force – a new social dynamic within Europe, which can become an alternative to future neurotic xenophobia and nihilistic collapse.

This force will have nothing to do within the current theatre of politics, as there is no effective political space left in Europe. It will instead operate as a burgeoning social network of young people. As long as the political process continues to exist primarily within the framework of national party systems, the EU will remain a helpless bureaucratic superstructure, denying 35 million Muslims its voice in Europe.

In all debates about the future of the EU, the main problem is that there is no real all-European force which is not just a conglomerate of national parties.

In this situation only Muslims can establish alternative social models within the European space. And the key to it is the model of real money and trade free of usury, another words, Islamic trade.

In the current state of capitalist collapse, money remains the core political question of our time. If we have a monetary system, based on the usury banknotes, printed by central banking mafias, it creates a political reality which naturally devolves into neo-fascist dictatorship, as intelligent people must be forced to accept this deception.

That’s why the model of bimetallism + fullus is not only a monetary, but also a clear social and political alternative.

The aspect of the fullus (printed currency, issued by government or social organizations but not private banks) in this situation is not less important than golden dinars and silver dirhams. Why?

The political and social point of fullus is that not only state central banks but everybody can create instruments of transaction, which can be freely used as “money” by any consenting trader.

Of course skeptics will argue that nobody will need such empty money, so this is only an anarchist utopia. We will agree that in some point it is anarchist idea, but not utopian. It can be developed practically on the social modus of anarcho-syndicalism, combined with the concept of industrial money, such as the ideas developed by serious economists like J.M. Keynes and L. Larus.

The point of this idea is creating an alternative to the idea that the ‘real economy’ is dependent of money without intrinsic value, as liberal monetarists declare. In opposition to that theory, a real economy can produce the quantity of money that it really needs, according to the needs of industry and trade, but not the banks.

The weakness of the Keynesian concept is that the State has to decide how much money the real economy needs. The alternative is the bimetallic-fullus-model, combined with anarcho-syndicalism, which is organic to the Islamic model of guilds.

To put guilds into a contemporary perspective, branch-cooperation unions and also industrial-trading cooperatives can meet their needs objectively and thus produce the real money needed, which will make an effective payment instrument. The same can be said on a local level with municipal communities.

This is our idea for thinkers amongst the left, as well as libertarians. We advocate a concept of free people and communities who can not only choose but even produce their own money, which requires from the society strong syndicalist (guild) self-organization.

But we also have a point for thinkers amongst the right. This is the bi-metallic Islamic currency model of gold and silver, with copper or other less valuable materials serving as fullus. Two “right-wings” aspects of that model are:

- Independence from the political power of money-creators, which implies the restoration of Sovereignty;

- Stability and security for businesses and society from inflation and the weaknesses of the free markets – economical oppression of financial capital and monopolies.

So, we can and must combine in our model aspects of the right- and left-wing discourses. But we also should break with the useless confrontation between nationalism of right-wings and internationalism of left-wings.

Old nationalism is the death for Europe. But dogmatic internationalism is also an enslaving and abstract idea, which makes no sense.

Only we, Muslims, today in Europe have idea of the Umma and it is internationalist and nationalist in same time. Internationalist because of the gathering of people of different races and cultures. But nationalist because it creates new social-political unity without destroying ethnical differences.

This is what modern Europe needs, from large nations to stateless groupings, native Europeans and also immigrants, who fear cultural assimilation.

What is important is that politically we, the European Muslims, declare ourselves not only as communities within nation-states, which we are, but as a United Muslim Community of United Europe, which creates new social space and also new political structures (Amirates).

In that case European Muslims can become the core of a future European Nation (not a State!). This requires from us to present our social ideas and models in a language understandable to all.

We don’t need and of course, can’t hide our Islam, but we need to speak with people in their own language, as our Prophet, peace be upon him, advised. Therefore, I think that we need to be more active and find common ground amongst the left-wing and with right-wing groups. With internationalists about the bankruptcy of national-states and the dangers of xenophobia. With nationalists about the European Nation as the only credible geopolitical alternative to Chinese and American hegemony.

We need strong allies in Europe to develop these ideas, making at least contact with absolutely different and even incompatible forces and to make ourselves mediators between them. Of course this is possible by Muslims who are deeply involved in European Civilization and culture, who are able also to be mediators between various indigenous peoples of Europe and those immigrants, who now feel themselves Europeans.

Muslims today with the guidance of our blessed Mujaddid Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi (Dr.Ian Dallas) have the potential to create a real Third Force in Europe – a first all-European social movement. We need to transform Europe in a direction which is important to Islam and in that case we’ll become the leaders of a renewed Europe. Otherwise there is no future for Europe in general, and European Muslims in particular.

Islamic strategic center of Europe