A group of our Fuqaha have asked me to comment on
the event of the Pope’s speech made recently in Germany.
This is a FATWA – and in it I will make my assessment of what the event means,
what the pronouncements in themselves mean, and the politique these imply. It
follows from this that the conclusions reached in this document are intended to
lay down the legal basis for a judgment.
This is not a HUKM. According to us, judgment can only be passed by a ruling
Amir in a known community, who, on making the judgment, has the necessary powers
to assure that the judgment is carried out, for of course, if the Amir cannot
carry it out, the judgment itself remains only a slander. Properly speaking,
judgment is accomplished only on the action of the sentence having been carried
out.
Pope Benedict XVI delivered his speech in Regensburg. Located at that city was
the Messerschmidt plant, and one of the most notorious concentration camps. For
the first 18 years of his life the current Pope both lived with approval in the
Nazi ethos, and was himself a Nazi. In 1927 he was born into the enthusiastic
ferment that gave birth to the Nazi movement and saw them empowered in the early
‘30s. At the age of 14 he joined the Hitler Youth. At that age and in that
place, one may assume enthusiasm. After two years of good behaviour, at the age
of 16, he was drafted into the German Army. He worked in an anti-aircraft
brigade. In 1945 he was taken prisoner by US forces and sent to a
prisoner-of-war camp. He was then 18.
The Jesuits say that if they can be given a child up to the age of six, they
will have him for all his life. Following this Catholic doctrine, we may assume
that the Nazis have the Pope for all his life. He had been brought up under the
Hakenkreuz (Swastika), and as a young man he straightened its edges and took up
the Catholic Cross. Flushed with the vision of a masterful governing elite bent
on world conquest, in a heady mixture of ruthless power and scientific
application that was the Nazi Weltanschauung, the young Ratzinger entered the
great historical tradition of a truly ‘Catholic’ Church bent on world control.
He entered the Church knowing its historical identity. He knew that the power of
the Church over the centuries was sustained not just by torture and genocide,
but by the institutionalisation of a system, a closely documented and detailed
system, of torture and execution by burning. The Inquisition had been the
admired model of Himmler and his S.S.. Added to this was the psychological
intensity and cruelty of a celibate priesthood which over these centuries had
created witch-hunts across Europe, and the torture and burning of women in an
un-counted holocaust of gynocide.
In place of the Nazi doctrine of imposing power on the lesser races came the
Christian Crusades set up to impose the impossible doctrines of Sacramental
christianity on the Islamic civilisation.
Unfortunately, the world in which poor little Ratzinger had been brought up was
to change utterly. The seminarist found he had entered a totally different
world. The Catholic Church had previously been forced, in order to sustain its
absolute power, to submit heretics to torture and burning. The trouble was that
the simple application of reason made it impossible for people to believe that
the central rite of the Church was true. The so-called Sacrament. The Sacrament
was based on the prior existence of an initiate elite, called Bishops. On being
‘consecrated’ by the Pope, who in turn claimed to be the active representative
of the disciple Saint Paul, these Bishops could transform bread and wine into
the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. (We ask Allah’s forgiveness at having to
record this fantasy.)
Against reason, the Church declares “Hic est Corpus!” This is my body. The
doctrine is called trans-substantiation, that is, the change of one substance
into another. This they claimed, and this they still claim. If this magic does
not take place, then at that moment there is no need for Bishops and, by
extension, no need for a Pope. It was not until the Reformation that there was
introduced firstly the doctrine of con-substantiation and secondly the doctrine
of non-substantiation.
It is understandable that the Church has long had problems over the place of
reason in their deliberations. I realise that it is difficult for rational
Muslims to grasp the extraordinary historical reality by which, over centuries,
men and women were submitted to excruciating torture by horrific mechanical
instruments, by plunging in water and by burning with fire if they dared to deny
that the bread and wine of the priests was the actual body and blood of their
Redeemer! It was a double outrage against reason. It was anthropophagy. At the
same time, it was theophagy. So the modern Catholics are eating the
two-thousand-year-old flesh of a man, and at the same time believing that they
are eating God!
It followed from all this that the moment the Church lost the power to torture
and burn, and thus impose this nonsense on simple folk, that the Roman Catholic
Church would move inexorably into decline and fall.
By mid-20th century the
Church was clearly in crisis. The Catholic Church had to find a doctrinal basis
to establish themselves, once deprived of the power of compulsion. Compulsion
had been removed – where could they go? The answer was clear – move to its
opposite: love. Pope John XXIII, accused of communism by many Cardinals,
summoned a Concilio at Rome to invent the new Church. In the process, the Latin
Mass was dumped for the vernacular. It was hoped in the blur of many
translations that the Sacramental offence would be lost. They defined it as
Reformation inside the Church. Of course, Re-Formation means that the original
form has been obliterated. Pope John XXIII took the Church so far from
historical Rome that inevitably an Anti-Pope appeared in France, a M. Lefevre.
He ordained Bishops and restored the Tridentine Mass. It took years before they
had the courage to excommunicate Lefevre and his Roman Catholic Church. So it
was that without apology, but with massive explanation, Catholicism emerged as
the Church of Love and Peace, a positive hippy conversion.
At the same time, the Church’s involvement in usury, i.e. modern banking,
exposed the Other Side of the Underneath, for the Underneath of a celibate
priesthood is, of course, paedophilia. The Pope’s banker was found hanged under
a London bridge, and the Vatican’s wealth teetered on the edge of bankruptcy.
Pope Paul’s inheritor, an innocent who wrote letters to Pinocchio, to his
horror, found out the hidden scandal. He was either assassinated, or
appropriately died, and in his place came the American candidate John-Paul. This
took the Church into the new world of the Bankers’ Rule. His task was to guide
Poland to an uprising that would leverage the whole Communist bloc into the
capitalist camp. He also inaugurated the Masonic doctrine of ‘Dialogue’ to
anaesthetise all religions so that on awaking they were ‘one’, that is,
meaningless. Behind this politique was the important factor of John-Paul II’s
dismissal of the Jesuits (upholders of Catholic tradition) and the elevation of
the ‘secular’, non-priest order of Opus Dei (upholders of the Bankers’ Sect). A
Jesuit no longer took the Pope’s Confession.
A final and important doctrinal change was made by the last Pope, and seems to
be being upheld by the present Pope. The obligation to replace the Sacramental
Church still left Catholicism with the disturbing reality of a new form of
Evangelical christianity centred not on the Sacrament but the rite of Baptism.
It abolished the Unseen, and man was declared ‘Born Again’ in this life, rather
than into the Next Life. Something more profound was required, and the Polish
Pope chose the elevation of a doctrine of Mariology. This taught direct
supplication to her, and claimed for her Bodily Assumption into heaven. This, in
effect, transferred the Divine Presence claimed by historical christianity to
the mother of Jesus, already entitled the Mother of God.
I am aware these matters are offensive to reason and I ask my fellow Muslims to
bear in mind that they are mentioned uniquely to clarify what the present
politique of the Catholic Church is.
The importance of this virtual worship of Mary has very far-reaching
consequences, not only theo-politically but geo-politically. In the jewish-dominated
Think Tanks of the USA there already exists a long-term strategy for the
unification of christianity and Islam, or more precisely, a bi-partite
arrangement. This programme would effectively remove both the intellectual and
the political threat of religion from the atheist Bankers’ Sect. The end-result
would be a de-politicised christianity and Islam. The christians would worship
Mary, who would weep eternally over her crucified son. The Muslims would worship
Fatima, who would weep eternally over her martyred sons Hasan and Hussein. The
Pope would operate out of the Holy City of Rome as a focus for world christians,
and the Grand Imam would operate out of the Holy City of Kerbala. Everything
that is now happening should also be seen as structurally making moves towards
the fulfilment of this Policy.
The ‘peaceful means’ towards this reconciliation is the applied doctrine of
Inter-Faith Dialogue.
Henry VIII, England’s greatest King, understood what Luther did not. He saw that
Papal power was not based on the Sacramental doctrine alone, but was based on
the political power of the Pope. The steady destruction of the political power
meant that the doctrines in turn would collapse. Now the key doctrine standing
between the Roman Catholic Church in its historicity, and the Bankers’ Sect,
which has been in evolutionary growth and power since 1789, is the doctrine
against usury.
Our respected brother, Umar Ibrahim Vadillo, has sent me the following relevant
documentation. Umar Pasha has informed me that on November 1, 1745, a Papal Bull
by Pope Benedict XIV, VIX PERVENIT, was issued ‘On Usury And Other Dishonest
Profits’. It is a categoric rejection of usury. The crucial paragraphs of this
official pronouncement are excerpted from it.
“3. I. The nature of the sin called usury
has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract
between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to
another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that
sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends
some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which
exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.
II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not
great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned
by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money
borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s
own fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions.
The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is
given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands
more than that violates the terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives
interest, he must make restitution according to the communicative bond of
justice; its function in human contracts is to assure equality for each one.
This law is to be observed in a holy manner. if not observed exactly,
reparation must be made.
IV. There are many different contracts of this kind. In these contracts, if
equality is not maintained, whatever is received over and above what is fair
is a real injustice. Even though it may not fall under the precise rubric of
usury (since all reciprocity, both open and hidden, is absent), restitution
is obligated. ...
4. ... we approve and confirm whatever is contained in the opinions above,
since the professors of Canon Law and Theology, scriptural evidence, the
decrees of previous Popes, and the authority of Church councils and the
Fathers all seem to enjoin it. ...
10. ...we exhort you not to listen to those who say that today the issue of
usury is present in name only, since gain is almost always obtained from
money given to another. How false is this opinion and how far removed from
the truth! ...
... Thus, it is clearly invalid to suggest, on the grounds that some gain is
usually received from money lent out, that the issue of usury is irrelevant
in our times.”
With this text, Umar Pasha wrote the
following:
The answer to your question
Which Pope legalised usury? And when?
It was Pius VIII in 1830 when the Holy Office, with his approval,
allowed the justifiable taking of interest. Not only is the taking of
interest now allowed, but the 1917 Code of Canon Law even said that
religious Orders were to keep their assets on deposit in interest-bearing
accounts. (Canon 1523, 4° says administrators of Church property must use
for the benefit of the Church, money which can be invested profitably. Cf.
T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S. J. and Adam C. Ellis, S. J., ‘Canon Law: A Text and
Commentary’, 2nd edition, Milwaukee: the Bruce Publishing Co., 1951, 826.
Many actually misinterpret this Canon according to this commentary: “To
invest money means to exchange it for non-consumable goods, such as real
estate, stocks, bonds, etc. Money deposited in a bank at call is not
considered as invested.” Ibid., 251.) In addition, the new Catechism of the
Catholic Church makes no mention of usury.
The actual date of Pius VIII’s doctrinal decree is 18 August 1830. This is
the turning point. After that there are a whole series of decrees in the
same line: 31 August 1831, 17 January 1838, 26 March 1840, and 28 February
1871; and that of the Sacred Penitentiary of 11 February 1832. (These
replies will be found collected in ‘Collectio Lacensis’ (Acta et decreta s.
conciliorum recentiorum), VI, col. 677, Appendix to the Council of
Pondicherry; and in the ‘Enchiridion’ of Father Bucceroni).
Umar Ibrahim Vadillo
From this it can be seen that from Benedict
XIV to Benedict XVI there has been a complete surrender of the historical
Catholic position on usury. Benedict XVI has inherited a post-Aldo Moro
position, that is, abject obedience to and alignment with the strictures,
doctrines and punishments commanded by the Bankers’ Sect. At the very point at
which he donned the Papal cap, the USA, under the control of that Bankers’ Sect,
entered into an unprecedented phase of global imperialism. In the process of
this, its leader brutally called its activities a Crusade. Further, its
President said, “If you are not with us you are against us.” This Crusade was
triggered by the destruction of two skyscrapers in downtown New York, in the
same way that World War I was ‘triggered’ by the assassination of the Archduke
Franz-Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo. As in both cases, the official
causality masks the historical causality, which is the working-out of the
power-process of a capitalism whose energy is not yet exhausted.
The in-back reality of these events became, with emerging clarity, the factor of
Islam’s utterly uncompromising doctrine of the abolition of usury, “Even to a
blade of grass,” a doctrine which by its application would imply the end of the
world banking system, its institutions and instruments of exchange. It became a
matter of great urgency that Islam should be vilified and presented as evil. At
the same time, given that one in five people in the world are Muslims, or
probably one in four due to lack of Asian data, it was too big a statistic to be
written off as the evil enemy, there had to be a ‘Re-Formation’ of Islam in the
same terms that had emasculated christianity by first making it politically
powerless, and then making it accept usury.
Pope Benedict XVI was discreetly warned that he had to adhere to the atheist’s
doctrine of the Bankers’ Crusade, “If you are not with us you are against us.”
It was clear that a Nazi Pope was in a very vulnerable position and could easily
be damaged or even de-throned. So it was that with significant cunning, and a
distasteful dishonesty, Pope Benedict XVI went to Regensburg, as if there he
could make Confession and receive Rabbinical forgiveness. What did he say? And
what was his purpose?
There are two important statements. One is the now notorious comment quoting the
medieval Emperor. Firstly, I would like to deal with his other comment. He said,
“The Emperor must have known that Sura 2:256 reads: ‘There is no compulsion in
religion.’ According to the experts this is one of the Suras of the early
period, when (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was still powerless and
under threat.” There he discourteously mentions the name of the Messenger
without title or respect.
It must be noted that his idea of ‘expertise’, as revealed by the rest of his
speech, is the doctored information of orientalists, a group of pseudo-scholars
which over the last half-century we have learned completely to disregard. Allah
the Exalted in the Qur’an (2:256) says:
There is no compulsion where the Deen is concerned.
The correct position of our Fuqaha in relation
to this Ayat, which is of great importance, we take from the great European
jurist of Granada, Qadi Abu Bakr ibn-Arabi. He says in his Ahkam that this Ayat
is abrogated by the Ayat as-Sayf. Allah the Exalted in the Qur’an (47:4) says:
Therefore when you meet those who are kafir
strike their necks.
Then when you have decimated them,
tie their bonds tightly
and set them free or ransom them,
until the war is finally over.
Qadi Abu Bakr goes on to say that there is a
second view which is that this Ayat is valid in the domain of an Islamic Amir in
relation to those non-Muslims who pay the Jizya, and thus are under the
protection of the Islamic Dawlet. It follows from this, to us unarguable,
judgment that the legal decision in what lies outside the Islamic Dawlet is
Jihad in the Way of Allah. I must emphasise that Jihad has its own rules, and
since, by definition, it is ‘Jihad fisabilillah’, it means that the function of
it is to bring a domain into the power of Islam, or to protect the frontier of
Islam. It is not the same as territorial liberation, although unjust occupation
permits of military resistance.
Now, the second statement of Pope Benedict XVI is this offensive quotation of a
christian Emperor. It is at this point that Vatican duplicity is revealed. They,
and the Pope, have said that this was not the Pope’s opinion but that he was
quoting from the medieval Emperor. In the Haram of Madinah, a man in the
presence of Imam Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, Imam of Dar al-Hijra,
said that so-and-so had said that such-and-such a person had been drunk. Malik
immediately ordered that the man be taken out and given Hadd punishment for
slander. The man protested that it was not he who said it, but so-and-so. Imam
Malik replied, “I heard it from you!” Therefore, in my opinion, Pope Benedict
XVI is guilty of insulting the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant
him peace.
In conclusion it must be asked what his agenda was in taking this risky path. In
the short time since the crime was committed the Pope has made it very clear
what the programme is. What in his speech he called “genuine dialogue between
cultures and religion” will be conducted in terms set by the Vatican. It is
significant that the terms ‘culture’ and ‘religion’ have been put together,
since this is the Shi‘a framework for dealing with such matters. Islam, of
course, is not a culture, but serves as a filter for culture. As for dialogue
with other religions, we have simply no Divine authority to do so. What Allah
has given us permission to do is to call the kuffar into Islam. Allah the
Exalted says in the Qur’an (2:120):
The jews and the christians will never be pleased with you
until you follow their religion.
Say, ‘Allah’s guidance is the true guidance.’
If you were to follow their whims and desires,
after the knowledge that has come to you,
you would find no protector or helper against Allah.
An apology by the Pope now must be considered
a frivolous irrelevance.
The Pope has already stated that he wants to meet with Muslim leaders. Such a
meeting, in the light of this event, should not be allowed to take place. It
must be emphasised, that to us the ‘expert’ is not an ‘Alim but a Faqih, a
lawyer not a scholar. Further, that those qualified to speak on Islam could only
be acceptable as spokesmen of the Deen if they confirmed that Jihad is a Fard
until the Last Day: that Dhimmi status and Jizya are the obligatory protection
of non-Muslims: and that Zakat is obligatory as a collected, not given, Sadaqa,
and that its primary legal instrument is the Islamic Gold Dinar and Silver
Dirham. The Deen of Islam is separate, by their own definition and name, from
the Shi‘a religion. Such men, such viable spokesmen for Islam, by that same
definition cannot hold discourse with the christian Church, but at the same time
have the spiritual obligation to call the kuffar into Islam.
Allah the Exalted clarified this whole matter at the beginning of Sura Luqman
(31:1-9):
In the name of Allah, All-Merciful, Most Merciful
Alif Lam Mim
Those are the Signs of the Wise Book –
guidance and mercy for the good-doers:
those who establish salat and pay zakat
and are certain of the akhira.
Such people are following guidance from their Lord.
They are the ones who are successful.
But there are some people who trade in distracting tales
to misguide people from Allah’s Way
knowing nothing about it
and to make a mockery of it.
Such people will have a humiliating punishment.
When Our Signs are recited to such a person,
he turns away arrogantly as if he had not heard,
as if there was a great weight in his ears.
So give him news of a painful punishment.
For those who have iman and do right actions
there are Gardens of Delight,
to remain in them timelessly, for ever.
Allah’s promise is true.
He is the Almighty, the All-Wise.
|
