"In respect of the
so-called "extreme Right", this means we want them to revert to Deen
Al-Islam - to reject the Taghut of "race and nation" - to thus discover
their true nature, their fitrah, as Muslims who bow down to only Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and who are thus prepared to undertake Jihad
as
Muslims."
The far right's reaction to the September 11 attack seems to have
been
mixed. Many in the movement expressed feelings of vindication insofar
as many of the issues about which they feel strongly (e.g., immigration
and American foreign policy in the Middle East), featured prominently
in the attack. Others were less sanguine about the current state of
affairs and feared that the government's war on terror could spillover
into a witch hunt against domestic extremists as well. What are your
thoughts on this issue? Ultimately do you think that 9/11 and its
consequences will hinder or improve conditions for the far right in the
future?
A:
Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem
The attacks have certainly been used, by ZOG, to increase their
tyranny, as witness the surveillance, the new laws, the many arrests
and detentions. They have also been used to appeal to a vacuous
"patriotism" based upon the abstract, non-folkish, concept of "The
State".
In the long-term, this can be to advantage of folkish groups, since
such things reveal the real nature and intent of those who wield power,
as it reveals the insolent, dishonourable, nature of such governments.
In the short-term, it will probably lead to some government suppression
of folkish dissent, but given good leadership, and the correct
understanding of such things as honour, this will not be much of a
problem.
Although white racial nationalism and militant Islam are two seemingly
disparate movements, the two seem to share a very similar critique on
issues such as American foreign policy, the American media, Zionism,
and globalization (i.e., NWO). Thus under certain conditions, there
could conceivably be potential for greater collaboration between the
movements. What do you think are the prospects for a potential alliance
between Islam and the far right? Would you recommend against such an
alliance?
A: There is a potential for collaboration, but only if "the movement"
understands and acts upon their own Aryan values, their own ethics. The
main problem with this nationalist/folkish/NS "movement" at the moment
is that it is shallow, concentrating on outer issues: it lacks a real
knowledge and understanding of what being Aryan means and implies and
what true Aryan culture is. As a result a lot of the attitudes and
views of people in "the movement" are wrong, dishonourable, un-Aryan.
These people must know, understand, and act upon their Aryan ethics,
which are based upon personal honour. In addition, they must understand
that their aim should be to create an Aryan society, governed according
to their own Aryan laws, and that this new society can and should
co-operate with other societies, other cultures, other races, on the
basis of reason and honour. Their honourable aim should be an
independent, Aryan, ethnic, society, found upon honour, reason and duty
to folk and culture.
Honour demands that we treat people - irrespective of their race, their
religion, their beliefs, with respect. I quote what I wrote a while
back - before my conversion to Islam - to an imprisoned Comrade:
"As I have endeavoured to explain several times, how we as
National-Socialists and Aryans relate to people of other races and
other religions is determined by our own National-Socialist, Aryan
ethics. Our ethics are based upon personal honour, and honour demands
of us that we only ever judge a person on the basis of personal
knowledge of them: and moreover, with this personal knowledge of a
person extending over a period of time. If we have no personal
knowledge of a person, or have only met a person once or a few times
briefly, then we cannot in all honour make any judgement about them.
The race, the religion, and of course the political views of the person
are totally irrelevant. Honour demands that we treat people, regardless
of their race, their culture, their religion, their "political views"
with fairness and respect. That is, honour demands that we have manners
and are polite: that we strive to act with nobility of character; that
we judge people by their deeds and in particular by how they act toward
us... It really is about time that we who uphold the noble way of life
which is National-Socialism lived according to our own ethics and began
to explain, openly and in clear words, the noble reality of
National-Socialism. No matter how dire our situation may be, or appears
to be, and no matter how many non-Aryans may live in what were once our
own nations, we must hold fast to our own ethics and not allow
ourselves be tricked into accepting the Zionist version of "National
Socialism" with its hate-filled, irrational, Hollywood "nazis".
The reality is that we both have the same enemies: the materialistic
capitalist system, and the cabal who run the NWO. It is in both our
interests to fight and destroy the NWO. If there were a nationalist or
National-Socialist revolution in America this would be to the great
advantage of the Muslims. One goal of the NWO is to reduce everything
to material needs and material concerns, and this attempt to destroy
the numinous is hubris: the insolence of the tyrant. Both the authentic
Islam of the Jihadi movements, as exemplified by groups such as The
Base of Jihad, and genuine National-Socialism - as exemplified in my
own NS writings - are numinous alternatives to the insolent,
materialistic, dishonourable tyranny of the NWO.
We should be aiming to create a world where there is a nationalist or
National-Socialist - society in a country such as America, and where
there is a Khilafah in the Muslim world, with these two societies
co-operating together for their own mutual advantage. This would mean
the end of the messianic dream of the cabal for a so-called Greater
Israel.
To quote Sheikh Usama bin Laden (hafidhahullah):
"We tell the Americans as a people, and we tell the mothers
of soldiers
- and American mothers in general - if they value their lives and those
of their children, find a nationalistic government that will look after
their interests, and not the interests of the Jews." Usama bin Laden,
taken from an interview bin Laden gave on May 28 1998 CE
As Sheikh Usama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) has also stated, it is
permissible for Muslims to join forces with, to fight the New World
Order, those threatened by that New World Order, and the Sheikh gave
this example: "the fighting, which is being waged and which will be
waged in the days to come, is similar to the fighting of Muslims
against the Byzantine [Empire] in the past. And our convergence of
interests, now, is not detrimental. Then, the interests of the Muslims
fighting against the Byzantine [Empire] converged with the interests of
the Persians, and this was not detrimental to the companions of the
Prophet."
However we Muslims can only ally ourselves with those who have a good
opinion of us, and of Islam:
"If we truly love Allah, how can we love the enemies of
Allah? How can
we love people who deny the truth when it is presented before them, and
who argue and dispute barrenly against it? How can we love and be
deeply attached to a lifestyle that thrives on disobeying Allah? We
should treat people based on their position towards Islam. The kuffar,
including the Jews and Christians, can never become our intimate
friends, confidantes or close allies. This does not mean we isolate
ourselves from them and give up hope for them. What it means is that
our relationship with them should be fair, kind and equitable, and not
rude or arrogant, but we should always be thinking about how to bring
them to Islam. If, however, they display open hostility to Islam,, then
we should treat them as enemies. Those who seize our lands and oppress,
torture and kill our Muslim brothers and sisters cannot be our
friends." Sheikh Ahmad al-Ghumari
Yet we Muslims have a duty to present Islam to them: they are free to
accept, or decline. I have done this, and achieved Alhamdulillah some
little success - making some people in such folkish groups, or who hold
folkish beliefs, aware of the truth of Islam, its numinosity (one even
converted to Islam, Alhamdulillah). To do this, and the other things
necessary, I have sometimes had to use deception, for as the Hadith
says:
Narrated Ka'b ibn Malik: When the Prophet (salla Allahu
'alayhi wa
sallam) intended to go on an expedition, he always pretended to be
going somewhere else, and he would say: War is deception. (Abu Dawud,
14, 2629)
We Muslims are indeed at war, and if I have sometimes to deceive the
kuffar to achieve things for Islam, to aid my brothers and sisters, I
will, provided I do nothing that is dishonourable, or which Islam
forbids. Maybe I was - and am - wrong to do such things, as maybe
sometime soon they may not be necessary, but all I can do is trust in
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and strive, InshaAllah, to do what is
Islamic.
My general impression is that although the far right and militant Islam
on occasion share rhetoric, what admiration does exist tends to move in
one direction i.e., selected far right activists voice support for
militant Islam while the latter rarely voices support for the former.
Is this an accurate assessment?
A: Fairly accurate, because what is there to admire in most of the
so-called right-wing movement today? If it were composed of people who
upheld honour, who understood their own ethics, their own Aryan way of
life - for which see my The Complete Guide to the Aryan Way of Life
which I wrote before my conversion to Islam - and who thus uphold in
their public and private lives the principle of honour, loyalty and
duty, then there might be something, other than a few individuals, to
admire. I hoped my writings would change this state of affairs, which
is one reason I have tried to make to bring these two ways of life
together by supporting authentic Islam, by propagating genuine
National-Socialism, and writing about Aryan ethics.
That said there seems to some issues that would obviously divide the
two movements, specifically, immigration and religion. Both North
America and Western Europe are experiencing substantial immigration
from Muslim countries. Ultimately this could significantly alter both
the racial/ethnic and religious textures of these geographic regions.
Furthermore, some far right politicians, such as Jean Marie Le Pen,
have made political capital by exploiting xenophobia of Muslim
migrants. What are your thoughts on this development? Is Islam more a
threat or potential ally?
A: The people who make political capital out of such things and who
thus strike an anti-Muslim pose - such as the BNP and Le Pen - are in
my opinion acting contrary to honour and reason. They fail to
understand their own Aryan values, as they fail to comprehend the true
global situation, which is of an increasing world-tyranny, the New
World Order. In addition, the nationalism they propagate is out-dated,
anachronistic, and most damning of all, un-numinous.
In respect of their folk, what is required is an Aryan way of life, a
free Aryan homeland and thus the law of personal honour. This means a
Destiny created by a numinous perspective. The ethics of such
"nationalist" organizations are the ignoble, uncivilized, ethics of The
State, just as there is nothing numinous in the policies and goals of
such organizations: no rational, cosmic, perspective, no inspiring
numinosity, just mundane, political, promises about some sort of "
better materialistic life" and stories about so-called past national
glories, which, more often than not, were just dishonourable
imperialism for the sake of capitalism.
Such political groups, and the people who lead them, are of the past,
whereas Folk Culture and National-Socialism are or should be of their
future: an expression of what is needed to create civilized, human,
numinous societies where honour is the criteria for personal behaviour
and social conduct.
Seen in this way, Islam is their ally. They seek an Aryan homeland:
this does not mean they need the old nation-States. They need to begin
again, with a new way of life, a new society, an entirely new nation.
In brief, they must be the founders of a new nation. Once this
principle is accepted, the Movement will shed an enormous amount of
excessive and unnecessary baggage. In respect of America, for instance,
this would mean creating a homeland in one or more States, or even in a
part of one State.
There have been a lot of Internet conspiracy rumors in the wake of
9/11? One in particular that has gained currency in far right circles
is that the Israeli Mossad, and possibly the U.S. government, had
foreknowledge of the 9/11 attack. Do you have any reason to impugn the
official version of the events of 9/11? If so, would you please share
your thoughts?
A: I have considered such theories, and reviewed what evidence has been
put forward to support them, such as the way the Twin Towers collapsed
which may seem to some to indicate it was destroyed as a result of a
covert operation by the CIA. This is an interesting theory, but my view
is that the attacks were martyrdom operations by Muslims who wanted to
show that America, for all its military and economic power, is not
invincible. As Sheikh Usama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) said in a recent
statement: "We stress the importance of martyrdom operations against
the enemy - operations that have inflicted damage both on the United
States and on Israel: damage that has been unprecedented in their
history, all thanks to Almighty Allah."
As for the US government having forewarning of the attacks and just
letting it happen, they might do this as another Pearl Harbour, but it
is more likely that they did not know since they have very little
intelligence about The Base of Jihad operations, and certainly less
then than the little they might have now.
As I'm sure you know, the war on terror - especially if it includes a
war on Iraq - will amount to an enormous fiscal undertaking. Both
federal and state governments are experiencing severe budget crises.
Furthermore, substantial immigration continues into the West. Could you
presage a scenario in which the U.S. government could be militarily
winning the war overseas, yet lose control of its Mexican border and by
doing so, descend into a spiral of fiscal bankruptcy and civil unrest?
A: We can but hope! In truth, this is the real weakness of America, and
one which I am sure Sheikh Usama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) knows, which
is why he is using the tactics he is. America has been drawn into a
global conflict, and to keep this going, for many years - as it must -
will be an enormous drain on its resources. What is needed to tilt the
balance toward bringing the NWO to its knees is for there to be
increased social and political unrest in America. In this, The Movement
must play a part.
All modern Western societies are vulnerable, their infrastructure is
fragile. The Movement should target this infrastructure, in an
honourable way, which means avoiding civilian casualties in the covert,
revolutionary, war which is necessary. The reality of the present is
that National-Socialists seem to be doing very little in a practical
sense to undermine and destroy the NWO, while Muslims are actively
waging a war against it. If National-Socialists are committed, they
should be inciting and inspiring revolution in their own lands, and
doing practical things to undermine and destroy their ZOG.
How have the various segments of the far right responded to your
conversion to Islam and your overtures to Muslim activists?
A: Some have been critical; some have been skeptical, believing I did
not convert at all. Some - obviously failing to understand honour and
thus their own Aryan ethics - have condemned attempts to make alliances
with Muslims.
Some of the more prejudiced ones have even called me a "traitor" and
"mad". Here is an answer:
Abu Huraira narrated that the Messenger of Allah
(sallallahu alayhe wa
sallam) said: "Islam began as something strange, and it will revert to
its former position of being strange, so good tidings for the
strangers." (Recorded by Muslim, Attirmidthi, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad)
Do you think Islam could be a viable guiding faith/religion for the
West?
A: Most certainly, InshaAllah. The Way of Life which is Al-Islam is
certainly far, far superior to what exists in the West. Indeed, Islam
is the one thing that can make the West into a civilized society -
which can overcome the hubris, the arrogance, of the West, and its
rampant, dishonourable, materialism.
The West has lost the sense, the imminence, of the Divine and as result
its governments, and a lot of its peoples, are arrogant. They have set
themselves up to compete with God, with Allah. They have no real sense
of honour anymore, no real manners or dignity. Islam provides honour
and dignity and manners - Islam, correctly understood, is a guide to
how we can be honourable and how we can create an honourable, rational,
fair, society.
To become honourable, the West needs examples: in the Prophet Muhammad
(salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) we have the perfect example of the
honourable man - he was the archetypal human being, the archetypal
honourable and chivalrous man: fair, courteous, just, trustworthy,
brave, tolerant, honest, generous, modest and pious. Anyone who studies
his life in a reasoned and fair way is impressed - and one of the
things we Muslims could do InshaAllah to make significant converts in
the modern West is to provide trustworthy and readable accounts, in
English, of the life of the Prophet Muhammad, of his honourable
Companions and of those honourable warriors - such as Ali Ibn Abu Talib
and Salah al-Din - who fought for the cause of Islam.
There is astounding ignorance of Islam in the West, and a immense
amount of prejudice. I have found that Westerners are quite ignorant
and astoundingly arrogant - for the majority of them blindly assume
that the ways of the West, and they themselves, are somehow "superior",
and that Islam is "backward" or "uncivilized" whereas the contrary is
true.
You have written extensively on the spiritual aspects of National
Socialism and heathenism. On the surface, it would seem difficult to
reconcile these beliefs with Islam, in that the latter is monotheistic,
non-racialist, and absolutist. Would you please expound on how you
syncretize these seemingly disparate belief systems?
A: There is some common ground, since both ways - when correctly
understood - produce civilized, honourable individuals who use reason
as a guide. The differences are, first, the perspective of Islam is the
the next life, on Jannah, and there is therefore what I have called an
acausal ethic, and, second, that the individual is understood in
relation to such things as Taqwa, Imaan, for these define them. For
Islam, the folk - and the diversity and difference of human culture -
is basically irrelevant. For National-Socialism, this diversity and
difference should be treasured, and developed, in an honourable,
rational way.
In addition, National-Socialism concentrates on the connection to the
folk, and thus to Nature and the Cosmos, with Nature and the Cosmos
being understood as living beings. That is, individuals are regarded as
part of the folk, as Nature made manifest, and that our purpose is to
aid Nature, and thus the Cosmos, through our folk: to evolve ourselves,
our folk, our culture, and thus our human species. Hence, the
perspective of National-Socialism - and the basis for its ethics - is a
cosmic, and causal one, of individuals as a nexion, a connexion between
our human past and our human future. National-Socialism believes we can
and should evolve further: that this is our unique human Destiny, and
that this evolution depends on us, on our reason, strength, and so on.
In total contrast, the Muslim relies on Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and
Allah alone.
In National-Socialism (and Folk Culture, I should add) the individual
is defined by honour, loyalty and duty, just as a National-Socialist
society is.
Islam is submission to the Will of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, as
revealed in the Quran and Sunnah, and a Muslim is a person who has
given an oath of loyalty, bay'ah, to do what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala
has commanded - to obey Allah and the Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa
sallam), the Prophet of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Further, the Muslim
uses - or should use - only the Quran and Sunnah as their guides, the
basis of their judgment, about what is honourable and dishonourable -
that is, they refer what is honourable to Allah and His Messenger. In
National-Socialism, it is fair to say that it is individuals - or some
leader - who decide what is honourable, and this is, to me, a great
weakness, for I have come to understand that honour means we accept
that there is a God - a Creator, an Eternal Being far more powerful
than we mortals. There can be no real honour without this understanding
of God, for it is this understanding of God which gives us the cosmic
perspective we need to understand ourselves, as humans, and judge
ourselves - with such an understanding and judgement being the
beginning of morality. It is this understanding alone which prevents us
from being insolent - from upsetting the natural balance by
'overstepping the mark'. Furthermore, this understanding of God which
is the basis of honour is not a belief, a question of faith, but rather
a reasoned apprehension - the result of rational observation and
reasoned thought.
One of the glories of Islam is that it expresses this reasoned
apprehension of God - for Islam, God is not a question of faith, but
the conclusion of us thinking about ourselves, our world, and the
cosmos itself. Our very existence, our human nature, the complexity and
beauty of life on Earth, the wonders of the cosmos are all Signs - all
pointers to the conclusion that there is and must be a Supreme Being,
one God and only one God, who is Infinite, Eternal and whom Muslims
call Allah [literally, The One (and Only) God].
As for myself, I am a Muslim, Alhamdulillah, and I shall remain a
Muslim, InshaAllah.
I spent many months, last year, living alone in a tent in the high
hills of Cumbria thinking about Islam, National-Socialism, and Folk
Culture, and I admit to having had doubts - again. But it was a return
to the desert which, yet again, brought me back to the true simplicity
of Islam: alone, fragile, in the vastness of the Western Desert, I let
my heart and mind combine in a simple submission to Allah Subhanahu wa
Ta'ala. Also, I admit to - yet again - being somewhat overwhelmed by
the many Muslims I met on that journey: such simple piety, deriving
from Dhikr; such manners; such honour. These truly were good people -
made good by Islam.
I do know that we are continually tried and tested, as Allah Subhanahu
wa Ta'ala says:
"He [Allah] created life and death that He might put you to
the test
and find out which of you acquitted himself best." 67: 1-2.
(Interpretation of meaning.)
"Every soul shall taste death. We shall try you in good and bad
ordeals." 21:35 (Interpretation of meaning.)
I also realize the truth of the Hadith:
"There is no believing servant
who does not make a
mistake from time to time, or some error which he persists in and
does not abandon until he leaves this world. Indeed, the Believer was
created as one who is frequently tried and tested, who often repents
(then) forgets (again). But when he is corrected, he [strives to]
correct himself."
Reported by at-Tabarani in al-Mu'jam
al Kabir (number 11,810)
Several Bush administration spokespersons have repeatedly asserted
that
the attacks visited upon America on September 11, 2001, were because of
the democratic values that the country espouses. Do you accept this
analysis?
A: No. The attacks were in response to American policy in the Middle
East and elsewhere: a consequence of their support for the Zionist
entity which has killed and tortured Muslims and which has stolen
Muslim land; a consequence of their support for sanctions against Iraq
which have resulted in the deaths of nearly one million children; a
consequence of their arrogant, bullying, ways in Muslim land and their
support of the ignoble, un-Islamic leaders of Muslim countries; a
consequence of them defiling - in Muslim eyes - The Land of Two Holy
Places. And so on.
In recent years the proliferation of the Internet and the World Wide
Web has enabled people scattered all over the world to communicate with
one another and share ideas. Do you see any evidence of a process of
cross-fertilization at work whereby seemingly disparate dissidents are
increasingly converging on a shared ideology with regard to such issues
as globalization, NWO, American foreign policy, etc.?
A: Not really; there is an exchange of information, and some
collaboration, but I do not see a new ideology emerging, only
refinements of existing ones, such as anti-capitalism,
anti-globalization. Or rather, it might be more correct to write and
say that there is no new way of life emerging as a result of this
communication and collaboration.
From the perspective of the far right, an overt alliance with
militant
Islam would seem to entail many perils. My previous research suggests
that the various far right movements are monitored very closely by the
government (and non-governmental organizations in the U.S.). Thus
tactically the far right would not appear to be in a good position to
cooperate with militant Islam even if it had the desire to do so. Do
you have any thoughts on this?
A: The essence, insofar as effective folkish opposition to the NWO is
concerned, is covert action by covert groups and lone-wolf individuals:
aiding the destruction of the infrastructure, for instance.
For Islam, the way is Jihad, until Islam is triumphant, as Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:
"Fight against those who do not believe in Allah, or in The
Last Day,
and who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His
Messenger, as well as those among the people of the book who do not
acknowledge the Deen of Truth, and fight them until they pay the Jizya
with willing submission." [ 9:29 interpretation of Meaning]
Do you have any thoughts on the impending war against Iraq?
A: Yes. America is acting like an arrogant, ignoble bully. It will not
be a war: it will be a big, powerful bully picking on someone much
smaller. A one-sided conflict, rather like that between the
American-equipped Zionist army and the activists of Hamas: helicopter
gunships and tanks against rifles; rockets and missiles against stones.
It makes me angry to watch the television pictures of American and
British troops swaggering around, showing off their hardware while
experts talk about powerful American weaponry: it so dishonourable; so
against the ethos of the true warrior. There will be no honour in such
a conflict, at least not on the part of American and allied troops. You
want true warriors in the modern world? Muslims defending Jenin.
Mujahideen defending Tora Bora.
America is acting in the interests of the Zionist entity.
It is not a war for oil, and neither is the war in Afghanistan about
oil. It is war to tame Islam; to extend the dictat of the NWO to Muslim
lands. A war to ensure that Muslim countries do not develope weapons
which can challenge the Zionist entity. In addition it is war to ensure
that the NWO can control and stifle the growth of holocaust revisionism
in Muslim lands, for the truth has begun to be freely told in such
lands, and were the myth of the holocaust to be destroyed, the NWO,
with its Western ZOG's, would crumble from within. Some such Muslim
lands have become - and others have the potential to become -
sanctuaries of reason and truth in a world of politically-correct
Zionist social engineering, places of exile for those who have fallen
foul of the tyrannical laws of the NWO. The NWO wants to be able to get
at anyone, anywhere, and put them on trial according to the ignoble,
tyrannical, laws of the NWO.
In brief, it is part of the plan to extend the dictat of the NWO to the
whole world.
The next target will be places like Iran and possibly Syria.
Inasmuch as the Koran teaches that Allah sent prophets to all of the
major civilizations, it is conceivable that the far right could
reconcile some of its beliefs with Islam. For example, some Muslim
scholars have attempted to show that Socrates, Lao-Tzu, Hammurabi, and
Zoroaster were prophets of Allah, and thus acceptable to Islam. In this
tradition, it might not be too much of a stretch to include Odin, Thor,
and other members of the Norse pantheon into the framework of Islam. Do
you think that a synthesis is possible between Islam and the various
religions popular with the far right, such as Odinism?
A: This is a very interesting question.
According to Islam, Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was the
last Prophet of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, but before him Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala sent a Prophet to every people, every culture, to
warn them, to guide them. What these Prophets taught would have been
the message of Islam - that is, submission to the one and only God, the
belief that we were created by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, and the
belief that we can enter Paradise if we live in the right way. In
addition, there is the concept of sin: the belief that God has
determined what is right and wrong, and that those committing "sins"
will be punished, and go to some horrid place after they die.
These Prophets would have been historical people, that is, real
individuals. Some of their reported or assumed sayings, or teachings,
may have survived by various means, but - for Muslims - only the Quran
is infallible, the literal Word of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Thus, if
any known historical figure who may have been one of the Prophets is
associated with any sayings or teachings, these sayings and teachings
may well be corrupted in some way, or otherwise be unreliable in
determining what they really said or taught.
The only way Muslims can know the identity of such Prophets for certain
is by referring to the Quran and Sunnah, and these sources are silent
in respect of the people, and figures, you mentioned.
In respect of Odin, Thor and others like them, we need to ask several
questions. First, were these real people, whose lives became legend,
then myth? [The same applies to other "gods", such as the Homeric ones
- was Zeus a powerful chieftain long before the time of people such as
Agamemnon?] Second, what did these figures believe, or teach - or, what
do the legends, the stories, the myths, about them, tell us? Third, is
what we know about them consistent with Islam?
The Norse figures may well have been real people: we simply do not
know. What do Norse myths and legends tell us? What is the ethos, the
Way of life, of the people who followed and believed in these? It is my
understanding that they reveal a basically pagan and warrior ethos,
quite similar to that of Ancient Greece. A pagan is an individual who
believes or feels that there is a creative force in the natural world
(in Nature) which produces, is responsible for, and which changes, all
living beings, which includes ourselves. That is, that Nature is
manifest, embodied, presenced, or incarnated, in living things.
Furthermore, and of especial importance, the Norse pagan culture - like
the Ancient Greek one - was a warrior one. This means that the
standards of judgment, what determined whether a deed was good or bad,
whether a person was good or bad, were warrior ones, created by strong
warriors. It also means that what inspired people to do what they did
were these standards. What were these warrior standards? Valour;
excellence (arete, in Greek); honour; triumphing
over adversity; and a
belief that there were limits - that to overstep these limits (to
commit hubris) was to invite disaster, a retribution by the gods. As
Sophocles wrote well over a two thousand years ago (my translation):
There exists much that is strange, yet nothing
Is more strange than mankind:
For this being crosses the gray sea of Winter
Against the wind, through the howling sea swell,
And the oldest of gods, ageless Earth -
She the inexhaustible -
He wearies, turning the soil year after year
By the plough using the offspring of horses.
He snares and captures the careless race of birds,
The tribes of wild beasts, the natives of the sea,
In the woven coils of his nets -
This thinking warrior: he who by his skill rules over
The wild beasts of the open land and the hills,
And who places a yoke around the hairy neck
Of the horse, taming it - and the vigorous mountain bull.
His voice, his swift thought,
The raising and ordering of towns:
How to build against the ill-winds of the open air
And escape the arrows of storm-rain -
All these things he taught himself,
He the all-resourceful
From whom there is nothing he does not meet
Without resources - except Hades
From which even he cannot contrive an escape
Although from unconquered disease
He plans his refuge.
Beyond his own hopes, his cunning
In inventive arts - he who arrives
Now with dishonour, then with chivalry:
Yet, by fulfilling his duties to the soil,
His oaths to the customs given by the gods,
Noble is his clan although clan-less is he who dares
To dwell where and with whom he please -
Never shall any who do this
Come to my hearth or I share their judgement.....
Judgement is the greater part of good fortune
Just as it is necessary not to be disrespectful to the gods -
For the great words of the excessive boaster
Are repayed by great blows
And this, as one grows old, teaches judgement.
Does all this seem compatible with Islam - with the belief in one God,
who is separate from their creation (us, and the world, and Nature),
with the very concept of sin? Does this seem compatible with the idea
of one supreme God teaching us, guiding us, through revelation, through
Prophets?
My view is that it is not compatible at all. It is a very different
ethos; and the Way of Life which results from upholding or following
this pagan, warrior, ethos is very different from that of Islam. This
does not mean that two cannot co-operate for their mutual advantage.
There are some similarities, as I have mentioned elsewhere,
particularly in respect of using reason, being fair, upholding honour,
but the conclusion can really only be that the two belong to different
worlds: their respective perspectives are totally different.
It is also my view, as I said, that Islam is the superior Way, as it is
my hope that, InshaAllah, the West - the Zionist-Crusader alliance -
will be defeated, and its peoples turn toward Islam. Then we will have
a truly civilized, noble, way of life - the re-emergence of the
Khilafah. As for myself, I shall continue to strive, InshaAllah, to
fight for Islam, against the ways of the kuffar.
Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt
1424