Greek Muslims presents

By Gerasimos Loukatos

For most of us Greek Muslims, there was a time when the words “Islam” and “Muslim” seemed so radically incompatible with our Greek identity. For those of us who refused to adhere to stereotypes and dogmatic ideas, our sincere research revealed a totally different truth about Islam and being Muslim. The universality of Islam is in that it addresses fundamental questions we all consider at some point in our life. Where do we come from, why are we here, where are we heading to? How do we choose to live our life and what are we leaving behind? People of all times, cultures and traditions have been trying to find adequate answers to these questions.

That’s why any Muslim who didn’t inherit his religion but rather studied it, he will tell you that Islam is a way of life and being Muslim is a state and not an identity or a label. We are all born with the gift of consciousness and the freedom of choice to live a conscious life or not.

Therefore, the call to the way of Islam is not by proselytism which is as prohibited in Islam as in the Greek constitution. That is where any personal conviction should not be a result of persuasion by external force but rather a conscious choice based on our free will. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was prosecuted for 13 years in Mecca for threatening the status quo of the ruling elite, because he was setting the example for people to think for themselves. He was known as Muhammad the truthful long before he was recognized as a prophet and people believed in him because his actions where coherent to his words. His praxis was in harmony with the order of creation that wants us to learn from examples. This is the root of the crisis in our society today, where we constantly hear words and see contradicting actions. Every day we are called to follow an ocean of examples around us. The question is whether we are conscious for our choices and true to ourselves or we end up not recognizing ourselves.

Also, Muslims believe Adam was the first prophet and every people had the same message delivered to them in their tongue at their time. That is why we believe to all the prophets who came before, those we know and those we don’t know. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) didn’t bring a new religion, by his own words, he was only sent to perfect noble character.

As I mentioned earlier, Islam is a universal way of life in that it speaks with universals. Oppression and injustice are universal, regardless the multiple ways they manifest in any given culture at any given time. So, is also our moral obligation to restore freedom and justice. Willingly or unwillingly, people will turn their cultural practices and beliefs into a dogma everyone else should adhere to. In the absence of understanding the universals, there is a tendency for particulars to become universal. In the absence of knowledge, ignorance prevails. So, instead of understanding and learning from different cultures, we try to impose our culture onto others, turning religions and/or ideologies to a vehicle of oppression.

Ora islam was inspired as a way to clarify the misconceptions many of us had and many of us still have, due to the lack of any serious knowledge of Islam in the Greek language. Then it will become clear why being Greek and Muslim is not a contradiction and why Muslims owe to be a benefit and not a threat to the society. It will be explained why the famous Greek free spirit is part and parcel of the tradition of Islam.

In the age we live, access to information is easy and it is as easy to reproduce it. However, access to knowledge and original thought is not as easy.

An online encyclopedia of comprehensive articles. In depth analysis of the universals of Islam, with official authorization and scientific background. Linguistic and historical analysis of terms and concepts. In conclusion, Ora Islam will be the source of knowledge vs. information, in Greek.

The network of Greek Muslims

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.

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.

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