The following is taken from the original text of an
Interview David Myatt gave, several years ago, to an American academic,
before the American invasion of Iraq.
Parts of this interview - with some editorial changes - were published in
Professor George Michael's book The Enemy of My Enemy: The Alarming
Convergence of Militant Islam And the Extreme Right (2006, ISBN
978-0-7006-1444-8).
It should also be noted that Myatt - as he has explained in several more
recent articles and interviews (see, for example,
An
Interview with Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt and
Questions for David Myatt
and in Part 2 of his Autobiographical Notes) - has revised his views
about alliances and cooperation between Muslims and nationalists. In one of
these interviews he states:
"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.
