Allah the Exalted has said in His Discriminating Book, in Saba’,
(34: 3, 7-8, 31-35)
Those who are kafir say, ‘The Hour will never come.’
Say: ‘Yes, by my Lord, it certainly will come!’
He is the Knower of the Unseen, Whom not even
the weight of the smallest particle eludes,
either in the heavens or in the earth;
nor is there anything smaller or larger than that
which is not in a Clear Book.
Those who are kafir say,
‘Shall we show you to a man who will tell you
that when you have completely disintegrated,
you will then be recreated all anew?
Has he invented a lie against Allah or is he possessed?’
No indeed! Those who do not believe in the akhira
are in punishment and deeply misguided.
Those who are kafir say,
‘We will never have iman in this Qur’an,
nor in what came before it.’
If only you could see when the wrongdoers,
standing in the presence of their Lord,
cast accusations back and forth at one another!
Those deemed weak will say to those deemed great,
‘Were it not for you, we would have been muminun!’
Those deemed great will say to those deemed weak,
‘Did we debar you from the guidance when it came to you?
No, it is you who were evildoers.’
Those deemed weak will say to those deemed great,
‘No, it was your scheming night and day
when you commanded us to reject Allah
and assign equals to Him.’
But they will show their remorse when they see the punishment.
We will put iron collars
round the necks of those who are kafir.
Will they be repaid for anything but what they did?
We never sent a warner into any city
without the affluent people in it saying,
‘We reject what you have been sent with.’
They also said, ‘We have more wealth and children.
We are not going to be punished.’
Our Muslim World Community must urgently recognise the situation in which it finds itself today. The unified zone of high technology now governs the world, uniquely, we must add, by default of a Muslim awakening. Standing in the way of our capacity to transform the situation lies not the system of technique, which stands to us like a weather front or a dominant climatic period, but rather that our own political terrain is still inhabited by the dinosauric species of Arab Reformist and Modernist. The kafir propagation of terrorism as the last desperate means to stave off the Islamic awakening, has produced an ironic result. It is now clear from the media pronouncements that the Qardawis, Ramadans and such anti-intellectual groupings are preferred as being recognised as the most likely to come over to the great atheist doctrine of Tolérance. This is already proving the case in the frivolous issue of women’s head-dresses in France – a head-gear, it should be added, that you will not see in any historical graphics from before the 1950s. It is part of our current situation that kafir media always gets seriously wrong what in fact Islam is, and the media pundits of CNN, BBC World, etc., continue to amuse us with their incapacity to synchronise their ill-trained minds with the great matter of our Deen.
The crisis that the kafir society is facing is not, however, their inability to understand Islam, but rather that neither the world’s masses nor their intellectual spokesmen have understood the nature and modalities of the Axis of Evil which is now dominating and destroying life on this planet – democracy and the financial system. We will show that these two polarities are in fact the interactive dynamic of the present atheist culture. Before we examine the true nature of this axiomatic unity we should remind ourselves that we are living in a mono-culture which simply allows of no other view than that of a slavish submission to the doctrine of democratic government as the unique method of ruling people. As Umar Ibrahim Vadillo has explained at length in ‘The Esoteric Deviation in Islam’, the present system of world finance categorically removes from the individual and the group any freedom to choose their own currency. Whole nations are isolated and blocked off from world trade and culture by having been saddled with a non-negotiable currency that simply does not appear on stock exchanges and cannot be bought and sold in banks, e.g. Morocco, Nigeria, etc.. One kafir magazine defined the crisis in Iraq as not between Sunni and Shi‘a but rather a battle between democracy and autocracy.
A few years ago the great 20th century French writer André Malraux was buried at the Pantheon in Paris with a State Funeral and a Presidential Address. Almost all of Malraux’s writing, which gave him world fame, was written while he adhered to the communist cause. He fought first in Spain, and then with the Resistance in World War II. After the War he gave his support to General de Gaulle, so the former communist became Minister of Culture in the Gaullist Cabinet. Many of Malraux’s friends were offended by the State taking into themselves the historical identity of this famous writer. One of his companions caused an uproar when he made the following pronouncement: “It must never be thought that Malraux believed that democracy was to be the final result of evolution!” In a sense, this was the first overt declaration that democracy had become an absolute.
We will now observe how one word, by a series of re-definitions and re-structuring of its meaning, will actually end up as its complete opposite. Let us begin with the Oxford English Dictionary.
DEMOS: The people or commons of an ancient Greek state; hence, the populace.
DEMOCRACY: Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people, and is exercised either directly by them or by officers elected by them. In modern use often denoting a social state in which all have equal rights. 1576. b. A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole. 1574. 2. That class of the people which has no hereditary or special rank or privilege; the common people. 1827. 3. U.S. politics. The principles, or the members, of the Democratic Party. 1825.
Let us look into the Ultra Deep Field of this Greek phenomenon. Right at the beginning, the phenomenon of democracy emerges with a dual identity, that is, its practice within limited social structures, and the philosophical examination of its flaws, limits and possibilities. The character of Greek democracy is known and yet quietly ignored. It had a limited frame – the city state and its male members, while excluding women and slaves. That society, in turn, was hierarchical, with an aristocracy and an elite military leadership. Another known aspect of democracy, even in this primal stage, is that, once created, it sees its immediate task as that of driving the Demos at the earliest possible date to war on the frontier.
Greek democracy emerged out of aristocratic rule in what was a kind of revolutionary war, and so it emerged through the act of war. Praising the victory of the Athenian democrats, Herodotos declared: “It shows how splendid a thing is political equality. The Athenians under the tyrants were no better soldiers than their neighbours, but once they were rid of them they were far the best of all. […] Once they were free, every man was zealous, in his own interest.” It was then Kleisthenes who divided the citizens into Demos or districts, 168 of them, divided into 30 groups. There was a People’s Council of 500, with a short bi-monthly President. The height of Athenian success lasted around 50 years. Not insignificantly, it was the period which gave birth to the art of history. Herodotos gave the meaning of the Greek word for research, ‘historia’, its subsequent meaning. He was appropriately named the Father of Lies. It is inescapable that the real character of Greek democracy was simply the mechanism to create the Peloponnesian War.
There are two profound critiques of the democratic system to be found inside their society. Firstly, came the dramatists. Aeschylus considered that the state was fundamentally flawed due to the helpless enactment of the family crisis. Or it could be viewed another way, that if it were not for this inner tension there would be no need for the imposition of the structural state. He depicted the human situation as bonded by patricide, matricide, fratricide and sororicide. It is the expiation of Orestes’ crime which leads to the mythic foundation by Athena of the city state itself. Sophocles saw the acting-out of events as being utterly determined and fated, as in the myth of Oedipus. In the last phase of drama, Euripides is only able passively to lament disastrous war as the bitter fruit of democracy.
Secondly, the arrival of philosophy in its highest form emerges precisely because of the failure of the democratic process. Plato’s ‘Republic’, and particularly his ‘Laws’, are a profound attempt to save people from the war-like destiny of active democracy. The practice has failed. Philosophy, if it is to be truly understood, is neither abstract thinking on the nature of things, nor a contemplation of Being. Philosophy moves between the utopian visions of a just society, as in Plato and Aristotle, and a dystopian vision in its modern phase as with Nietzsche and Huxley, who define a society that must be destroyed. Heidegger, who has been called the Last Philosopher, called for a ‘Clearing’ (Lichtung) that would permit man’s encounter again with his true reality as a spiritual being. Plato saw that the functioning of a lawful society could not be predicated without a Divine controlling power. In his famous sentence he insisted: “The measure of all things is God.”
Plato, especially in The Republic, identified an active historical process in governance, rather as a doctor diagnoses the stages of a disease in which each stage changes the state of the host body. In his model, autocracy, or tyranny, and that latter term was not pejorative as today but rather meant ‘single rule’, gave way to democracy, which in turn could only be a temporary phase giving way to oligarchy, since democratic wars enrich only a minority. This in turn would force its collapse and the time would produce a new autocrat. This process, in almost comic, speeded-up form, as befits modern life, could be recognised in action as follows: Stalin the autocrat, Gorbachev and democracy, the rise of the jewish oligarchs under Yeltsin, and the re-imposition of autocracy under Putin.
In the Deep Field of 18th century European politics, there emerged certain founding principles that are still in operation. Events follow a quite remarkable obedience to the initial historical model. State structure moved in turbulent phases with Louis XIV as absolute monarch (“L’état c’est moi!”) to an uprising of the aristocracy which tried to seize the wealth of the state in La Fronde. It was the failure of the elite oligarchy to gain control which led inevitably to what followed. Thus, Louis XV declared: “Aprés-moi, le déluge.” So-called revolution initiates its force with the intended abolition of a monarch, or personal ruler. It would be a mistake to think that regicide leads to the People’s freedom. This is part of the rhetoric of the current society. What opposes Personal Rule is Systems Rule. As the great English political genius Hilaire Belloc has irrefutably demonstrated, personal rule is the sole defender of the common people, while systems rule has as its necessary condition the enslavement and control of the masses. We refer to his masterwork ‘The Servile State’ (now available from an otherwise dubious right-wing publisher in the USA) and his political biographies of Charles II and James II. Revolution, as Carlyle perceived, was a necessary and unavoidable chaos, a washing of the State structure in cleansing blood that in turn makes way for the next social order. As Malaparte explained, “Trotsky was the Revolution, Lenin was the State.” (see ‘Technique of the Coup de Banque’ by Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Madinah Press). Both in France and Russia, an inescapable part of the impulse to People’s Rule and the creation of a new Republic was the event of terror. Terror represents the necessary condition of the imposition of democracy on a volatile, disrupted society. This, of course, is what we are witnessing today. Whether they know it or not, the terrorists are the abject servants of the imposition of that disastrous enslaving form of government called democracy.
In this period France saw its new parliament dividing into two Parties, La Montagne and the Gironde. It should be remembered that the technique of terror was also used to force the new democracy to the required policies. At one point the National Prosecutor put a Guillotine into the Assembly to remind the debaters what the outcome of their debate had to be.
Across the Channel the English had gone the same way, but in their hypocritical manner. The regicide was over, and a Restoration followed, but the aristocracy would not rest until they had removed all power from the king. What followed was a successful version of the failed movement of La Fronde in France. Ejecting the legal James II, since he still retained powers of personal rule, they brought in a puppet monarchy called Constitutional Monarchy, utterly helpless and dependent on the parliament, which did not represent the people but the aristocracy. The oligarchic parliament then impudently named this abolition of monarchic rule, the Glorious Revolution. Within our terms they were quite correct, if not in the adjective.
The second phase of the political evolution of modern governance came with the advent of Napoleon. Properly speaking, Napoleon and the Napoleonic State represent the still functioning model of modern democracy. The genius of the Napoleonic modus operandi was that it held in dynamic tension heretofore separate elements: personal rule, active oligarchy, and democratic franchise. What it meant was, for it clearly could not be sustained, that Napoleon had to retreat into monarchism. Napoleon had said that the only means to control the Money Power of the State was through monarchy. All too soon, this unfinished business would emerge again under De Gaulle. One should not fail to note that the American model of democracy itself arose from revolution and a denial of monarchy. It was invented by small states with an educated elite utterly dependent on a slave population. It asserted its existence by the energetic annihilation of almost the entire indigenous population. So it was that it also introduced into the democratic framework the pragmatic and ruthless necessity of creating Reservations for any community which challenged its culture.
1914 to 1945, which De Gaulle defined as Europe’s Second Thirty Years War, may be seen as a watershed in the doctrine and practice of democracy. This long war came in two waves. The political reality of these two phases represents two enormous military invasions of Europe by the forces of the emerging power structure of the USA. The first American invasion, because disastrously incomplete, led inevitably to the second phase when the American hegemony was able at last to spread over Europe. In the first phase the American imposition on Europe was political, and in the second it was financial. The shape of world things to come was laid down in the dreadful Versailles Treaty of 1919. The complete version of the new ideology was laid for all to see in the foundation of syncretic political states which at the human level simply could not work. That is, the invention of Yugoslavia, fatally joining in bonded enmity a Catholic state, a Serbian Orthodox state and a Bosnian Muslim state. Never forget for a moment that the only successful functioning modern state had been the Osmanli Dawlet, whose successful existence was dependent on the protective tax of Jizya and on the non-nationalist policy of a personal rule by a Khalif whose ministers were drawn from a wide variety of peoples, Arabs, Albanians, Turks, Kurds, and all held together by the supremacy of the Deen of Islam. The unique, successful multicultural state. Islamic.
The second US-invasion of Europe, which began in 1941, was even more far-reaching. This lets us say that the first phase saw the abolition of monarchic rule across the whole of Europe, with only the English puppet monarchy remaining of any importance, and to indicate the path to the American future, the imposed structures of Yugoslavia and Czecho-Slovakia, two structures that flew apart at the first opportunity. Following 1945 there was no political treaty, needed or intended. The historical treaty which drew a line across the historical record, was a financial one. The Bretton Woods agreement was, on the face of it, giving a well-deserved victor’s power to the US-dollar. In reality what it meant was that power had passed from the political democratic institutions to a completely new set of institutions which were out of the reach of the political franchise. New institutions were created. The political institution was the UNO, deemed so irrelevant by the US government that they scarcely bothered even to pay their annual dues. It was time to create important financial institutions. Alongside the Federal Bank, which even Americans think is their state bank while it is private banking to which the state owes money, came new world institutions of banking, the World Bank and the IMF. From then on what had once been state power sustained by sophisticated diplomatic method, classically defined by Harold Nicholson in such works as ‘The Congress of Vienna’, ‘Peacemaking 1919’, and ‘The Evolution of Diplomatic Method’, was reduced to nothing more than a domestic budget authority. The business of government became education, health and employment.
So it is that our Muslim World Community has lived through a profound structural dislocation of our current society’s political structures without ever grasping the reality of what is happening. This is why the dismal so-called Islamic Modernists have been left in a huddled group, as it were, trapped in a Cairo café in 1945. Let us therefore glance for a moment at the helpless state of the world’s masses as they stare bewildered into an increasingly perilous future.
To Ernst Jünger, the masses all stood represented by an archetypal figure he called ‘Der Arbeiter’, the Worker. This was far from the Marxist concept of the worker. What Jünger had perceived, and Heidegger confirmed, was that modern man, far from having technology as a set of tools, as the post-Abduh modernists foolishly proclaim, was in fact under the control of technology. As Jünger said, “One does not simply transform into the subject of the technical processes, one becomes at the same time their object. Technik is never only a neutral power.” He also said, “The celebrated distinction between city and country now only exists in the romantic sphere.” What Jünger perceived was that the evolution of Technik was not limitless, and would only continue while the Arbeiter continued his submission to it. He saw, therefore, that Technik, as he said, “contained in itself the roots and germs of its ultimate potentialisation. […] Technik thus forces, beyond its economic support and beyond free submission, the trusts and monopolies of the state in order to prepare for an imperial unity.” Thus in 1932 he was able to write the following: “It has thus become possible to create wars which nobody understands because the more powerful is pleased to define them as pacific penetration or else as police action against gangs of thugs – such wars will certainly take place in reality, not just in theory.” In the space left to us he posits for us that, “The ideal is not an open supremacy but a masked supremacy, as correlatively they have created a masked slavery.”
Jünger says: “There is no space, no life which can resist this phenomenon which has carried for a long time the seal of a great barbaric invasion under its multiple forms: colonisation, the peopling of continents, exploration of deserts and virgin forests, extermination of autochthonous populations, the obliteration of existing laws and religions, open and secret destruction of social or national groups, revolutionary action and war-like action. What does it matter who triumphs and who disappears, disappearance and triumph announce the Domination of the Worker. The conflicts are pluri-vocal but the questioning is uni-vocal. […] World War has allowed no other form of the state to survive than that of national democracy, more or less masked.” As he sees it, we have reached the stage where national democracies “appear as the unique and universal form for the organisation of people.”
There is no doubt that modern man lies utterly within the Jüngerian and Heideggerian vision. This in turn unveils the present situation in which, at the same time that democracy has become an absolute political obligation, the world’s masses, the Arbeiters, have through media indoctrination been reduced to a complete political illiteracy, as it were. Millions vote on a referendum to choose a pop idol, while the political elections that place democratic government in power rely today on a franchise of and below 50 per cent. In Brazil the President with the best Samba is chosen by the masses. In turn the people who present themselves for election are now universally despised as corrupt and without principle.
The institution has fallen into the reductio ad absurdum of Haiti-dictator overthrown to establish democratically elected president-president overthrown to restore original dictatorial army-US army intervenes to set up democracy. Algeria-the masses elect a majority Islamic government-the military intervene, slaughtering whole villages of men, women and children-democratic France supports the process-the movement broken and its leaders tortured or dead, democracy offered to the people. Venezuela-democratically elected president-pursues oil policies against US interests-masses driven into the streets calling for a referendum-US calls for president to step down to allow restoration of democracy. The USA itself-black soldiers’ democratic votes not admitted-voting procedures unfair and unverifiable-the issue of presidency decided by Supreme Court members appointed by the father of the future president. In the media the false dialectic is offered, democracy versus totalitarianism. To all thinking people, democracy is a totalitarianism.
So it is that as we observe the complete collapse of this now obligatory political system, we are forced to ask-“Why is it so necessary?” Following the intervention of US forces in Bosnia, necessitated by the Muslim victories over the Serbs, the political leaders, in the absence of the victorious military commanders, were taken to a military camp in the USA and forced to sign the Dayton Agreement. The first clauses of the treaty deny the Muslims the right to govern under Islamic Law and at the same time force them to impose value-added tax on goods and accept an immediate loan from the World Bank, and obedience to its protocols. Only General de Gaulle among European leaders, through his own political genius and his understanding of French history, was able to see that the political imperative of independence from the US was not military but financial. All your history books will now tell you that De Gaulle lost power because of a revolution of the young, suddenly impatient with the old. The 1968 uprisings were orchestrated for one reason only: De Gaulle began to sell off all France’s dollars and to buy gold. In one move he nearly succeeded in destroying the dollar’s world hegemony. He had to be removed. In his place came Rothschild’s nephew, Pompidou, who restored banking dominance over the French state.
This overview permits us to say that whoever controls the wealth is the governing entity. Belloc divided wealth into three terms-land: capital: labour. In Jünger’s model, all of us, because subservient to Technik, represent the enslaved Arbeiter. Capital, a now mystical wealth control system, not even any longer dependent on specie of any kind, metal or paper, is nothing other than the electronic impulses that are signalled from one computer to another across the world.
The last remaining dimension of wealth that has still to be snatched from that small world community that works in agriculture, is land itself. Once the capital system has taken control of the land totally, the subjugation of mass man will be complete. From the beginning of the EU, De Gaulle saw the need to preserve the historic role of the farmer, and to this end he introduced farm subsidies. This system has bought time, but is in itself an arbitrary measure, and cannot be sustained. At present we are witnessing, apart from these subsidies, an ongoing daily war against the farmers. The method is brutal and successful. In South Africa, the Afrikaners owned large tracts of farming land, and thus were very wealthy. Across the country, quite suddenly, Land Banks and similar institutions offered enormous loans to the farmers. Once they were embedded in debt, the banking mechanism started up. It called in its debt. The debt could not be paid. Bank-ruptcy followed. The bank acquired the land. “Now I know,” said one bitter farmer, “why it is called the Land Bank.”
The most important method of land seizure today in the world is very clever. It does not entail taking the land, but rather reducing the farmer to a paying servant of agricultural corporations. Where the bank gave money, the corporations, like Monsanto, sell genetically modified crops to the farmer. From then on they are built into the financial process of farming and become the necessary dominating factor, both providing the seed and the outlet to the marketed product. Thus genetically modified crops do not present an ecological issue. They are deliberately presented as such to mask from the public the real truth. Genetically modified crops are an economic issue whose end result is the total abolition of traditional farming and the transfer of all land to the capitalist elite. Allah the Almighty says in Surat Saba’ (34: 15-17):
There was also a sign for Saba in their dwelling place:
two gardens – one to the right and one to the left.
‘Eat of your Lord’s provision
and give thanks to Him:
a bountiful land and a forgiving Lord.’
But they turned away so We unleashed against them
the flood from the great dam
and exchanged their two gardens for two others
containing bitter-tasting plants
and tamarisk and a few lote trees.
That is how We repaid them for their ingratitude.
Are any but the ungrateful repaid like this?
All this allows us to examine with a new understanding the tragic situation of Iraq. The configuration of a Sunni-Shi‘a civil war is a spectacle that can only be authored by the occupying force. Let us look at the reality of Iraq, once an Osmanli province divided into three regions for logical governmental reasons, and when oil was found in Mosul Sultan Abdulhamid II Khan had it declared a Waqf for all the Muslims. When Saddam took power, one of his first acts as a secularist was to execute all the leading Sunni ‘ulema and thus wipe out the Muslim elite intellectuals and academics. Following the European ideology of the Baath Party he then made it clear he could only work with atheists and christians. During his long reign of terror, bit by bit Islam vanished not only from the legislation, but from the ethos of the people. The Shi‘a in the south were simply crushed and oppressed. It follows that the educated technical elite and middle class are an entirely godless community who have never known the social experience of Islam, and for the young people that means their whole lives. The Iranian Revolution then obliged the dictator to turn his fury on the unfortunate Shi‘a population.
The current gauleiter of Iraq and his puppet Iraqi government want to impose democracy. It is quite clear they will have to call upon precisely that same atheist and christian community that were the backbone of the Iraqi Baathist state. There is no visible Sunni reality either in the streets or in the leadership of the country. The Kurds in the north, but for a small section, have taken Kurdism as their religion. It follows that democratic Iraq will be an atheist and Americanised country with exactly the same people who flourished under the deposed dictator whose defunct state still owes tens of millions of dollars which were borrowed to acquire the very weapons which the West now claim outraged them. There is no manifestation of Islam, in our Sunni understanding. It has no voice. It has no presence. It has no manifestation.
The barbaric slaughter of the Shi‘a serves only as an instrument to intimidate them into the acceptance of the democratic contract. When they accept it, they, in turn, will face the same dilemma as the rulers of Iran. The democratic system is simply a census organisation to force the people into banking debt and to move towards the dismantling of Islamic practice, since it merely spoils the secular world party of alcoholism, limitless fornication and a culture of Carnival. Isma‘ilism will conquer the devout Shi‘a with the same enthusiasm that it unifies them with the already bewildered Sunni who no longer know what on earth the Deen of Islam represents while, poor things, they know it certainly does not involve middle-aged men compulsively driving youths to blow themselves up.
Allah says in Surat al-Hajj (22:45-46):
How many wrongdoing cities We destroyed,
and now all their roofs and walls are fallen in;
how many abandoned wells and stuccoed palaces!
Have they not travelled about the earth
and do they not have hearts to understand with
or ears to hear with?
It is not their eyes which are blind
but the hearts in their breasts which are blind.