Iran - lessons in democracy

The streets of Tehran are quiet for the moment, not because the UN secretary general and US president Obama spoke openly in support of the Iranian people against the Iranian government, but because the Mousavi opposition realised that they were unable to back up those words with anything else.
Now, after the Iranian version of the Ukrainian orange revolution didn't succeed in bringing down a government that has long been an eye-sore to Israel, the United States and their followers, foremost Britain, it may be time for some comparisons.

First of all, if any administration can be said to be out of tune with public opinion, the US and UK must come amongst the first. Obama is still riding a wave of support, but only because his predecessor was so immensely unpopular. When actions won't follow his words, the honeymoon will soon be over. In the UK, during the recent local and European elections the party of the yet unelected British prime minister just about received 15% of the votes cast, with the turnout being around 35%, in other words, only just over 5% of those eligible to vote supported him. Hardly a strong position from which to lecture the world on democracy. In contrast, the turnout at Iran's presidential elections was around 80% and president Ahmedinejad secured 63% of the votes cast, so more than half the country supports him. I know, it's hard to believe, how can the Iranians support somebody we, the self-styled champions of democracy, don't like.

To put it all down to electoral fraud is ludicrous. Iran is not as advanced in pulling off the kind of scheme that saw George W. Bush junior elected against all the odds. They don't use electronic counting machines sponsored by the office holder. They still do a hand count, closely watched but numerous monitors. If the elections in Iran had been fraudulent, the figures would have been of the kind we regularly see from Egypt, that other "democratic" haven beloved by America. Instead, Iran has been very open about the results, and those published about Iranians casting their votes from abroad are most instructive. Whilst one would expect Iranians in Europe or Australia to vote for Mousavi, it comes as a surprise that he also carried the vote in such suspected Islamic strongholds as Islamabad, Quetta, Lahore or even Kabul. Even in Jerusalem Ahmedinejad, no matter how vociferously he champions the Palestinian cause, fared poorly amongst his compatriots. On the other hand, he has support in Saudi Arabia. No-one in their right mind, if tasked with engineering a result, could have come up with these figures. And the votes cast abroad would have been a lot easier to edit than those cast under the watchful eyes of monitors inside Iran.

The simple fact is that if Ahmedinejad only presided over a country made up of the capital Tehran and expatriate communities scattered around the world, he would have lost. But in Iran's hinterland he is immensely popular because, unlike Western prime ministers and presidents, he remains in touch with them and their aspirations. And like it or not, they are also deeply religious. It is true that the Iranian economy is doing just as badly as, let's say, the British. Inflation is rampant, because the Islamic reforms of the revolution never extended to the financial system and interest has never been abolished. The economy remains strongly in the hands of a few powerful family oligarchies, and there is a high level of corruption. But that corruption does not extend to the personage of the president who has an integrity that would make British MPs or the Italian prime minister Berlusconi blush in spite of their lack of shame generally. Ahmedinejad refuses to be caught by the trappings of high office, does not wear a suit nor live in a luxury home paid for by the tax payer. Nobody could accuse him of excesses of the kind which recently pushed British politics into a deep crisis.

The US and UK may not like Ahmedinejad and prefer Mousavi, but in doing so they cannot claim to speak for the Iranian people. Western governments have a long history of viewing the world through their tinted spectacles and committing severe blunders by failing to understand other cultures. They expected to be welcomed by Iraqis as liberators and thought the indiscriminate bombing of Pakistani villagers should create stability in the region. Shouldn't Obama be mourning those innocent lives lost before turning his attention to Iran? It is too early to prove whether US clandestine operations were behind the opposition protests in the first place, hoping to unseat the Iranian government after having lost the appetite for another war, although it is telling that the protesters always seem to have English placards to hand, as if they want to be seen by those outside rather than by their own people. Be that as it may, I still lay the blame for the heavy price Iranians paid in innocent lives during those unrests at the doorstep of Western governments and media for having hyped up the loser's hopes of getting the vote annulled.

One could now talk about the heavy-handed response of the Iranian security forces in dealing with what were not merely peaceful demonstrations but an attempt to bring down the elected government. Here, too, Western hypocrisy abounds. The death of "Neda" does the rounds of Youtube and Twitter because she was an innocent bystander caught up in the fray. But doesn't that equally apply to Ian Tomlinson whose death the Metropolitan police caused at the G20 summit? In response to that revelation British police arrested a dozen Pakistani students under pretended terrorist charges to divert attention. The charges were subsequently dropped, but the students told they would be deported anyway as a security risk, although they had done nothing wrong. I don't remember UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon offering similar advice to the British government as he did to the Iranians about use of force against civilians or a call for an immediate stop to politically motivated arrests.

What we have, in sum total, is another political blunder by Western governments and media, who by believing their own delusions and openly showing their cards and bias destroyed the goodwill extended to them by the Iranian government after Obama's election. I guess from here it's politics as usual.

Europe speaks Arabic

A book under this title by Dr. V. Abdur Rahim deserves wider circulation as a potential bridge-builder. The book's key achievement is to popularise the subject of the influence of the Arabic language in those of Europe for lay readers. It is in no way as detailed and comprehensive as the most thorough work on the subject so far, the doctoral thesis by T.A Ismail entitled "Classic Arabic as the Ancestor of Indo-European Languages and Origin of Speech" which, sadly, will be hard to find even in the best stocked library. In that book, Ismail compares Classical Arabic with Latin and Old English and tries to establish a sequential relationship. Rahim makes no such claim. He is content with showing that Arabic, due to the great influence of Islam throughout European history, left its indelible mark. The book, published by Goodword (ISBN 978-81-7898-639-5) does not attempt to ascribe any kind of superiority to Arabic. And whilst well researched, it is not aimed at the linguist. Its stated intention is and understanding of "our common cultural heritage". In his preface the author gives ample credit to European achievements by saying that "in many cases Arabic provided the name and the raw material, and Europe developed it into a highly sophisticated finished product". He also cites numerous examples where European words of Arabic origin re-entered the Arabic language with a new meaning, for example the French "bougie d'allumage" or spark plug, which traces its history to the city of Bijayah in Algeria, famous for the candle-wax it exported.
Europe speaks Arabic makes reference to English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian as well as German, Dutch, Danish and Swedish, plus Russian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian and Greek and Albanian. Of course, many English readers are aware that Arabic has given them words for stars, mathematics, exotic foodstuffs, such as coffee, and seafaring, such as admiral, but they would be well surprised in learning that that most English location of Trafalgar Square takes its name from the Arabic al-taraf al-agharr, or that the exchequer takes his name from the chequered cloth covering the table on which the accounts were reckoned, and that in turn via Arabic from the Persian Shah, the title of the king in chess. The word subsequently denoted a monetary instrument (check/cheque) and was re-imported with this meaning into the Arabic language.
Some of the book's quotes of Shakespearean and other old English writings in support of the lineage of a word are an absolute delight. My only criticism is the way the author chose to present his subject. The artificially contrived dialogue between Ahmad and Eric, the former teaching the latter about the Arabic origins of English terms, a form very popular in Arabic language school books, strikes me as most unsuitable for a European audience. A straight-forward running narrative would have served the purpose better.

Does God do politics?

Does God do Politics? This is, of course, a rhetorical question forming the subject of a debate I will be having with Prof. John White of the Institute of Education, a secularist for whom God does not exist, and Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail, who believes in God but accepts the fallacy that secularism can provide a neutral playing field for both believers and non-believers. The debate has been organised by the dialoguewithislam.org for Thursday 21st May at Ebrahim Community College, 80 Greenfield Road (rear of East London Mosque), London E1 1EJ, and is chaired by al-Jazeera news presenter Hamish MacDonald. Kick-off is at 6.30 pm.

Purpose of the debate, followed by questions from the floor, is to explore both the way politicians use religion as well as the way adherents of religion use politics. The key question is not merely whether God exists or interferes in human affairs, but rather to what extent the believes of those who either affirm or deny his existence should have the right for the public engagement to be governed by those believes. When it comes to peaceful coexistence, will a secular framework provide a more tolerant environment or a religious one. Does the degree of tolerance differ between religions? Should there be limits to what can be tolerated? Is the separation of religious practice and public life workable or even desirable? If man becomes the sovereign instead of God, will inevitably abuse his power?

The two ex-leaders, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, both headed secular states yet repeatedly made references to God whom they claimed to have on their side. At the same time Bishops are criticised when they comment on social and political issues, and Islam is seen as a radical threat to Western liberal values. How can it be explained that exponents of the secular establishment appeal to religious sentiments whilst adherents of religions are told not to allow their faith to colour or govern their politics? Is the rift between the church and science a purely Western phenomenon that blinds Europe and America when dealing with the contribution religion has to make towards the progress of society? Or is the animosity against Islam a natural response from a secular elite seeing its power base threatened after having wrestled it at high cost from the Christian churches? Has liberalism become illiberal the moment it took the reigns of power?

Expect a lively debate. Advance tickets are available for £2 at dialoguewithislam.org; tickets at the door are £3.

Police policy of criminalising dissent

"That's what the police do", commented former Flying Squad chief John O'Connor to the BBC who picked up a report by the Guardian that Strathclyde police were paying informers considerable sums to act as moles within protest movements. Similar contacts were often made with individuals in protest groups and in the criminal world, he observed.

That last remark is the crucial part of the statement. It betrays the mindset of the police forces in the UK which produced such shocking results as the killing of an innocent news vendor and the beating of a demonstrating lady: the police place protesters within the criminal world. The transgressions by the police, recently looked at by a select committee in parliament, are not the excesses of rogue individuals, they are a matter of policy.

Notwithstanding the oft-repeated mantra of freedom of speech and the democratic right of protest, managing protest in today's subtle police state is about ensuring by all means, fair or foul, that it remains at the periphery, invisible and inaudible, incapable of interrupting business as usual. The justification is usual the need to maintain public order. However, in reality the ends appear to justify the means, and the ends are not merely public safety. Ultimately, it is about power and remaining in charge.

The revelations that have come to light with secret tape recordings of Strathclyde police officers trying to recruit new informers raise serious questions about the nature of policing and the already frail trust between the police and the public. The blunder of police chief Bob Quick aside, where the arrests of eleven Pakistani Muslims under terror legislation merely an attempt to shift the focus of public scrutiny away from the methods the police used against protesters during the G20 summit and the question of whether their tactics were governed by a desire to protect the powerful from the voice of the people rather than to protect the people from harm? Those arrested were subsequently released without charge, as is usually the case with most people held for prolonged periods of time under terrorism legislation. On the assumption of "innocent unless proven Muslim" it was, however, suggested, that they should be deported anyway.

This is also the fate destined for Barbar Ahmed who is imprisoned in the UK on the basis of a US extradition request. He was brutally assaulted by police in his own home, sustaining multiple severe injuries, and mocked about his religion, then released without charge. When he complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC - which might as well stand for Indemnify the Police against Criminal Conduct), the carried out a whitewash investigation and found that there was no case to answer for the police. However, during the private proceedings his lawyers initiated, the police eventually admitted culpability.

Even more damning than the revelation that the police are actively recruiting activitsts to spy for them on legitimate protesters is the admission by a police officer on one of the tapes that "we work with lots of people from terrorist organisations right through to whatever". Maybe the "conspiracy theory" that there was police collusion during the 7/7 bombings are not so far-fetched after all. Some of the alleged suspects were well known to the police and the alleged mastermind, Haroon Aswat, was previously an informer for British intelligence. Was he also paid tens of thousands of pounds, the sums available according to the Guardian tape, in order to organise a few naive Muslims with rucksacks to travel down to London whilst intelligence experts did the rest, including letting him ecape and covering his tracks?

At the same time as these revelations about police tactics a report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary finds that police are failing to tackle the rising thread of criminal gangs in England and Wales. This report was kept secret until it was forced out by a Freedom of Information request by the Times. So whilst the police focus on those exercising their right to protest and on Pakistani students hyped up as terrorists for political convenience, the public are at the mercy of an increasing number of organised crime networks unchecked by police interference. Likewise, motorists are increasingly criminalised through revenue-generating speed enforcement action, whilst officers shy away from confronting the violence of drug and people traffickers and armed gangs.

If the Home Office Select Committee is serious about restoring public confidence in the police, their enquiries need to go a lot deeper than simple asking why officers were allowed to cover up their identity numbers, a practice commonly found in those police states our self-righteous government frequently moralises about. They would need to address the whole can of worms of the illicit relationship between policing and power politics. And it goes without saying that they need to scrap the farcical "Independent" Police Complaints Commission and replace it with a body representing the interest of the people, equipped with powers of enforcing policy changes.

Scottish Islam - does it exist?

A few months ago I took a new Scottish Muslim convert to the mosque in Dumfries for Friday prayers. The address before prayer was entirely in Urdu, except for a few incoherent English words thrown in whilst glancing at the unexpected white faces in the small crowd, never as much as even half a sentence though, making the content completely incomprehensible for the non-Urdu speaker. Having said that, understanding Urdu did not help much either, since the subject matter was almost completely irrelevant to living in Britain. This was followed by a brief sermon in "Arabic", made up only of standard phrases commonly used as a framework for this purpose over the centuries and fleshed out with nothing else. The experience felt very foreign and, except for the compulsory nature of attendance at Friday prayers, a complete waste of time.

Having visited again over Easter I suggested we try Glasgow Central Mosque instead who could not possibly be as backwards as this. We were in for a major surprise. The experience was not only foreign, but completely outlandish. Sure enough, the purpose-built mosque has all the modern fittings and is kept meticulously clean. Nonetheless, we wished afterwards we hadn't made the journey. The service started with an address in Urdu, as if that was the lingua franca of Scotland. Part of this was then translated into English, none of which contained any references to the lives the attending worshippers live in Britain. Then followed a run-of-the-mill Arabic sermon read from a script which, whilst coined in flowery poetic language, made no reference whatsoever to current affairs or the situation of Muslims locally or anywhere else in the world. It was what followed after the prayer, however, that made the event memorable.

During prayer a couple of babies could be heard crying from the sisters' gallery at the back. Of course, nobody likes to hear children cry, but they do. I find it infinitely more bearable than the various musical tunes emanating from mobile phones during prayer at most mosques around the world. But for the Imam it was just too much. After completing the prayers he made an announcement that it was an outrage for women to bring children to the mosque and let them cry in order to disturb the brothers' prayers. I am told this wasn't the first time such an announcement was made. But for the first time there was an unexpected response: instead of bashfully dropping their heads and feeling guilty for having come to the mosque, one of the sisters made her way right through the crowd of male worshippers leaving the mosque in order to question the Imam on his wisdom. Imported Imams, even the younger ones, do not like their perceived authority undermined, and she was eventually persuaded to leave the men's prayer hall. Together with an entourage of other women and their male relatives, who had since caught up with them, she made her way to the Imam's office, demanding to speak to him and challenge him on having so publicly insulted the mothers of the crying children without first bothering to establish what might have happened to cause the little ones to cry. After all, mothers don't delight in their children's tears. Nor would they mind if the mosque's concern for their children extended to providing creche facilities, which would immediately solve the problem.

Outside the Imam's office the mosque administration sprang into action. It would not be possible to speak to the Imam. He was too important to be summoned, you would have to go to him. She tried, she said. No, not her, a man would have to speak to him on her behalf, it was not acceptable for a woman to speak to him. Just like in Pakistan, said another young woman, and hastily added for not wanting to be perceived as racist that she was of Pakistani origin herself. Then why don't you go back to Pakistan retorted a bouncer guarding the Imam's office, looking not much over twenty in age. I suggested he join the BNP, they love young Asians arguing their case.

Much of what was said during the continuing discussions made me wonder whether time had stood still for this insular mosque over the past few decades. Islam may have made progress in Britain and Muslims may have come of age with regard to facing up to the modern world, but all this must have happened outside the mosque. The saddest thing was that the mosque did not try to preserve some pristine version of ancient Islam but a distorted form of Pakistani male chauvinism dressed up as religion. In spite of being turban-clad they did not follow the example of the prophet Muhammad, peace be with him, in any respect. Numerous authentic reports about his actions and words (Ahadith) indicate that he displayed a caring attitude towards both children and women, which was betrayed by those who thought to take his place in defining Islam in Glasgow. He prolonged his prostration because one of his grandsons had climbed onto his back. At his mosque in Madinah men formed the first row and women the back row, with children placed in the middle, so they did attend. It was reported that any slave girl of Madinah could take him by his hand to ask him about any concern of hers and he would not move on until her request was fulfilled. And what about the old woman who got up in the middle of a public meeting to challenge the caliph Umar for wanting to restrict the amount of dowry given for marriage. She did not send her husband or brother to have a quiet word with the ruler of the Muslims, she confronted him in public with her understanding of the Qur'an, and he immediately conceded at having made an error of judgment. No such humility in the Glasgow Imam - his staff eventually suggested a later appointment could be made, one woman only, accompanied by a man through whom she would speak.

In his admonition to the attending mothers he had also misinterpreted the Hadith that the prophet had shortened congregational prayer on account of a child crying. According to the Imam and a Pakistani scholar he quoted the child had not been at the mosque but at a nearby home and the prophet had shortened the prayer to allow the mother to return home early. Should I suppose it was customary in those barbaric days to leave little children alone at home whilst going to the mosque to pray? And what about the prophet's advice to bear in mind when leading prayer that there are weak, ill and old people in the congregation, how should we twist this message to get rid of the nuisance of children?

Maybe we should bar women altogether from attending mosques, although there is a Hadith forbidding this. And also bar the ill and the disabled. And young people. And anybody with their own opinion. And non-Urdu speakers. To leave only old first-generation Pakistani men. That way Islam will have a bright future undisturbed by dissenting voices or crying children. And it will grow firm roots in Scotland and last forever. Or maybe we should give up on the mosques and take our Islam elsewhere. Both, of course, would negatively affect the size of the mosque donations after Friday prayers, a problem the Imam and his protective team still need to resolve somehow before they can pray in peace.

Challenging Darwinism: Interview with Harun Yahya

Known to millions of readers under the pen name of Harun Yahya, the success of Turkish writer Adnan Oktar has a simple recipe for success: explain Islam in simple scientific terms coupled with high-quality presentation. His key topic has been to prove that Darwin’s theory of evolution is seriously flawed. In his magnificently crafted Atlas of Creation he takes on the evolutionist at their own game, the fossil record. At the time of the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “On the origin of species” which soon became European dogma Oktar is the chief antagonist of the evolutionists. In their fight against revealed religion with its firm belief in a Creator they tried to discredit religion as unscientific for too long. Now he has turned the tables. Oktar's writings did not just earn him the praise of readers all over the world, they also lead to a vicious campaign of vilification against him, especially in Turkey, a nation state proud to be secular and having shaken off the burden of the Islamic caliphate - on the behest of the then European powers, one might add. The Darwin anniversary coincides with the 20th anniversary of the Rushdie affair in the UK, also intended to make religion look bad, and the only serious rebuttal ever published, Islamic Party leader David Pidcock's "Satanic Voices Ancient and Modern" has a whole chapter on how Turkey was carved up by the masonic Dönme Young Turk movement of Salonica, as well as exposing the character assassination tactics of Satanic Purses and the monetary fraud of Satanic Purses. By taking on the evolutionist ideology of the secularists, Adnan Oktar automatically entered politics. In this exclusive interview Dr. Sahib Mustaqim Bleher asks him about his views on evolution, secularism, religion, politics and the future of Turkey as well as the wider Muslim world.

Sahib Mustaqim Bleher: Given the bicentenary celebrations of Darwin, let me first of all ask you about the theory of evolution by natural selection which you describe as more of a sinister dogma than a mere theory: What do you think are its political objectives?

ADNAN OKTAR: If a theory that is claimed to be scientific, despite having been disproved by all branches of science with hundreds of pieces of scientific evidence, is determinedly imposed on people across the world and kept on its feet despite reason and science, then this is obviously something that does not concern scientists alone. Even when I was still in high school I realized that all this bloodshed, world wars, the ruthless exploitation of people and revolutions could not all have happened spontaneously, and that there had to be a cause behind them. Because human beings cannot become that heartless on their own. They cannot be neighbours having good relations one day and then start slaughtering one another the next. As I researched the question I saw that all these troubles were organized by freemasonry and that Darwinism was the religion of freemasonry.

There is no materialism without Darwinism, and no communism, fascism, savage capitalism or terror without materialism. But Muslims are in general unable to see that. They see that they are up against a terrible scourge, but they do not look into the cause behind it. The fact is that Muslims have been attacked from behind, but they can only see straight in front of them. What lies behind these events? What lies behind such strife and evil? They do not look to see that. Why do people attack religious commandments, Islam? They do not investigate that. They just say “It stems from irreligiousness, from lack of faith” and leave it at that. But they do not ask why those people have turned out like this. When one looks, one is confronted by just one thing – the superstitious religion of Darwinism. So long as the false religion survives they remain loyal to it. The invalidity of that religion must first be proved. What I am doing is to explain to people that this terrible corruption, this terrible lie, is all a deliberate ruse.

Muslims have to date been unable to imagine the cunning power and influence of Darwinism. No Islamic scholar has ever waged the kind of struggle against Darwinism that I am, that we are. They have either written a few lines on the subject in their works or else not have mentioned it at all. They have never made a statement on the subject. I regard this as a blessing, thanks be to Allah. I regard the way that Allah has given this duty to my colleagues and me as a blessing.

Sahib Mustaqim Bleher: Why do you think a public debate between evolutionists and creationists, which can be observed in the United States of America, is mostly absent in Europe?

ADNAN OKTAR: There is a one-sided imposition of Darwinism across the world. Around 95% of states officially protect Darwinism and impose the theory of evolution. They seek to impose this false theory with an unbelievable shamelessness and audacity, even though it is obviously false and a lie and even though we have proved that to be the case. This is a disgrace, anti-democratic and something against human rights. There are 100 million fossils in existence, for instance. All of these hundred million fossils all prove creation. But one is forbidden to say that. It is forbidden to say that proteins cannot come into being by chance. There are no transitional fossils, but one is forbidden to say so or to describe the false nature of the skulls concerned. So what about freedom of thought and freedom of expression? This means the imposition of a false idea and a lie. That only happens in dictatorships. That means there is a Darwinist dictatorship. Europe has been crushed under the feet of that dictatorship for some 150 years. Look, there is even pressure on the Vatican; that much is obvious. The Pope has to give the impression he supports evolution. How terrible this is. But Europe has now begun to be enlightened, insha’Allah. The earth moved when my Atlas of Creation arrived in Europe, and there is now a huge change of mind taking place. You can see that belief in Creation is growing stronger by the day in Britain and many people, teachers included, say that Creation should be taught in schools. Surveys in Denmark, Sweden and France show that people are no longer being taken in by Darwinism, and this is all major progress. Insha’Allah that progress will pick up even more pace in the future and the Darwinist dictatorship will be eliminated entirely.

Sahib Mustaqim Bleher: Another European dogma, often taken to extremes in Turkey, is the separation of religion and politics. In your writings and interviews both religion and politics seem to go hand in hand. What is, in your opinion, the proper role of religion in politics?

ADNAN OKTAR: Belief in Allah and religious moral values are great blessings, great comforts. But Darwinists and materialists have sought to deprive the people of Europe of these blessings, though that tyranny is now coming to an end, insha’Allah. It is a great guarantee and blessing for a political leader to have spiritual values and to love and fear Allah. But one must not, of course, seek to use religious values for political ends. The public do not want that and will spurn anyone who tries to do that.

Some people in Europe misinterpret laicism. They imagine that laicism means atheism and suggest it is a shield to protect their own atheism. Some fail to comprehend the Muslim view of laicism, and that is where the problem stems from. Laicism is a comfort for Muslims, too. There is no hypocrisy where there is laicism, and that is a great blessing. People openly express their ideas. If someone is an atheist he says he is an atheist, honestly and openly. Hypocrisy flourishes where there is no laicism, which is when people with no faith say they are religious, and even very devout, misleading the people around them like an actor playing a role. And who wants that? It is very ugly. The following point is also very important, humanity has in any case learned about laicism, democracy and freedom of ideas from Islam, and these values lie at the heart of Islam. Democratic thought, plurality and laicism also prevail in the Qur’an. In other words, members of other faiths have recognized freedoms, there is love, affection and compassion, freedom of thought for them. There is the concept of republic. The peace of the public and their security is essential. These are all to be found in the faith. For that reason, giving the idea that religion conflicts with science or politics is a tactic used by freemasons and materialists, and true Muslims must thwart it.

Sahib Mustaqim Bleher: You have come under repeated attacks within Turkey. Recently the Turkish prime minister was welcomed back as a hero by Muslims for walking out of Davos in protest of European support for Israel after its attack on Gaza. Likewise, the success of your books both inside and outside Turkey shows that Muslims want to debate and defeat materialist dogma. Which way do you think the pendulum will swing in Turkey and what sort of timescale are we talking about?

ADNAN OKTAR: I was first detained when I wrote my book Judaism and Freemasonry. I was held in solitary confinement for 9 months and then for 10 months in a ward full of seriously deranged patients in a mental hospital for saying, during a press statement, “I am from the Turkish people, from the nation of Islam.” I was held with 300 mental patients in an old, run-down stone building left over from the time of Sultan Abdulhamid. These were the most seriously deranged patients, unfit to stand trial, who constantly attacked one another and were generally covered in blood. They were unable to meet even their most basic needs, and the place stank to death. Seven killings took place during my time there. They killed each other with food trays. I was not allowed visits from my friends, nor even allowed to talk to the nurses, doctors or interns. After keeping me there for 10 months the military hospital then issued a report saying I was healthy in mind and body. I do not go into too much detail, but it was a tough environment. Yet for me it was a very excellent and honourable time, insha’Allah.

After that there was an endless series of attacks. But after each one, as a blessing, Allah increased the efficacy of my work many times over, and my circle kept expanding. For example, my time in the mental hospital was when the number of my friends grew most of all. There has been huge progress in Turkey over the last 30 years. The Turkish nation has always been devoted to national values and religious faith; but there has been a huge rise in consciousness and awareness over the last 30 years. A very moderate but powerful conception of Islam has settled in the country. The public’s devotion has increased many times over. Belief in Darwinism has declined so far as to be almost non-existent. Turkey is the country with the lowest level of belief in Darwinism anywhere in the world. A bright future now awaits Turkey, insha’Allah.

Turkey will play the role of older brother, leader to the Turkish-Islamic world and ensure their protection. It will ensure the salvation of all Muslims by establishing the Turkish-Islamic Union. The West supports Turkey assuming such a role, and it is excitedly anticipated by the Muslim world. That expectation has become even sharper after the event at Davos. The people of the Middle East are openly saying they want to see Turkey as leader. When you look at the Caucasus and ask them who they want to be the leader, they unanimously say Turkey. All Muslim societies, in Africa, the Far East or the Balkans, regard Turkey with love and respect. This excellent progress will further speed up in the future and the Turkish-Islamic world will enter a golden age like the Age of Happiness.

Sahib Mustaqim Bleher: You have proposed the formation of a Turkish Islamic Union. Do you see a Turkish Islamic Union as a stepping stone to the re-establishment of some kind of caliphate or do you envisage a different model of global political Islam?

ADNAN OKTAR: It is important for Muslims to gather around a spiritual leader, rather than a caliphate in particular. It is unlawful for Muslims not be united and act as one. In other words, in the eyes of the Qur’an it is obligatory for Muslims to act as one, be brothers as one and gather round a single leader. But they do not do that. The door to all kinds of scourge will remain open so long as they do not do that. Muslims must fulfil this obligation. I say this so that the Turkish-Islamic Union will be established under Turkish leadership, under the leadership of the Turkish nation. Every state will remain as a separate nation state. It can behave freely in domestic matters, but they need to have a spiritual leader at their head. That is because Christians have a Pope, they have a leader. It is essential that Muslims also have a leader. If that union has a leader, then all this strife and chaos can easily come to an end. In that event, if even the hair of Muslims’ heads somewhere is hurt, the incident will be stopped at once because all Muslims will act in concert. But if they are fragmented, if they act in a manner leaving them open to a policy of ‘divide, fragment, swallow’, then it is of course easily to swallow up small morsels. But it is impossible to swallow up the Muslim world as a whole block. Muslims must fulfil this obligation at once.

Sahib Mustaqim Bleher: Do you think the nation state as we know it will have much future? If not, what short-, medium- and long-term alternatives you can see?

ADNAN OKTAR: There will be a period when states will maintain their own existence and alliances will be formed. In the Turkish-Islamic Union, for example, all states will maintain their own existence. Muslim states that maintain their integral natures will come together to form one spirit, a spiritual union, a union of love. It is a question of Muslims gathering under one roof. The age we are living in is the age of Hazrat Mahdi (as). It is the age of the coming of the Prophet Isa’/Jesus (as). By Allah’s leave, the Muslim world will soon be in union, and will form a union that covers the world. The coming of Hazrat Mahdi (as) will take place. It is the time when Isa’ (as), son of Maryam, will return. This is clear from the verses of the Qur’an. These are absolutely certain in Sunni belief, in the Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi’i schools. Nobody denies them, no imam from any school has ever denied them and all of them accepted. In the same way, the coming of the Prophet ‘Isa (as) is a certainty in Shiite belief. And that of Hazrat Mahdi (as). All the portents of this holy good news have come true. There are some 300 portents of the coming of Hazrat Mahdi (as) and the Prophet ‘Isa (as), and they have all happened. We will all live together, insha’Allah, Alawites, Sunnis, Jafaris and everyone. And Hazrat Mahdi (as) will lead the Muslim world, insha’Allah. There will be a century of joy and happiness. Islamic moral values will enjoy a glorious world dominion. Christianity will be cleaned of polytheism and assume a purified state. It will amalgamate with Islam and the Qur’an. It will be an excellent outcome for Christianity, and Islam, and the world. The prayer of the Prophet ‘Isa (as) has been heeded. He asked to be one from the community of our Prophet (saas). When he returns to Earth, he will be one from the community of the Prophet Muhammad (saas).

Sahib Mustaqim Bleher: You referred to the current global financial crisis as a sign of the End Times. Do you see this crisis predominantly as monetary or economic in nature, and does the solution lie in monetary reform or in economic measures? Will or should there be a return to protectionism and does this herald the end of globalisation?

ADNAN OKTAR: This is no ordinary economic crisis, but a major event described as happening in the End Times. Our Prophet (saas) has stated in the hadith that such an economic crisis will take place before the appearance of Hazrat Mahdi (as). I can give a couple of examples of these hadith:

Before the coming of the Mahdi, TRADE AND ROADS between nations will be cut, and strife among people will grow. (Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi Alamat al-Mahdi al- Muntadhar, p. 39)
STAGNATION IN THE MARKETS, AND A DECREASE IN EARNINGS... (Portents of Doomsday, p. 148)
Everyone COMPLAINING OF LOW EARNINGS... The rich being respected for their money... (Portents of Doomsday, p. 146)
Business being stagnant. Everyone will complain ‘I cannot sell, buy or earn anything.’ (Portents of Doomsday, p. 152)

This economic crisis is metaphysical. All the economists, scientists, industrialists, investors and everyone in the world are trying to stop it, but they cannot and will not. It will bring the whole system down with it. It began in 2007, and by 2014 it will swallow up almost all countries and materialist systems, and the leaders of those systems will be impoverished and humbled. Shortages will grow as a result. That means nobody will be able to show off because of his wealth and possessions, or be stubborn and arrogant. Like Qarun, Allah will bring all these systems down. The story of Qarun in the Qur’an is happening now in the End Times. All the treasure of Qarun is collapsing now, in other words. The Qur’an says that Qarun’s treasure was very famous and extensive. It says his might and economic strength was very great. The economic strength of those other people was also very great. But they have now entered the age of famine described in Surah Yusuf. And that famine will last for 7 years, and they will undergo great changes during that time and come to know the Qur’an and the moral values of Islam. Their salvation lies in the Turkish-Islamic Union, insha’Allah.

Allah has already brought that system down across the world and everyone has begun having to renounce the interest system. They will have to abandon it, because this economic crisis of the End Times is a great miracle of the age of Hazrat Mahdi (as). It is a marvel of the age of Hazrat Mahdi (as). And it will overturn all banking systems, all banking systems based on interest. Only in the Turkish-Islamic world will unity, togetherness, health and economic well-being remain, apart from which they will all collapse.

Sahib Mustaqim Bleher: In your book on Freemasonry you describe how it gave birth to humanism and attempted to undermine and subvert the Christian religion. Do you think the Muslim religion has been subject to similar degeneration by Freemasonry or other secret societies?

ADNAN OKTAR: The apathy of some Muslims today, the disunity in the Muslim world, the insensitivity of some Arab leaders toward the spilling of Muslim blood in Palestine and the Middle East, the way that some Muslims regard the intellectual struggle against Darwinism as unimportant and the way they engage in no activity on the subject are all the result of masonic activity. That they are almost afraid even to speak of Turkish-Islamic union is also the work of the masons. All of them are beyond that, but the heads of state of many Islamic countries are under the control of atheist Zionists by way of the masons. For example, the president is a freemason, the prime minister is a freemason and ministers are freemasons.

That is the case in several Islamic countries, excluding Turkey. They are very careful when it comes to division, maintaining fragmentation and avoiding union. The leaders of several Islamic countries are on their guard so that a Turkish-Islamic Union should not be established. They say this is the thing to be avoided most of all. And they do indeed strongly avoid it. The fragmentation of Islamic countries, the way they are all divided, is the greatest weapon in the hands of freemasonry. The masons regard them as a horde of ants, and imagine it can easily crush them with its tanks as they have no single leader. They have struck them right in the jugular vein. They have laid hands on their most important weapon. They say that when they strike against one Islamic country that country will be left to its own devices and nobody will come to its support. Because they are testing this out. They are shedding rivers of blood in Palestine, and there is not a squeak of protest from most Islamic countries.

Look, children and the like are crying out for help in Palestine, but Egypt has closed its border and refuses to allow aid convoys in. How is one to explain that? We cannot just sit back and watch if children are being killed. We cannot sit back and say, “But what if they kill us, too.’ Fear is a corruption of the End Times, a scourge of many Muslims: ‘But what if I am imprisoned, or beaten up, or insulted, or slandered or killed?’ My brother, then you will earn the appropriate merit. Is not your aim in life Allah’s approval? Most Islamic countries are in this needless state of fear. They have experienced great suffering. But Allah would not have inflicted that suffering on them had they been rational and courageous. Strength comes from Allah. None other than Allah has strength. Allah hands out fear and afflictions. Allah sends afflictions to the cowardly. But Allah protects the brave. Muslims have a duty to be brave.

Sahib Mustaqim Bleher: You frequently quote Said Nursi. To what extend is your own activism and method influenced by the educational movement he founded?

ADNAN OKTAR: My family is a classic Turkish family. In my last years at high school I saw how there was anarchy in Turkey and how some Muslims were being badly oppressed. That made me really uneasy. I developed a strong urge to save and protect Muslims. I began studying and investigating during that time. I was greatly influenced by Imam Rabbani. I read the Letters of Rabbani, an excellent work written in a very sincere style. I read Imam al-Ghazali’s Spiritual Exercises. I was greatly influenced by that, too. But I was especially influenced by the works of Said Nursi. He was the greatest scholar of this century, a very worthy human being. In my view, he is the greatest scholar of the last 1,000 years. I love him dearly. He is an extraordinary person. I do not think his true worth has yet been fully understood. He is a very metaphysical person; whatever he said came true. I really like his very holy Risale-i Nur Collection. I think it is very valuable. It contains great secrets and profound wisdom, and is written in a very sincere style. I recommend it to everyone. It is a superb book.

Lessons learned from Gaza

After a halt (or pause) in the carnage wrought by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) on the helpless people of Gaza (essentially a large open prison camp completely unprotected against the onslaught by the Israeli military hardware (paid for by the West), it is time for an initial assessment of what has happened. A number of pertinent conclusions arise:

1. The IDF is NOT invincible. In spite of being armed to the teeth with the latest technology, Israel did not achieve its only stated war objective of stopping the firing of rockets from the Gaza strip into Northern Israel. It's withdrawal after three weeks of continued bombardment and losing more than a dozen soldiers to the comparatively unarmed Gazan population rising in the defence of its territory is Israel's second major defeat in as many years. The war against Lebanon two years ago was also unsuccessful in its declared objective of returning two captured IDF soldiers. Nor has the political and military structure of either Hamas or Hizbullah been destroyed, leaving nothing but widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and heavy losses in civilian lives as the end result of those two military operations.

2. Israel cannot be trusted. In desperation at having lost its myth of invincibility she might try to strike at anyone to justify her continued existence. The possession of a huge nuclear arsenal makes such a pariah state highly dangerous.

3. Terrorism has been provided with official sanction: Since Israel has justified (state) terrorism and the indiscriminate killing and wounding of defenceless men, women and children as long as some kind of greater military objective is being pursued, the argument for not involving civilians in political and military conflicts has ultimately been lost. Any group with whatever perceived greater objective can now cite the Israeli attacks against Lebanon and Gaza as justification for causing widespread damage amongst civilians. Having thus changed the rules of engagement might still come to haunt both Israel and her Western allies.

4. There are no Islamic states or governments in the world. Any state wanting to be called Islamic would have intervened to liberate Gaza from the destruction brought upon it by Israel. Historically and under international war such intervention would have been justified in the face of Israeli war crimes. Numerous Arab and other Muslim nations have large standing armies (e.g. Turkey has at least a million soldiers in active service at any one time) and expensive military hardware; the case that they are powerless against Israel can, therefore, not be made, particularly given the inability of Israel to even win a war initiated by herself against peoples without a standing army (Lebanon and Gaza). Nor can the moral case of Israel merely defending her borders and "right to exist" be made any more after the indiscriminate targetting of civilians. Given that the majority of citizens all across the world objected to and abhorred the Israeli war crimes, the regimes imposed upon Muslim nations do not represent their people.

5. Western governments are more answerable to Israel than to their own people who voiced clear objection to the war against Gaza, hence the myth of democracy has once more been exposed as a farce. Foremost amongst those are the United States of America whose new president Obama has been discredited even before taking office by trying to cleverly not be drawn on the issue. In America the right to wrestle power back from from an unrepresentative and oppressive state by popular uprising is enshrined in the constitution, and similar notions exist in most other Western nation states. That the people, permanently enslaved by debt financing, will ever renegotiate the social contract is, however, highly questionable both in the West and in the Muslim world.

6. The UN is utterly useless. Its buildings and institutions can be attacked with impunity.

7. If there ever was a right for Israel to exist on land appropriated from other people without their consent, this right has now been eternally forfeited.

8. The current rulers of the world - Israel, the US and their subordinates amongst the nations - are more likely to be defeated by the outcome of their own arrogance and false sense of invincibility than an external conqueror. It is a rule of history that all empires will come to an end. Western economies are already imploding and Western armies are overstretched in unwinnable wars. The targetting of a perceived weak enemy, as in the case of Gaza, is a sign of increasing desparation heralding the quickening of this inevitable end.

P.S. I expect to be inundated with outraged, emotional and defamatory comments. They do not detract from the factuality of the above.