Ariel Sharon Is Responsible For The Sabra And Shatilla Massacres

Ariel Sharon Is Responsible For The Sabra And Shatilla Massacres

The great massacre at the Sabra and Shatilla camps came back onto the agenda with the BBC program "The Accused" broadcast on June 17, 2001. In that documentary, which looked into Ariel Sharon's role in the massacre in which 3,000 people lost their lives, living witnesses who escaped the slaughter spoke at first hand of the savagery, which lasted nearly 3 days. The program concluded by saying that Ariel Sharon, who was then defense minister, was responsible for the massacre and must face trial for it.

"The Accused" Was Broadcast Despite Pressure From The State of Israel

People who escaped the massacre, the Phalange leaders who carried it out, representatives of the Israeli Army, lawyers, and academics participated in the documentary, which was prepared by journalist Fergal Keane. However, before it had even been broadcast it met with a strong reaction from Israel and radical Jewish communities. Right up until the last moment, everyone expected that it might be cancelled. However, according to statements by Keane, the program was screened "under thousands of e-mails, threatening messages, and warnings of boycotts." Furthermore, because of the wide interest it received, it was repeated several times on the BBC and shown on television channels in a number of foreign countries.

What Panorama Revealed

The Sabra and Shatilla massacre was carried out by the Lebanese Christian Phalange groups with whom Lebanese Muslim Arabs had been at war for a long time. Yet it was Israel that supported, organized and armed these groups from the beginning. In his program, Keane described the relationship between the Phalangists and Israel in this manner:

The Phalange were led by the charismatic and ruthless Bashir Gemayel. He was Israel's main ally in Lebanon. Israel's Mossad knew from meetings with him that he wanted to "eliminate" the Palestinian problem, and now he was about to become President of Lebanon. Bashir's election worried the people of the camps, but they'd been promised security.

The Israeli Army, which guaranteed the Palestinians in the camps that nothing would happen to them, was firmly behind the Phalange, the force that carried out the massacre. Before the massacre, the Israeli Army took the camp under its control by bombing it for days. It later closed all the gates to the camp, forbidding anyone without permission to enter or leave. It gave the Phalange the time and the means to carry out the slaughter by firing flares all night long that lit their way, and by not intervening for 40 hours. It made it easier for the massacre to continue by issuing death threats, and by turning back those Palestinians who tried to leave and who got as far as the exits and sought help. In Keane's words, "in the rubble were children who'd been scalped, young men who'd been castrated." One of the living witnesses of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre who spoke on the program, Nabil Ahmed, described what he went through in this way:

I was hoping to find my family alive. Then, when I started seeing the bodies in the streets, I accepted the fact then that I'll be grateful to find their bodies. You see what happened. They put them in a house, they killed them and they bulldozed the houses on them, so we were digging the rubble to identify. So we pulled the hair of my relative and that's when we realised that this is the spot where they are there.

The massacre perpetrated by the Phalange was indescribable. Statements of an Israeli officer in the program clearly that the Phalange were enemies of the Muslims. Israeli paratroop brigade commander Yoram Yair recounted the shocking request he received from a Phalangist:

He say "Do me a favour, make sure to bring me that much." I say: "What is it?" He say: "Listen, I know that you will sooner or later go inside West Beirut. Promise me that you will bring me that much Palestinian blood. I want to drink it."

Israel's then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon knew about every stage of this massacre which was carried out under an Israeli Army security umbrella. Keane explained Sharon's role in these words:

Ariel Sharon arrived in Beirut on Wednesday morning insisting there were PLO forces in the camps. And so after conferring with his senior officers, including Amos Yuron, the Commander for Beirut and the refugee camps, Ariel Sharon agreed a fateful order. "Only one element, and that is the Israeli Defence Force, shall command the forces in the area. For the operation in the camps the Phalangist should be sent in."
Ariel Sharon went to see the Phalange at their headquarters to discuss the Beirut operation… Now, a day after their leader's murder, the Israelis were asking the Phalange to fight in Palestinian camps. Could Ariel Sharon have been in any doubt about what would have happened if you sent the Phalangists into a Palestinian refugee camp, an undefended camp?

Keane put that question to many officials, to Morris Draper, the U.S. Middle East representative at the time; Richard Goldstone, former chief prosecutor at the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal; Professor Richard Falk of Princeton University; and others…They all agreed that Ariel Sharon was responsible in the first degree for the massacre and that he was a war criminal. For instance, Goldstone revealed his thoughts in these terms:"If the person who gave the command knows, or should know on the facts available to him or her, that is a situation where innocent civilians are going to be injured or killed, then that person is as responsible, in fact in my book more responsible even than the people who carry out the order." Space was given in the program to a telephone conversation that supported these opinions. Israeli journalist Ron Ben Yishai reported a conversation between himself and Sharon on the second day in this way:

I found him at home sleeping. He woke up and I told him: "Listen, there are stories about killings and massacres in the camps. A lot of our officers know about it and tell me about it, and if they know it, the whole world will know about it. You can still stop it." I didn't know that the massacre actually started 24 hours earlier. I thought it started only then and I said to him: "Look, we still have time to stop it. Do something about it." He didn't react.

In short, although he has denied it for years, Ariel Sharon knew about the massacre, decided on it together with the Phalangists, and made no effort to stop the killings in the camps, which were under his responsibility.

This reality that Panorama revealed was one that had been expressed for years by those who have studied the event closely and those who lived through it. However, the reason why the program attracted so much attention was that it was the first time that such a respectable channel as BBC had broadcast statements directly accusing Israel, and because it also accused Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Death Threats To Those Who Declare Ariel Sharon To Be A War Criminal

Ariel Sharon knew about every stage of this massacre which was carried out under an Israeli Army security umbrella.

There was a most interesting reaction after this broadcast. Professor Richard Falk of Princeton University, who said that Ariel Sharon should be indicted as a war criminal, further noted:

I think there is no question in my mind that he is indictable for the kind of knowledge that he either had or should have had.

Falk began to receive death threats after that statement. Shortly afterwards, his home and family were given police protection. Israel was once again attempting to silence people and prevent the truth from being told by means of violence, pressure, and threats. However, Falk stated in The Independent that his conscience was easy and that he had told the truth.

After the program, debates began over whether or not Ariel Sharon could be tried. Several international jurists joined in. However, these debates were an example of insincerity. The genocide of the Palestinians, which most states had ignored for more than half a century, was now being talked about 20 years after it happened. Those who had ignored it at the time, and those who made no effort to stop Israel, were behaving as if these massacres were being revealed for the very first time.

In fact, this charge is not limited to Sharon but extends to Zionism itself, Israel's official ideology. It is enough to look at Israel's basic principles to see this, and to understand the philosophy behind the bloodshed at Sabra and Shatilla.

Will Ariel Sharon Be Tried As A "War Criminal"?

The charge of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre is not limited to Sharon but extends to Zionism itself, Israel's official ideology. It is enough to look at Israel's basic principles to see this, and to understand the philosophy behind this bloodshed.

When the BBC program "The Accused" was aired, 28 Palestinians who survived the Sabra and Shatilla massacre sued Ariel Sharon in Belgium so that he could be tried as a war criminal in Belgian courts. Belgium is one of the few countries whose law permits the trial of anyone who commits human rights violations in any country.

The indictment sheds a great deal of light on Sharon's and Israel's bloody history. The indictment, which presents commission reports and research by important historians and writers as evidence, contains important information that Sharon knew about the massacre, that he supported those who carried it out, and even that he was working with them:

Historians and journalists agree that it was probably during a meeting between Ariel Sharon and Bashir Gemayel in Bikfaya on 12 September [1982] that an agreement was concluded to authorise the "Lebanese forces" to "mop up" these Palestinian camps.¹
The intention to send the Phalangist forces into West Beirut had already been announced by Mr Sharon on 9 July 1982 ², and in his biography [called "Warrior"], he confirms having negotiated the operation during his meeting with Bikfaya.³
According to Ariel Sharon's 22 September 1982 declarations in the Knesset (Israeli parliament), the entry of the Phalangists into the refugee camps of Beirut was decided on Wednesday 15 September 1982 at 15.30.⁴
Also according to General Sharon, the Israeli commandant had received the following instruction: "The Tsahal forces are forbidden to enter the refugee camps. The 'mopping-up' of the camps will be carried out by the Phalanges or the Lebanese army."⁵
At that point, General Drori telephoned Ariel Sharon and announced, "Our friends [the Phalangists] are advancing into the camps. We have coordinated their entry." Sharon replied, "Congratulations! Our friends' operation is approved."⁶
(For the whole text of the indictment and detailed statements by the victims, see http://www.mallat.com/complaint.htm)

The above details are only a part of the evidence revealing the relationship between Sharon and Gemayel. Sharon's autobiography, Warrior, provides many more details of the massacre carried out by the Phalangists. In any case, the fact that Israeli soldiers did not enter a camp under their control for 3 days, that they did not know what was going on inside, while all the time preparing logistical support and bulldozers to open graves and demolish houses, means that the claim that they were "well-intentioned" is false.

What Will Ariel Sharon's Being Tried As A War Criminal Change?

The trial of Ariel Sharon for the Sabra and Shatilla massacre would be an important initiative. However, the current campaign by some survivors is not receiving sufficient world support. Apart from a few human rights organizations, nobody is supporting them. The most important thing is that massacres in Palestine are still ongoing.

In Palestine, hundreds of innocent Palestinians are being forced out of their houses and exiled from their land. Bulldozers run over their homes. Again a defenceless father is killed, together with the child in his arms. Israeli troops carry out new killings and attacks every day. And the man giving the orders is Ariel Sharon. Even if someone else replaces him, the massacres will continue, for Israeli violence is based upon such a deep-rooted ideology that just bringing Sharon to trial will not expunge it. And until Israel abandons its Zionist ideology, it will continue to bring death and blood to the Middle East.

Of course getting past massacres onto the agenda is an important initiative. But for this to be a statement of sincerity, the commitment displayed must continue until the cruelty ends. Therefore, all sincere people need to pursue wide-scale international legal sanctions (for instance an embargo) and a policy of isolation to force an end to the killings committed by the Zionists in the name of their ideology.

1 Benny Morris, The Righteous Victims, New York, A. Knopf, 1999, p. 540
2 Schiff & Ya'ari, Israel's Lebanon War, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1984, p. 251
3 A. Sharon, Warrior: An Autobiography, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1989, p. 498
4 Sharon à la Knesset, Annexe au rapport de la Commission Kahan, The Beirut Massacre, The Complete Kahan Commission Report, Princeton, Karz Cohl, 1983, p. 124. (Ci-après, Kahan Commission Report)
5 Kahan Report, p. 125: "mopping-up"
6 Amnon Kapeliouk, Sabra et Chatila: Enquête sur un massacre, Paris, Seuil 1982, p.37

A Real Solution In Cyprus

A Real Solution In Cyprus

A real solution in Cyprus would be for the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus to maintain its existence as an independent state, to further strengthen its ties with Turkey and to implement firm policies to enhance the Cypriot people's national and spiritual awareness.

In the last few months, the question of Cyprus has been put before Turkey as a condition for its long-awaited membership in the EU. In spite of the fact that membership in the EU and the Cyprus question are two different issues, some countries such as Greece and Britain have claimed that they are related and have made the serious mistake of moving to put them on the agenda in a single package.

The Essential Political Attitude Regarding Cyprus

In the approximately 150-page document recently prepared by UN General Secretary Kofi Annan and delivered to representatives of both countries, there are very serious risks for North Cyprus. The report as it has been presented is unacceptable because Cypriot Turks have no area of sovereignty and if it is accepted, they will be a minority living on the island within 3 to 5 years and are treated as such. Moreover, it is recommended that a certain number of Greek Cypriots be moved into areas belonging to the North. Under these circumstances, it is probable that all the measures taken in the 1960 agreement between Turks and Greeks to preserve the status of the two different communities will be nullified. More serious is the probability that, without preparing a suitable foundation on which the two communities can live securely, the attempt to implement the model of a heterogeneous society may have a detrimental outcome as it had in the past.

In the event of such an agreement, many Cypriot Turks will be without a home and employment, living in anxiety with no peace of mind. They have been settled on the island since 1974 and to remove them from their homes and destroy the peace and order of their lives would be of benefit to no one.

Turkey's policy on this matter, as it was well expressed by the National Security Council, must have its basis in the primary goal of assuring the security of the Turks in northern Cyprus and in support for the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus. Through the Cyprus Peace Movement in 1974, the Turkish army protected Turks on the island from the genocidal intentions of radical Greek Cypriots; these facts must never be forgotten. Solutions that would be disadvantageous to the Turkish side of the island and pose a risk to its security cannot be considered.

Moreover, from the point of view of Turkey, Cyprus is of great strategic importance. If Turkey loses its control over Cyprus, it also loses the possibility of access to the Mediterranean. In accordance to the decision made at the last meeting of the National Security Council, Turkey must work towards getting the fact accepted that Denktash insists on: There are two separate states on the island. An autonomous government established by two separate states will make joint decisions on questions of foreign relations but, in domestic matters, one will be independent of the other. In addition, it is essential that Turkey continues as guarantor.

Essential Cultural Policies for Cyprus

Policies to be implemented with regard to the Cyprus question are not only of a political or diplomatic nature. Also in the areas of economics and culture, measures must be encouraged that will strengthen the Turkish people of Cyprus and improve their situation. It is definite that Southern Cyprus will join the European Union, an attractive prospect for some of the Turks on the island even though no official agreement has been signed. In order to prevent this from becoming a debilitating factor, it is necessary to solidify the connection of Cypriot Turks with Turkey and their Muslim identity by improving their socio-economic situation and strengthening their national and spiritual values.

A meeting held recently in Cyprus revealed that a number of Turkish people on the island were not happy with some of the existing policies. To counteract this, the causes of the discontent have to be removed and policies developed that will restore the people's trust in the government of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus. The government must adopt a compassionate and understanding attitude towards the people, take a close interest in those areas where there are problems and provide opportunities for initiatives undertaken towards the development of Cyprus.

Furthermore, an intense cultural campaign must be implemented to infuse spiritual ideals and values deeply within the people in Cyprus, especially the young generation. Cypriot Turks must embrace more strongly the Muslim identity that supported them since the island broke away from the Ottomans, and Turkey must take the lead in this cultural renaissance.

To this end, Cypriot Turks must avoid the dilemma that would arise from being left with the prospect of an economically deprived and passive North Cyprus and a developed and prosperous South Cyprus. On the contrary, the model to be adopted is that of a modern, contemporary, developed Cypriot Turk who has at the same time a strong religious identity. Psychology is of major importance in the inclinations of societies, especially in small societies. The strengthening of Cypriot Turkish society is bound to a psychological reinforcement, and this will come about by the establishment of the above mentioned economic and cultural policies.

In this matter, an important role will be played by the media and public social institutions. Cypriot Turks must see a motherland that avidly supports their existence on the island, that is of one heart and mind with them in a feeling of religious brotherhood and that defends their rights with its utmost power.

 

Behind The Scenes Of The Iraq War

Behind The Scenes Of The Iraq War

The plan for the Iraq war, which has erupted in the face of opposition from the entire world, was drawn up at least decades ago, by Israeli strategists. In its attempt to realize its strategy of destablizing or dividing the Middle Eastern Arab states, Israel has Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia on its list of subsequent targets.

On 19 March, 2003, the United States of America begun striking at Iraq. Despite the fact that most countries of the world, and even the majority of the USA's allies, opposed it, the US administration was determined for the strike to go ahead. When we look behind the scenes of this insistence, it is Israel, solely responsible for the bloodshed and suffering in the Middle East since the beginning of the twentieth century, which emerges. The state of Israel's policy aimed at the fragmentation of Iraq has lengthy historical roots…

Israel's Plans To Divide Iraq

The report titled "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties," by the Department of Information's Hebrew-language magazine Kivunim (Directions), aimed at making the whole of the Middle East a living space for Israel. The report, drawn up by Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist and formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel, set out the scenario of the "division of Iraq" in these terms:

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria… Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past… In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.

We believe there is little need to recall how this scenario was partially implemented after the 1991 Gulf War, with Iraq being effectively, if not officially, divided into three parts. The fact that the
US plan for the occupation of Iraq could again spark off such a division, is a concrete threat.

Israel's Role In The Gulf War

The implementation of the Israeli strategy goes back to 1990. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in a sudden attack on August 1, 1990, giving rise to an international crisis. Israel headed the list of those forces which encouraged that crisis. Israel was the fiercest supporter of the attitude adopted by the United States in the wake of the invasion of Kuwait. The Israelis even regarded the United States as moderate, and wanted a harsher policy. To such an extent in fact that the President of Israel Chaim Herzog recommended that the American use nuclear
weapons. On the other hand, the Israeli lobby in the United States was working to bring about a wide-ranging attack on Iraq.

This whole situation encouraged the idea in the United States that the attack against Iraq under consideration was actually planned in Israel's interests. The well-known commentator Pat Buchanan summarized this idea in the words, "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East-the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States."¹

Israel had also initiated a serious propaganda campaign on the issue. Since this campaign was largely waged in secret, Mossad also entered the equation. Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky provides important information on this subject. According to Ostrovsky, Israel had wanted to wage war with the United States against Saddam long before the Gulf crisis. So much so in fact, that Israel began to implement the plan immediately after the Iran-Iraq war. Ostrovsky reports that Mossad's Psychological Warfare department (LAP-LohAma Psicologit) set about an effective campaign using disinformation techniques. This campaign was aimed at representing Saddam as a bloody dictator and a threat to world peace.²

A Mossad Agent Describes The Gulf War

Ostrovsky describes how Mossad used agents or sympathizers in various parts of the world in this campaign and how, for example, Amnesty International or "volunteer Jewish helpers (sayanim)" in the US Congress were brought in. Among the tools employed in the campaign were the missiles launched against civilian targets in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. As Ostrovsky makes clear, Mossad's later use of these missiles as a propaganda tool was quite peculiar, since those missiles had actually been directed towards their targets by Mossad, with the help of information from US satellites. Having supported Saddam throughout his war with Iran, Israel was now trying to portray him as a monster. Ostrovsky writes:

The Mossad leaders know that if they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he'd been the protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he went nuclear.³

The Israelis were so determined on this matter, and with regard to the United States, that on August 4, 1990, Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy issued a diplomatically worded threat to William Brown, the American ambassador to Israel, stating that Israel "expects the US will fulfill all of the goals it set for itself at the beginning of the gulf crisis," in other words that it attack Iraq. According to Levy, if the United States failed to do so, Israel would act unilaterally.⁴

It would be of enormous benefit to Israel to have the United States engage in the war and for Israel to remain entirely uninvolved: and that is indeed what happened.

Israel Forces The USA To War

However, the Israelis were actively involved in the United States' war plans. Some US staff officers involved in planning Operation Desert Storm received fine tactical advice from the Israelis that "the best way of wounding Saddam was to strike at his family."

The Mossad-inspired propaganda campaign reported by Ostrovsky set up the necessary public backing for the Gulf War. It was again Mossad's local assistants who lit the touchpaper for the war. The Hill and Knowlton lobbying firm, run by Tom Lantos of the Israeli lobby, prepared a dramatic scenario to convince members of the Congress on the subject of war against Saddam. Turan Yavuz, a noted Turkish journalist, describes the incident:

October 9, 1990. The Hill and Knowlton lobbying firm organizes a sitting in Congress on the subject of "Iraq's Barbarities." A number of "eye witnesses" brought to the session by the lobbying firm maintain that Iraqi troops killed new-born babies in the hospital wards. One "eye witness" describes the savagery in enormous detail, saying that Iraqi soldiers killed 300 new-born babies in one hospital alone. This information deeply disturbs the members of Congress. This works to President Bush's advantage. However, it later emerges that the eye witness brought by Hill and Knowlton to Congress is in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington. Nevertheless, the daughter's account is sufficient for members of Congress to give Saddam the nickname "Hitler".⁵

This leads to just one conclusion: that Israel played an important role in the United States' decision to wage its first war on Iraq. The second one is not much different.

The Pretext of "War Against Terrorism"

Contrary to popular belief, the plan to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime by force was prepared and placed on Washington's agenda long before the environment of the "fight against terror," which emerged in the wake of September 11. The first indication of this plan emerged in 1997. A group of pro-Israeli strategists in Washington began to put forward the scenario of the invasion of Iraq by manipulating the "neo-con" think-tank, called PNAC (Project for The New American Century). The most notable names in the PNAC were those of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who as defense secretary and vice-president would be the most influential figures in the George W. Bush administration.

An article titled "Invading Iraq Not a New Idea for Bush Clique: 4 Years Before 9/11 Plan Was Set" written by William Brunch and published in the Philadelphia Daily News, sets out the following facts:

But in reality, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and a small band of conservative ideologues had begun making the case for an American invasion of Iraq as early as 1997-nearly four years before the Sept. 11 attacks and three years before President Bush took office.

An obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC-affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb-even urged then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998.⁶

Is Oil The Real Objective?

Why were the PNAC members so determined to overthrow Saddam? The same article continues:

While oil is a backdrop to PNAC's policy pronouncements on Iraq, it doesn't seem to be the driving force. [Ian] Lustick, [a University of Pennsylvania political science professor and Middle East expert,] while a critic of the Bush policy, says oil is viewed by the war's proponents primarily as a way to pay for the costly military operation.
"I'm from Texas, and every oil man that I know is against military action in Iraq," said PNAC's Schmitt. "The oil market doesn't need disruption."
Lustick believes that a more powerful hidden motivator may be Israel. He said Bush administration hawks believe that a show of force in Iraq would somehow convince Palestinians to accept a peace plan on terms favorable to Israel…⁷

This, therefore, is the principal motivation behind the plan to attack Iraq: to serve Israel's Middle East strategy.

This fact has also been identified by other Middle East experts. Cengiz Candar, a Turkish Middle East expert, for instance, describes the real power behind the plan to attack Iraq thus:

... Who is directing the attack on Iraq? Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. These are the "senior level" backers of the attack. Yet the rest of the iceberg is even richer and more interesting. There are a number of "lobbies."
Heading these lobbies are the Jewish Institute for Security Affairs team, pro-Likud and Israeli-right and known for their close relations with US arms manufacturers. These have close relations with the "arms lobby," Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics and Israeli military industries... JINSA's fundamental principle is this: America's and Israel's security are inseparable. In other words, they are the same thing.
JINSA's objective is not solely the overthrow of the Saddam regime in Iraq: It also supports the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Egyptian and Iranian regimes with a logic of "total war," and the subsequent importation of "democracy." ... In other words, a number of American Jews on the same wavelength as the most extreme factions in Israel at the moment comprise the hawks in Washington.⁸

Israel's Project of "Secret World Domination"

In short, there are those in Washington who are encouraging a war aimed first at Iraq and then at Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Egypt. The most distinguishing feature of these is that they are lined up alongside, and even equivalent to, the "Israeli lobby."

No matter how much they speak of "American interests," these people are actually supporting Israeli interests. A strategy of waging war against the whole of the Middle East and turning all the peoples of the region against it cannot be to the United States' advantage. The adoption of such a strategy can only be possible if the United States is bound to Israel, by means of the Israeli lobby, which is unbelievably influential in the country's foreign policy.

It is for these reasons that behind the strategy which began to be set in motion after September 11 and is aimed at re-arranging the entire Islamic world, lies Israel's secret plan for "world domination." Ever since its foundation, Israel has aimed at restructuring the Middle East, making it manageable and no threat to itself. It has been using its influence in the United States for that purpose in recent years, and to a large extent directs Washington's Middle East policy. The post-September 11 climate gave Israel the opportunity it had been seeking. Pro-Israeli ideologues who for years had been propounding the falsehood that Islam itself-not some militant radicals who use Islam as a shelter-posed a threat to the West and the United States, and who encouraged the mistaken concept of a "clash of civilizations," have been trying to incite the United States against the Islamic world in the wake of September 11. As early as 1995, Israel Shahak of the Jerusalem Hebrew University wrote former Israeli Prime Minister Rabin's obsession with "the idea of an Israeli-led anti-Islamic crusade." Nahum Barnea, a commentator from the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, stated that same year that Israel was making progress "[to] become the Western vanguard in the war against the Islamic enemy."⁹

All that has happened in the years which have followed is that Israel has made its intentions even clearer. The political climate in the wake of September 11 prepared the ground for this intention to be made a reality. The world is now witnessing the step by step implementation of Israel's policy of the fragmentation of Iraq, planned decades ago.

The Only Way To World Peace: An Islamic Union

The situation may be summarized as follows: Israel's aim is to restructure the Middle East in line with its own strategic interests. In order to do this, in order to rule the Middle East, one of the most sensitive regions in the world, it needs a "world power." That power is the United States; and Israel, thanks to its influence there, is trying to place a mortgage on that country's Middle East policy. Although Israel is a small state with a population of only 4.5 million, the plans drawn up by Israel and its backers in the West are directing the whole world.

What needs to be done in the face of this?

1) "Counter lobby activities" need to be adopted in the face of the Israeli lobby's influence in the United States in order to develop dialogue between the United States and the Islamic world and to invite it to seek peaceful solutions to Iraq and similar problems. A wide section of the United States wish to see their country adopt a fairer Middle East policy. Many statesmen, strategists, journalists and intellectuals have expressed this, and a "peace between civilizations" movement must be carried forward in cooperation with them.

2) The approach inviting the US administration to peaceful solutions must be carried forward at governmental and civil society organisation level.

Alongside all this, a deeper rooted solution lies in a project which can resolve all the problems between the Islamic world and the West and deal with the fragmentation, suffering and poverty in the Islamic world and totally alter it: an Islamic Union.

Recent developments have shown that the whole world, not just Islamic regions, stands in need of an "Islamic Union." This Union should heal the radical elements in the Islamic World, and establish good relations between Muslim countries and the West, especially the United States. It should also help to find a solution to the mother of all problems: the Arab-Israeli conflict. With Israel retreating to its pre-'67 borders and Arabs recognizing its right to exist, there can be real peace in the Middle East. And Jews and Muslims-both Children of Abraham and believers in one true God-may peacefully co-exist in the Holy Land, as they have done during the past centuries. Then, Israel would need no strategy to destabilize or divide the Arab States. And it will not have to face the results of occupation in forms of terrorism and constant fear of annihilation. Then, both the Israeli and Iraqi (and Palestinian) children may grow up in peace and security. That is a Middle East that any sane person should work to see.

1 http://www.infoplease.com/spot/patbuchanan1.html
2 Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception, pp. 252-254
3 Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception, p. 254
4 Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison, p. 356
5 Turan Yavuz, ABD'nin Kürt Kartý (The US' Kurdish Card), p. 307
6 William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 27, 2003
7 William Bunch, "Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique", Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 27, 2003
8 Cengiz Candar, "Irak ve 'Türkiye Dostu'Amerikan Sahinleri" (Iraq and the 'Friends of Turkey' American Hawks), Yeni Safak, September 3, 2002
9 Israel Shahak, "Downturn in Rabin's Popularity Has Several Causes", Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1995

China's Deception On Terrorism

China's Deception On Terrorism

The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, brought with them a new strategic order that would change many balances in the world. The United States began a global war against international terrorism, which sees that country as its main target. Some countries, however, took advantage of that struggle and hoped to use it for their own ends. The most important of these was China.

China tried to portray the United States' reaction to terrorism as "a war against Muslims," and issued a message in October, 2001. That message said, in essence, that China wanted to "cooperate with the Western world against the Islamic terrorists in East Turkestan."

Yet that statement by China is a clear contradiction. The people of East Turkestan are waging an entirely justified struggle to protect their own values and culture, live according to their own religion, and speak their own language. For many years now, that struggle has been waged on a purely democratic platform, thanks to the good sense of the East Turkestan leaders. There may be individuals or groups in East Turkestan who are inclined to the use of violence, just as in any other society, but that does not change the fact that the struggle of East Turkestan is justified. The real terrorist force in the region is the Chinese regime, which is waging a long-term campaign of genocide against the innocent Muslims of East Turkestan.

Western commentators were not slow to express this fact. Former U.S. Senator Jesse Helms was one of these. An example is an article titled "Beware China's Ties to the Taliban" in the October 14, 2001, edition of The Washington Times, just after China's propaganda initiative. Helms had served for many years as Republican party senator for North Carolina, and had been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In his article, he described how deceptive China's move to gain the support of the United States and the West really was. He stated that there were close links between China and the Taliban regime, and that China was hostile both to Islam and to the West:

The second rationale for working with the Chinese is the weird assumption that China and the United States share a common interest in fighting terrorism. What a naive and dangerous fantasy. The fact is, the Communist Chinese government is in bed with every one of the terrorist and terrorist-supporting rogue regimes of the Middle East... Those who imagine that the U.S. shares common interests with the Chinese in combating terrorism most likely base their assumption on China's fight against supposed Uighur terrorism in Xinjiang Province, formerly known as East Turkestan. But there is an ugly catch to that:If the U.S. should end up receiving any kind of support from Beijing for our anti-terrorist efforts, it will almost certainly come at the price of acquiescing in China's crackdown on the Uighurs. That would be a moral calamity, for there is no justification in lumping the Uighurs with the murderous fanatics who demonstrably mean us harm. The Uighurs are engaged in a just struggle for freedom from Beijing's tyrannical rule, for the most part peacefully. For this, they have been viciously suppressed, with the Chinese government arresting and torturing political prisoners, destroying mosques and opening fire on peaceful demonstrations.
Strategically and morally, the United States cannot and must not assume that China is part of a solution to terrorism. Indeed, Communist China is a very large part of the problem.

As we have seen, Americans are aware of what is happening in Red China and of the terrible oppression of the Muslims of East Turkestan, and therefore regard China, not as a "part of a solution to terrorism," but as a part of terrorism itself.

That view has now come to be shared by many in the West. Various figures are warning of the need to be careful in the face of moves by certain countries that hope to take advantage of the US's fight against terrorism. In a November 5, 2001 article, Thomas Beal, one of the editors of The Asian Wall Street Journal stressed the following:

China's false indignation shows how it is exploiting world-wide revulsion at the attacks on America to justify a nearly 10-year crackdown on ethnic nationalism and religion in Xinjiang, whose Muslim Turkic Uighurs comprise half of the region's 18 million people. For backing, or at least not opposing, the U.S.-led campaign against Osama bin Laden, President Jiang Zemin hopes to milk greater sympathy from Western governments critical of China's human rights record.
The Bush administration must reject China's attempt to equate the attack on America with its separatist problem. It should not give support, tacit or otherwise, to China's abuses of Muslims in Xinjiang...

Later in the article, Beal turned to the Chinese regime's oppression of the people of East Turkestan, and stated that it was still going on. He concluded his article with these words:

... [T]he U.S. must not abet Beijing's abuses against the Uighurs, a people who know all too well why America is waging war on terrorism.

For its part, Turkey needs to keep these facts in mind in its relationship with China, and to use diplomatic channels to support the rightful struggle of its fellow Turks and co-religionists in East Turkestan.

Darwinism Is The Ideological Basis Of Satanism

Darwinism Is The Ideological Basis Of Satanism

Satanism is a perverted ideology that makes violence and savagery a ritual in its creed. Satanists, who describe themselves as such, make deeds of inhumanity and brutality into acts of worship.

When the word Satanism is mentioned most people think merely of its widespread psychological influence on young people, and regard it as a kind of insignificant mystical movement. Also, due to the influence of the media, they may think of Satanists as performing strange rituals, much unlike what ordinary and well-balanced people would otherwise do. It is true that Satanists are part of a culture of violence and perform strange and horrible rites, yet, what most people fail to see is that Satanism is a materialist and atheist ideology that supports violence and which dates back to the 1800s. Furthermore, the ideology has a large number of followers throughout the world.

The fundamental principle of Satanism is that it rejects all religious values, takes the Devil as its deity, and claims that hell is a kind of salvation. According to the belief of Satanism, people have no responsibilities, apart from that of following their own desires. If his desires lead a person to anger, hatred, revenge, deceit, theft, the harming others or even murder, then that is acceptable.

One of the most common ways Satanists use to describe themselves, in their books, magazines and publications, as well as their websites, is to regard man as a "kind of developed animal," and to maintain that "only the fittest can survive." This is the most important piece of evidence to corroborate that Darwinism lies at the very root of the Satanists' beliefs. In fact, many Satanists do not hesitate to admit the fact. In A Description of Satanism, a Satanist writer describes the ideology in these terms:

… First of all, Humans are social animals... all people and animals share a common source in mere biology. Satanism is the belief that Humans are nothing more than higher animals-we have no special place in creation other than being lucky to have evolved and survived…¹

It is clear from the preceding that Satanism regards Darwin's theory, that human beings evolved from animals, as the source of its own ideological "awareness." The introduction to an interview with Anton LaVey, the founder of Satanism, carried in the music journal MF Magazine, describes the relationship between Satanism and Darwinism:

In the late 1960s, Anton LaVey brought forth an easily understandable doctrine of social Darwinism, and strong positive thinking (magic) to the growing mass of individuals sick of both hippieism and the stagnant morals of Christianity.²

The way Satanism shares so many parallels with Social Darwinism, which regards Western society as superior to others, has led to cooperation between it and a number of other racist and chauvinistic movements, especially fascism. One can find many individuals who believed in Satanism among the ranks of Hitler's National Socialists and Mussolini's Blackshirts. Anton LaVey makes this reference to that collaboration:

It's an unholy alliance. Many different types of such people have made contact with us in the past. The anti-Christian strength of National Socialist Germany is part of the appeal to Satanists-the drama, the lighting, the choreography with which they moved millions of people.³

Darwinism is the primary ground shared between these tendencies and Satanism. Social Darwinism, which lies at the heart of all these deviant ideologies, is defended by Satanists as follows:

The principle of the survival of the strong is advocated on all levels of society, from allowing an individual to stand or fall, to even letting those nations that cannot handle themselves take the consequences of this inability… There would be a concomitant reduction in the world's population as the weak are allowed to experience the consequences of social Darwinism. Thus has nature always acted to cleanse and strengthen her children… We embrace reality and do not try to transform it into some utopia that is contrary to the very fabric of existence.⁴

Another expression of the Satanists' attachment to Social Darwinism is their fierce support for the theory of eugenics, itself the product of fascism. The theory of eugenics maintained that the sick and the crippled ought to be eliminated from society, and the number of healthy individuals increased through breeding. The theory was most prominently implemented in Nazi Germany. According to the theory of eugenics, in the same way that healthy animal stock is bred by mating healthy species, by this way a race of humans also be improved. Those elements obstructing such improvement (the sick, crippled, mentally handicapped etc.) need to be eradicated. When this line of thinking was adopted in Nazi Germany, tens of thousands of people with genetic and mental diseases were slaughtered ruthlessly.

Satanism is also in favor of the same terrible mercilessness. Their own publications reveal their view on eugenics:

Satanists also seek to enhance the laws of nature by concentrating on fostering the practice of eugenics… It is the practice of encouraging people of talent and ability to reproduce, to enrich the gene pool from which our species can grow. This was commonly practiced throughout the world… Until the genetic code is cracked and we can choose the character of our offspring at will, Satanists seek to mate the best with the best.⁵

We need to bear in mind the Satanists' own views when considering the threat posed by it. When Satanists are asked how many of them there are, they claim to have large numbers of followers, because there are many people who actually live by the tenets of Satanism without being aware of the fact. In a way, that is actually the case. Many people, consciously or unconsciously, share the views of the Satanists. That is because, refusing to listen to the voice of one's conscience, or to live by proper morality, therefore following one's own desires, is the same as obeying the commands of the Devil. When one considers all the destruction caused by Satanists up to the present day, it is quite clear in what a terrible state a society consisting of such people is going to end up to be.

The claim that man is a species of animal, on which Satanism is founded, is utter nonsense. Mankind did not come into being as the result of blind chance. The Creator of mankind, and of the order and splendor of the entire universe, is the infinitely powerful, superior and All-Wise God, Who has no weaknesses of any kind. He created man with the ability to think and reason, to distinguish between right and wrong, and also with a responsibility towards our Creator. Just as each individual's ego directs him towards evil, so his conscience protects him from it, and commands him to turn away from it. It is man's duty to listen to the voice of his conscience, not of his ego and adopt the kind of morality that is pleasing to God. That morality will not only allow the individual concerned, and the society in which he lives, to enjoy a peaceful and secure existence, but will also, by the will of God, lead to the sublimest reward in the hereafter.

One important fact that must not be lost sight of is that the life Satan offers, which he dresses up to appear so very attractive, is mere deception. Satan may make all kinds of promises about the possibilities of the life of this world, and may try to turn people away form the true path, yet, it must not be forgotten that the road he beckons man to follow will only lead to ultimate destruction for those who take it. That is because Satan and his followers have already been defeated. As God explains in a verse:

… What they call on is an arrogant Satan whom God has cursed. He said, "I will take a certain fixed proportion of Your servants. I will lead them astray and fill them with false hopes. I will command them and they will cut off cattle's ears. I will command them and they will change God's creation." Anyone who takes the Satan as his protector in place of God has clearly lost everything. (Surat an-Nisa', 117-119)

1 Vexen Crabtree, "A Description of Satanism," http://simon.crabtree.com/satanism/modern.html
2 "The Doctor Is In," Shane & Amy Bugbee, http:www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/MFInterview.html
3 Vexen Crabtree," A Description of Satanism," http://simon.crabtree.com/satanism/modern.html
4 Magister Peter Gilmore, "Satanism the Feared Religion," http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Feared.html
5 Magister Peter Gilmore, "Satanism the Feared Religion," http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Feared.html

Islam Is Not The Source Of Terrorism, But Its Solution

Islam Is Not The Source Of Terrorism, But Its Solution

During the last two decades in particular, the concept of "Islamic terror" has been often discussed. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on targets in New York and Washington which caused the death of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, this concept has once again returned to the top of the international agenda.

As Muslims, we completely condemn these attacks and offer our condolences to the American people.

In this article, we will explain that Islam is by no means the source of this violence and that violence has no place in Islam.

One point that should be stressed at the outset is that the identities of the perpetrators of the acts of terrorism which targeted the United States are not yet determined. There is a chance that these horrible attackers are linked to quite different centres. It may well be a communist organisation harbouring rage and hatred against American values, a fascist organisation opposing federal administration or a secret faction in another state. Even though the hijackers have Muslim identities, the questions regarding by whom and for what purposes these people were used will remain to be a mystery.

The fact remains however, that even if the terrorists have Muslim identities, the terror they perpetrated cannot be labelled "Islamic terror", just as it would not be called "Jewish terror" if the perpetrators were Jews or "Christian terror" if they were Christians.

That is because, as we will examine in the following pages, murdering innocent people in the name of religion is unacceptable. We need to keep in mind that, among those who were killed in Washington or New York, there were people who loved Jesus (Christians), Prophet Moses (Jews) and Muslims. Unless forgiven by God, murdering innocent people is a great sin that brings torment in Hell.

Thus, a religious person who has fear of God can never commit such an act.

The aggressors can commit such violence only with the intention of attacking religion itself. It may well be that they carried out this violence to present religion as evil in the eyes of people, to divorce people from religion and to generate hatred and reaction against pious people. Consequently, every attack having a "religious" facade on American citizens or other innocent people is actually an attack made against religion.

Religion commands love, mercy and peace. Terror, on the other hand, is the opposite of religion; it is cruel, merciless and it demands bloodshed and misery. This being the case, while looking for the perpetrators of a terrorist act, its origins should be sought in disbelief rather than in religion. People with a fascist, communist, racist or materialist outlook on life should be suspected as potential perpetrators. The name or the identity of the triggerman is not important. If he can kill innocent people without blinking an eye, then he is a disbeliever, not a believer. He is a murderer with no fear of God, whose main ambition is to shed blood and to give harm. For this reason, "Islamic terror" is quite an erroneous concept which contradicts Islam's message. That is because, the religion of Islam can by no means concur with terror. On the contrary, "terror" (i.e. murders committed against innocent people) in Islam is a great sin and Muslims are responsible for preventing these acts and bringing peace and justice to the world.

The Values of The Qur'an Demand Goodness, Justice And Peace

Terror, in its broadest sense, is violence committed against non-military targets for political purposes. To put it in another way, the targets of terror are entirely innocent civilians whose only crime is, in the eyes of terrorists, to represent "the other side".

Terror means subjecting innocent people to violence, which is an act bereft of any moral justification. This, as in the case of murders committed by Hitler or Stalin, is a crime committed against "mankind".

The Qur'an is a Book revealed to people as a guide to the true path and in this Book, God commands man to adopt good morals. This morality is based upon concepts such as love, compassion, tolerance and mercy. God calls all people to Islamic morals through which compassion, mercy, peace and tolerance can be experienced all over the world.

You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace [Islam]. Do not follow in the footsteps of Satan. He is an outright enemy to you. (Surat al-Baqara: 168)

The values of the Qur'an hold a Muslim responsible for treating all people, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, kindly and justly, protecting the needy and the innocent and preventing the "dissemination of mischief". Mischief comprises all forms of anarchy and terror that remove security, comfort and peace. As God says in a verse, "God does not love mischief makers". (Surat al-Qasas: 77)

Murdering a person for no reason is one of the most obvious examples of mischief. God repeats in the Qur'an a command He formerly revealed to Jews in the Old Testament thus:

So We decreed for the tribe of Israel that if someone kills another person-unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth-it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs but even after that many of them committed outrages in the earth. (Surat al-Ma'ida: 32)

As the verse suggests, a person who kills even a single man, "unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth", commits a crime as if he had murdered all mankind on earth.

This being the case, it is obvious what great sins are the murders, massacres and, attacks, popularly known as "suicide attacks", committed by terrorists are. God informs us how this cruel face of terrorism will be punished in the hereafter in the following verse:

There are only grounds against those who wrong people and act as tyrants in the earth without any right to do so. Such people will have a painful punishment. (Surat ash-Shura: 42)

All these reveal that organising acts of terror against innocent people is utterly against Islam and it is unlikely that any Muslim could ever commit such crime. On the contrary, Muslims are responsible for stopping these people, removing "mischief on earth" and bringing peace and security to all people all over the world. Being a Muslim cannot be reconciled with terror. Just the contrary, it is the solution and prevention of terror.

This being the case, how did the popular term "Islamic terror" emerge?

What has been examined so far reveals that it is not possible to talk about an "Islamic" terror. Indeed, a closer look at the characteristics of the perpetrators explicitly reveals that this terror is not a religious but a social phenomenon.

Crusaders: Barbarians Who Trampled Their Own Religion

The true message of a religion or another system of belief can be at times exposed to distortion by its pseudo-adherents. The Crusaders, who constitute a dark episode of Christian history, set a good example of this.

Crusaders were European Christians who undertook the expeditions at the end of the 11th century to recover the Holy Land (the area around Palestine) from the Muslims. They set out with a so-called religious goal, yet they laid waste each acre of land they entered with fear and violence. They subjected civilians to mass executions and plundered many villages and towns.

Their conquest of Jerusalem, where Muslims, Jews and Christians lived under Islamic rule in peace, became the scene of immense bloodshed. They violently killed all Muslims and Jews by striking their necks. The Crusaders' barbarism was so excessive that, during the Fourth Crusade, they plundered Istanbul, also a Christian city, and stole the golden objects from the churches.

No doubt, all this barbarism was utterly against Christian political doctrine. That is because, Christianity, in the words of the Bible, is a "message of love". In the Gospel according to Matthew, it is said that Jesus said "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" to his followers (Matthew, 5/44) In the Gospel according to Luke, it is said that Jesus said "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." (Luke, 6/29) No doubt, in no part of the Gospels, is there reference to the legitimacy of violence; murdering innocent people, on the other hand, is unimaginable. You can find the concept of "murdering the innocent" in the Bible; yet, only in the cruel Jewish King Herod's attempt to kill Jesus while he was a baby.

While Christianity is a religion based on love that accommodates no violence, how did Christian Crusaders carry out the most violent acts of history? The major reason for this is that, Crusaders were mainly made up of ignorant people who could better be defined as "rabble". These masses, who knew almost nothing about their religion, who had never read or even seen the Bible once in their lifetime, and who were therefore completely unaware of the moral values of the Bible, were led into barbarism under the conditioning of Crusaders' slogans which presented this violence as "God's Will".

It is worth mentioning that in that period, Eastern Christians-the people of Byzantium, for instance-who were culturally far ahead of Western Christians, espoused more humane values. Both before and after the Crusaders' conquests, Orthodox Christians managed to live together with Muslims. According to Terry Johns, the BBC commentator, with the withdrawal of the Crusaders from Middle East, "civilized life started again and members of the three monotheistic faith returned to peaceful coexistence."¹ The example of the Crusaders is indicative of a general phenomenon: The more the adherents of an ideology are uncivilised, intellectually underdeveloped and "ignorant", the more likely they are to resort to violence. This also holds true for ideologies that have nothing to do with religion. All communist movements around the world are prone to violence. Yet the most savage and blood-thirsty of them was the Red Khmers in Cambodia. That is because they were the most ignorant.

Just as ignorant people may take a violence-ridden opinion to the point of insanity, so they may confuse violence with an opinion against violence (or to religion). The Islamic world also experienced such cases.

The Bedouin Character In The Qur'an

In the period of our Prophet, there existed two basic social structures in Arabia. City-dwellers and Bedouins (Desert Arabs). A sophisticated culture prevailed in Arab towns. Commercial relations linked the towns to the outer world, which contributed to the formation of "good manners" among Arabs dwelling in cities. They had refined aesthetic values, enjoyed literature and, especially poetry. Desert Arabs, on the other hand, were the nomad tribes living in the desert who had a very crude culture. Utterly unaware of arts and literature, they developed an unrefined character.

Islam was born and developed among the inhabitants of Mecca, the most important city of the peninsula. However, as Islam spread to the peninsula, all tribes in Arabia embraced it. Among these tribes were also Desert Arabs, who were somehow problematic: Their poor intellectual and cultural background prevented them from grasping the profundity and noble spirit of Islam. Of this God states the following in a verse:

The desert arabs are more obdurate in disbelief and hypocrisy and more likely not to know the limits which God has sent down to His Messenger. God is All-Knowing, All-Wise. (Surat at-Tawba: 97)

The Desert Arabs, that is, social groups who were "obdurate in disbelief and hypocrisy" and prone to disobey God's commands, became a part of the Islamic world in the Prophet's time. However, in latter periods, they became a source of trouble for the Islamic world. The sect called "Kharijis" that emerged among Bedouins was an example. The most distinctive trait of this perverse sect (which was called "Kharijis" the rebels because they greatly deviated from Sunni practises), was their extremely vulgar, wild and fanatical nature. The "Kharijis", who had no comprehension whatsoever of the essence of Islam or of the virtues and the values of the Qur'an, waged war against all other Muslims and based this war on a few Qur'anic verses about which they made distorted interpretations. Furthermore, they carried out "acts of terrorism". Ali, who was one of the closest companions of the Prophet and was described as the "gate of the city of knowledge", was assassinated by a Kharijite.

In latter periods, "Hashashis", another brutal organisation, emerged; this was a "terrorist organisation" made up of ignorant and fanatical militants bereft of a profound understanding of the essence of Islam and thus who could be readily influenced by simple slogans and promises.

In other words, just as the Crusaders distorted and misinterpreted Christianity as a teaching of brutality, some perverted groups emerging in the Islamic world misinterpreted Islam and resorted to brutality. What is common to this sect and the Crusaders was their "Bedouin" nature. That is, they were ignorant, unrefined, uncultivated, vulgar, and isolated people. The violence they resorted resulted from this social structure, rather than the religion to which they claimed to adhere.

The Actual Source Of Terrorism: The Third World Fanaticism

These examples from history are enlightening for a better understanding of the phenomenon, the so-called "Islamic terror", which is nowadays on the top of the international agenda. That is because those who emerge and carry out acts of terrorism in the name of Islam or those who back such acts-these people, no doubt, represent a minority in the world of Islam-stem from this "character peculiar to Bedouins", not from Islam. Failing to understand the essence of Islam, they try to make Islam, essentially a religion of peace and justice, a tool of barbarism, which is simply an outcome of their social and cultural structure. The origin of this barbarism, which may well be called the "Third World Fanaticism", is the benighted initiatives of people who are devoid of love for humans.

It is a fact that, for the last few centuries, Muslims in all corners of the Islamic world, are being subjected to violence by Western forces and their affiliates. The colonialist European states, local oppressive regimes or colonialists backed by the West (Israel, for instance) caused great suffering for Muslims at large. However, for Muslims, this is a situation that has to be approached and responded to from a purely Qur'anic stance.

In no part of the Qur'an does God command believers to "respond to violence with violence". On the contrary, God commands Muslims to "respond to evil with goodness":

A good action and a bad action are not the same. Repel the bad with something better and, if there is enmity between you and someone else, he will be like a bosom friend. (Surat al-Fussilat: 34)

It is no doubt a legitimate right of Muslims to react against this cruelty. However, these reactions should never turn into a blind hatred, an unjust enmity. God warns about this in the following verse:

... Do not let hatred for a people who debar you from the Masjid al-Haram incite you into going beyond the limits. Help each other to goodness and heedfulness. Do not help each other to wrongdoing and enmity. Heed God (alone)... (Surat al-Ma'ida: 2)

Consequently, carrying out terrorist acts against the innocent people of other nations under the pretence of "representing the innocent nations in the world", is by no means compatible with Islam.

Carrying out terrorist acts against the innocent people of other nations under the pretence of "representing the innocent nations in the world", is by no means compatible with Islam.

Another point that deserves a special mention here is that all Western nations cannot be held responsible for the aforementioned violence and oppression against Muslims. Actually, the materialist, irreligious philosophies and ideologies that prevailed in the 19th century are responsible for these dismal acts. European colonialism did not originate from Christianity. On the contrary, anti-religious movements opposing the values of Christianity led the way to colonialism. At the roots of the greatest brutalities of the 19th century lies the Social Darwinist ideology. In the Western world today, there are still cruel, mischievous and opposing factors as well as a culture dominated by peaceful and just elements that have its roots in Christianity. As a matter of fact, the main disagreement is not between the West and Islam. Contrary to the general opinion, it is between the devout people of the West and of the Muslim world on the one hand, and the people opposing religion (materialists, atheists, Darwinists etc.) on the other.

Another indication that Third World Fanaticism has nothing to do with Islam is that, until recently, this fanaticism has been identified with communist ideology. As is known, similar anti-West acts of terror were carried out in 1960s and 70s by USSR-backed communist organisations. As the impact of the communist ideology faded, some of the social structures which gave birth to communist organisations have turned their attention to Islam. This "brutality presented under the guise of religion", which is formulated by the incorporation of some Islamic concepts and symbols into the former communist literature are entirely against the moral values constituting the essence of Islam.

A last remark about this issue is that Islam is not peculiar to a particular nation or geography. Contrary to the dominant Western perception, Islam is not an "Eastern culture". Islam is the last religion revealed to mankind as a guide to the true path that recommends itself to all humanity. Muslims are responsible for communicating the true religion they believe in to all people of all nations and cultures and making them feel closer to Islam.

Consequently, there is a unique solution for people and groups who, in the name of Islam, resort to terror, form oppressive regimes and turn this world into a dreadful place instead of beautifying it: revealing the true Islam and communicating it so that the masses can understand and live by it.

Recommendations To The Western World

Today, the Western world is concerned about the organisations that use terror under the guise of Islam and this concern is not misplaced. It is obvious that those carrying out terror and their supporters should be punished according to international judicial criteria. However, a more important point to consider is the long-term strategies that have to be pursued for viable solutions to these problems.

The assessments above reveal that terror has no place in Islam and that it is a crime committed against humanity. They further show the inherently contradictory nature of the concept of "Islamic terror". This provides us with an important vantage point:

1) The Western world, especially the United States, will surely take the most dissuasive measures to cope with terror and it has the right to do that. However, it has to state explicitly that this is not a war waged against Islam and Muslims but, on the contrary, a measure serving the best interests of Islam. The "Clash of civilisations", the dangerous scenario envisioned in the 90's should be at all costs prevented.

2) Support should be provided for the spread of "True Islam", which is a religion of love, friendship, peace and brotherhood, and for its true understanding by Islamic societies. The solution for radical factions in Islamic countries should not be "compulsory secularisation". On the contrary, such a policy will incite more reaction from the masses. The solution is the dissemination of true Islam and the appearance of a Muslim role-model who embraces Qur'anic values such as human rights, democracy, freedom, good morals, science and aesthetics, and who offers happiness and bliss to humanity.

3) The source of terrorism is ignorance and bigotry and the solution to terrorism is education. To the circles who feel sympathy with terror, it should be said that terror is utterly against Islam, that terror only does harm to Islam, Muslims and to humanity at large. Besides, these people have to be provided with education in order to be purified of this barbarism. The United States' support to such an education policy will yield very positive results.

Our hope is that these measures will help to the world get rid of terrorism and all other bigoted, brutal, barbarous structures. With its Christian-dominated population, the United States, that defines itself as "a country under God's protection", is in fact a real friend of the Muslims. In the Qur'an, God draws attention to this fact and informs us that Christians are those who are "most affectionate to those who believe". (Surat al-Ma'ida: 82)

In history, some ignorant people (for instance, Crusaders) failed to understand this fact and caused conflicts between these two religions. To prevent the repetition of this scenario, true Christians and Muslims need to come together and co-operate.

	God calls to the Abode of Peace and He guides whom He wills to a straight path. (Qur’an, 10:25)

1 Alan Ereira, David Wallace, C r u s a d e s : Terry Johns Tell the Dramatic Story of Battle for Holy Land, BBC World Wide Ltd., 1995.

CRUSADERS, TEMPLARS AND FREEMASONRY

CRUSADERS, TEMPLARS AND FREEMASONRY

Freemasonry was officially established and recognized in England in the 18th century but actually, the roots of the organization reach back to the Crusades in the 12th century. At the focal point of this old story is an order of crusaders called the Knights of the Temple or the Templars, for short.

No matter how much many people may believe that the Crusades were a product of Christian faith, they were basically wars undertaken for material gain. In a period when Europe was experiencing great poverty and misery, the comfort and wealth of the East, especially of the Muslim Middle East, attracted Europeans. This motivation took on a religious appearance decorated with the symbols of Christianity but actually the idea of the Crusades was born out of a desire for worldly gain. This was the reason for the sudden change among Christians from their former pacifist policies in earlier periods of their history to a tendency towards military aggression.

The initiator of the Crusades was Pope Urban II. He summoned the Council of Clermont in 1095 in which the former Christian doctrine of pacifism was changed. A holy war was announced that was to wrest the holy lands from the hands of the Muslims. Afterwards, a huge army of Crusaders was formed composed both of professional soldiers and tens of thousands of ordinary people.

Historians think that this venture of Urban II was prompted by his desire to eclipse the candidacy of a rival for the papacy. European kings, princes, aristocrats and others greeted the Pope's call with excitement but their intentions were basically worldly. "The French knights wanted more land. Italian merchants hoped to expand trade in Middle Eastern ports... Large numbers of poor people joined the expeditions simply to escape the hardships of their normal lives."¹ Along the way, this greedy mass killed many Muslims and even Jews just hoping to find gold and jewels. The crusaders even cut open the stomachs of those they had killed to find gold and precious stones that the victims may have swallowed before they died. The material greed of the crusaders was so great that they did not hesitate to sack the Christian city of Constantinople (Istanbul) in the 6th Crusade during which they stripped off the gold leaf from the Christian frescoes in Hagia Sophia.

So, this band called Crusaders reached Jerusalem in 1099 after burning and looting many places and putting many Muslims to the sword. After a long siege of five weeks, the city fell and the Crusaders entered. As one historian put it, "They killed all the Saracens and the Turks they found... whether male of female.² One of the Crusaders, Raymund of Aguiles, wrote these words in praise of this savagery:

Wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted ... in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.³

The Crusaders reached Jerusalem in 1099 after burning and looting many places and putting many Muslims to the sword.

According to the same historical source, the number of Muslims pitilessly slaughtered was 40,000.⁴ The crusaders made Jerusalem their capital and founded a Latin Kingdom stretching from the borders of Palestine to Antioch.

Later, the crusaders began a struggle to hold their position in the Middle East. In order to sustain the state they had founded, they had to organize it. To do this, they established military orders, which had never existed before. Members of these orders came from Europe to Palestine and lived in a kind of monastery where they received military training to fight against Muslims.

One of these orders was different from the others. It underwent a change that would influence the course of history. This order was the Templars.

From the Templars to Freemasonry

The Templars, or, their full name, The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon, was formed in 1118, that is 20 years after the crusaders took Jerusalem. The founders of the order were two Frenchmen, Hugh de Payens and Godfrey de St. Omer. At first there were 9 members but the order steadily grew. The reason that they called themselves after the temple of Solomon was that the place they chose as a base was the temple mount where this ruined temple had been located. At the same time, this place was where the Al-Aqsa Mosque stood.

The Templars had called themselves "poor soldiers", but within a short time they became wealthy. Christian pilgrims coming from Europe to Palestine were completely under the control of this order which became very rich on the money collected from the pilgrims. In addition, for the first time they set up a cheque-bond system similar to that of a bank. According to the BBC commentators, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, they established a kind of Medieval capitalism and led the way to modern banking by their management of interest.⁵

The Templars were the ones mainly responsible for the crusaders' attacks against and murder of Muslims. For this reason, the great Islamic commander Saladin, who defeated the crusaders' army in 1187 in the Battle of Hattin and afterwards rescued Jerusalem, put the Templars to death for the murders they had committed even though he had pardoned a large number of Christians. Although they lost Jerusalem and suffered heavy losses, the Templars continued to exist. And despite the continual diminution of the Christian presence in Palestine, they increased their power in Europe and, first in France, and then on other countries, they became a state within a state.

There is no doubt that this political power made European monarchs uncomfortable. But there was another aspect of the Templars that also made the clergy uneasy: the order had gradually broken its ties with Christian faith and while in Jerusalem, they adopted a number of strange mystical doctrines. There were also rumors that they were organizing strange rites to express these doctrines.

Finally, in 1307, the French king Philip the Fair and Pope Clement V jointly decided to arrest the members of the order. Some of them managed to escape but most of them were caught. Afterwards, a long period of interrogation and trial began and many of them admitted that they were actually heretical, that they had rejected the Christian faith and insulted Jesus in their masses. Finally, the leaders of the Templars who were called "grand masters", beginning with the most important of them, Jacques de Molay, were executed in 1314 by the order of the Church and the King. The majority of them were put into prison, the order dispersed and officially disappeared. But although the order "officially" ceased to exist, it did not mean that it had actually disappeared. During the main arrest in 1307, some Templars escaped and managed to cover their tracks. According to a thesis based on various historical documentation, a significant number of these escaped Templars took refuge in the single kingdom in Europe that did not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church in the 14th century-Scotland. There they reorganized under the protection of the Scottish king, Robert the Bruce. A while later, they found a good method of camouflage to allow them to continue their existence: they infiltrated the oldest guild in the medieval British Isles-the wall builders' lodge.⁶

The wall builders' lodge changed its name at the beginning of the modern era and called itself the "Masonic lodge". (The dictionary defines the term "mason" as a master wall builder.) The Scottish Rite is the oldest branch of Masonry and goes back to the beginning of the 14th century to those Templars who took refuge in Scotland. And the names given to the highest degrees in Scottish Rite are titles that were given to knights in the order of Templars centuries earlier. It is still the same today.

In short, the Templars did not disappear and their philosophy, beliefs and rituals still continue under the roof of Freemasonry. This thesis has many historical proofs and is accepted today by a large number of Western historians whether they are Freemasons or not.

The thesis that the roots of Freemasonry go back to the Templars is often pointed out in magazines published by Turkish Masonry for its own members. On this topic the Freemasons are very open. One of these magazines is called Mimar Sinan which describes the relationship between the Order of Templars and Masonry in these words:

In 1312, when the French king, under pressure from the Church, closed the Order of Templars and gave their possessions to the Knights of St. John, the activities of the Templars ceased. The great majority of the Templars took refuge in Masonic lodges that were operating in Europe at that time… Scottish Masons, who inherited the Templars' heritage, gave it back to France many years later and established there the basis of the rite known as the Scottish Rite.⁷

Again, the Mimar Sinan magazine gives much information about the relationship between the Templars and Freemasonry. In an article entitled "Templars and Freemasons", it says that "the rituals for the initiation ceremony of the Order of Templars are similar to those of present-day Masonry."⁸ According to the same article, "just as in Masonry, the members of the Order of Templars called each other 'brother'."⁹ Towards the end of the article we read,

The Order of Templars and the Masonic organization have influenced each other to a noticeable extent. Even the rituals of the corporations are so similar as to have been copied from the Templars… To summarize, as we said at the beginning of this essay, we can say that the starting point of Masonry's royal art and initiatic-esoteric line was the Templars and its end point is Freemasonry.¹⁰

The Impact of the Crusade Philosophy to Our Day

It is clear that the roots of Masonry stretch back to the Order of Templars and the Masons have adopted the philosophy of this order, which was established by the Crusaders. While considering the impact of Crusaders to our day, we need to remember this point and the far-reaching influences of Masonry on the world. The aims of Masonry are explained by one of the most well-known Turkish Freemasons Selami Isindag in his book Masonluktan Esinlenmeler (Masonic Inspirations):

According to Freemasonry, it is necessary to rid people of a character inspired by metaphysical divine sources, and instead establish a character based on the love of man, which is free from relativity. In its basic ethical principles, Masonry considers the inclinations of man, his needs, satisfactions, the laws and order of social life, consciousness (conscience), freedom of speech and thought and finally, the entire plan of nature, and therefore aims to establish and develop values centered around man in all societies.¹¹

This is the final purpose of Masonry: to eradicate religion and to establish a humanist and godless world where the concept of "man" will be held sacred; where people will deny God Who created them, and take themselves as "idols".

For this reason, it is essential to protect the society from this disaster by shattering the godless suggestions of Masonry and thus save the faith of people. What we have to do is tell people about the existence of God and the values of religion by supporting them with the facts revealed by science. When Muslims undertake this responsibility, by the will of God, this verse will come true: "Rather We hurl the truth against falsehood and it cuts right through it and it vanishes clean away!" (Qur'an, 21:18)

When this is realized, the representatives of the evil will "vanish clean away" and the 21st century will be the age of Islamic values rather than the evil's alliance as they presume.

1 World Book Encyclopedia, "Crusades", Contributor: Donald E. Queller, Ph.D., Prof. of History, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, World Book Inc., 1998
2 Geste Francorum, or the Deeds of the Franks and the Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, translated by Rosalind Hill, London, 1962, p. 91
3 August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants, Princeton & London, 1921, p. 261
4 Ibid., p. 262
5 Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, The Temple and the Lodge, London, Corgi Books, 1990, p. 78-81.
6 For more detail about this thesis on freemasonry, please see John J. Robinson, Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry, New York, M. Evans & Company, 1989
7 Ender Arkun, "Masonlarin Dusunce Evrimine Katkisina Kýsa Bir Bakis" (A Quick Look at the Intellectual Evolution of Masons), Mimar Sinan, 1990, No. 77, p. 68
8 Teoman Biyikoglu, "Tampliyeler ve Hurmasonlar" (Templars and Freemasons), Mimar Sinan, 1997, No. 106, p. 11
9 Ibid., p. 9
10 Ibid., p. 19
11 Dr. Selami Isindag, Sezerman Kardes IV, Masonluktan Esinlenmeler (Masonic Inspirations), Istanbul 1977, p. 62

COMMUNISM IN AMBUSH

COMMUNISM IN AMBUSH

Communism was the bloodiest ideology that caused more than 120 million innocent deaths in the 20th century. It was a nightmare which promised equality and justice, but which brought only bloodshed, death, torture and fear.

Among the leading scientists advocating the theory of evolution during the 20th century were a considerable number of Marxists. Stephen Jay Gould, the foremost of them, is, after Darwin, perhaps the most quoted name in the USA associated with "the theory of evolution." However, there exists another ideology he is committed to along with Darwinism: Marxism.

In his view, Darwinism and Marxism are two sides of the same coin. In 1992, when the whole world believed "communism has been abolished once and for all," Gould said, following his return from a visit to Russia, "Yes, the Russian reality does discredit a specific Marxist economics, but Marx has been proven right about the validity of the larger model of punctuational change."¹ That is, according to Gould, Marxism is still alive.

Scientists such as Alexander Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane, who produced the most important works on the theory of evolution in the first half of the 20th century, are all strong advocates of Marxism. In our day, evolutionists in the West, such as John Maynard Smith and Richard Lewontin also support Marxism.

According to them, Darwinism and Marxism mean very much the same thing. Both theories depend upon a common philosophical premise: dialectical materialism. While Marx applied dialectical materialism to history, Darwin applied it to nature. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, the event which is interpreted as "The abolition of Communism" by the world, was, according to these scientists, nothing more than a mere "collapse of a flawed interpretation of Marxism." A Marxist understanding of politics will exist so long as dialectical materialism exists.

Today, things have taken a much different course: According to Marx, a society needs to go through particular phases. It should first experience capitalism, then proceed to socialism and ultimately to communism. However, Russia and other communist regimes of the 20th century have experienced a leap from agrarian society to socialism, leaving out the intermediate capitalist stage, which is the reason for the failure of these regimes, according to Marxists. By their recent embrace of capitalism, these countries have become ripe for the "capitalist stage" foreseen by Marx. This would lay the ground for the ultimate arrival of an even stronger and permanent socialist regime. This interpretation is the one adopted by those who still have faith in Marxism in our day.

Communism has pushed people, societies and nations into terrible crises, conflicts and wars, and inflicted horrendous disasters on the world. It bears a significant part of the responsibility for much of the suffering and crises that mankind is still experiencing.

Consequently, those who think communism has been relegated to the trash heaps of history with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, and thus is no longer a threat to world peace, are on the wrong tack. Communism is the political theory of dialectical materialism, and it will exist as long as dialectical materialism exists. If a philosophy persists in a society, then it only remains for the "appropriate ground to appear" for this philosophy to become politically effective. If dialectical materialism exists forcefully and extensively, then communism, which is its political dimension, may well become an effective power when appropriate conditions arise. The fact remains that today, communists hold considerable power, even in European countries. Communist parties in France and Italy are still powerful; they are all doing well at the ballot box. In the former Eastern Bloc countries, on the other hand, there still exist the former communist cadres commanding socialist parties, and they are increasing their share of the vote. An international economic crisis may well open the way to these socialist parties, pushing the countries in question to communist-ruled regimes.

Russia: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back!

The situation in Russia is even more striking. By the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the regime has been steered towards fascism rather than democracy. Yeltsin, who raised strong objections to the Duma (The Russian Parliament) when he was in power, had a fascist personality and management style. Today, his legacy is kept alive by his successor, Putin.

After 1991, almost no changes occurred in the Russian political regime and culture. The main change, however, was in the economy and social structure. A "savage capitalism," similar to the one experienced in England during the 19th century, holds sway over Russia today. The weakening of the central authority of the state gave rise to the stepping in of the mafia, which forms a sort of "feudal structure" in the country. That is to say, the current structure of Russia, from the Marxist perspective, is a structure of "pre-communism." This is how communists, who enjoy high shares of the vote in Russia, and, what is more, who are influential in the state mechanism, evaluate the current situation in Russia. A potential international crisis, which might well shake the credibility of liberal economy and democracy, can any time easily change this communist theory into reality and establish another communist regime in Russia.

In fact, another stealthy tactic of communism emerges here: Communists, in their own way, make arrangements to put the disrupted historical sequence of events (the transition from capitalism to communism) right. For this reason, they delivered the Russian people into the hands of the Mafia and set the stage for classical capitalism to flourish. This system, devised to impoverish the Russian people, compelled the public to say, "There is no other way out than communism."

Russia's Communist leader Stalin, widely regarded as the bloodiest dictator in the history of the world, took over the fields of the peasants in the name of the policy of collectivization which was intended to do away with private property. All the Russian villagers' crops were collected by armed officials. As a result there was a terrible famine. Millions of women, children, and the elderly who could find nothing to eat ended their lives writhing in hunger. The death toll in the Caucasus alone was 1 million.

On the other hand, communism continues to exist in secret. The cadres of today are the legacy of former communists. These people, deeply imbued with Marx's dialectic materialism, have never abandoned their dreams for the communist cause. Being true communists, they are implementing and advocating capitalism at present.

Behind the scenes, however, communism is actually in power in Russia. In the hands of the ardent communist cadre, the capitalist lifestyle becomes a tool to impoverish the public and make conditions wretched for them. Meanwhile, a policy of the instilling of irreligiousness and immorality is kept alive. Such tactics and inspirations ensure moral deprivation and a society distant to the existence of God, which make people more liable to embrace communism.

The power held by Russian communists, who still march with posters of Stalin or Lenin in their hands, must not be belittled or ignored. Communists see the collapse of the USSR in 1991 as a temporary withdrawal on the way to their ultimate aim, as foreseen by Lenin in his book One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (1904). In this book, Lenin presents his views as follows:

One step forward, two steps back... It happens in the lives of individuals, and it happens in the history of nations and in the development of parties. It would be the most criminal cowardice to doubt even for a moment the inevitable and complete triumph of the principles of revolutionary Social-Democracy, of proletarian organisation and Party discipline.²

Conclusion

In our day, communism has put the "one step forward, two steps back" tactic into practice and has taken a step backwards. For this reason, communists carry out their activities in various countries under the guise of different names, spreading the message that communism is no longer a threat to the world. Nonetheless, the concept of "fight" inherent in dialectical materialism, under all conditions, turns communism into an endless "source of bloodshed" for all humanity. No matter under which guise or label it is presented, it can bring nothing but cruelty and misery to mankind, since it considers dialectical struggle as an inherent law of history.

The measure which should be taken against this danger is to "dry up the marsh," in which it thrives. Trying to squash individual mosquitoes, that is, the advocates of communism, one by one would be quite inadequate to the task of drying up the entire marsh. As long as the marsh remains, mosquitoes will keep on proliferating.

Which method will ensure a complete removal of the problem?

Darwin's theory of evolution is the common basis upon which Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and advocates of other versions of communism-and even of fascism-rest. This theory, in the words of Marx, is "the basis of all natural sciences" from the perspective of communism. From the point of view of materialist teaching, Engels considered Darwin equivalent to Marx.

Without Darwinism, there exists no communism. Consequently, the only true antidote against communism, which cost more than 100 million lives in the 20th century, and which is still stealthily trying to get organised and build up strength, is the ideological and scientific refutation of Darwinism. When it is revealed that Darwinism is a collapsed theory in terms of science, that living things did not come into existence by evolution but were flawlessly created by God, then neither Marx, nor Lenin, nor Mao and nor any militants, who shed blood or prepare to do so from the inspiration they receive from the posters of those leaders which hang on their walls, will remain in the world.

The removal of the deceit of Darwinism will bring about the end of "source of bloodshed" such as communism while making people turn to God, our true Creator and Lord, and live by the morals revealed by Him.

1 Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Touchstone, New York, 1996, p. 309
2 Vladimir Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, Collected Works, Volume 19, pp. 218-227, translated by Abraham Fineberg and Naomi Jochel

THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE 21st CENTURY

THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE 21^st CENTURY

The 20th century was one of the most important in the history of mankind. As it drew to an end, advances in the scientific and technological fields inevitably gave rise to questions as to the shape of the century to follow.

At the end of the 1980s, the disappearance of a bi-polar world led to attitudes to the likely course of history. That position was known as "the new world order." In a short time, it was placed on a number of theoretical foundations.

One of the new period's most important theoreticians, Francis Fukuyama, claimed that liberal capitalist values were the highest which mankind could attain. In his article "The End of History" that sparked off a whole debate, he suggested that political systems and concepts of living were coming to resemble one another in all parts of the world. In his view, the defining characteristic of ideologies had disappeared, and the world was falling into a competition based on economics. That was not the first time such a claim had been made, of course. Even before Fukuyama, the thesis that history developed by means of competition and conflict had been suggested in the framework of a deterministic and Darwinist concept of history.

Fukuyama's Claim of the End of History

According to the new thesis, mankind was about to reach the happiest point in its history. In an article in the Wall Street Journal after the Sept. 11 attacks, Francis Fukuyama adopted a Darwinist model of the social sciences, and described the future of humanity in these words:

But the way in which I used the word history was different: it referred to the progress over the centuries toward modernity, characterised by institutions like democracy and capitalism. My observation, made in 1989 on the eve of the collapse of communism, was that this evolutionary process did seem to be bringing ever larger parts of the world toward modernity. And if we looked beyond liberal democracy and markets, there was nothing else towards which we could expect to evolve; hence the end of history.¹

Those who adopted a deterministic belief and claimed that mankind had finally come to the end of its road were taken by surprise by the instability and wars in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. The Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus and parts of Africa, regions that had lived by Qur'anic morality up to the 20th century and hosted very different cultures and ethnic structures, were submerged in chaos.

Following these developments, a number of theoreticians, led by Professor Samuel P. Huntington from Princeton University, generally put forward an opposing view and claimed that the next years would see a clash of civilisations. According to these theoreticians, cultural differences between civilizations would give rise to ideological conflict, and that these would polarize and accelerate, becoming actual conflicts.

Samuel Huntington had put forward his thesis in a 23-page article in 1993, called "The Clash of Civilizations." It received a mixed reception when first proposed. Recent developments and statements by some Western statesmen have again livened up the debate on the thesis.

As the world entered a new age, ideologues such as Huntington, like Fukuyama, suggested that ideologies had lost their defining characteristics and that there had been a return to the times when civilizations sought their inspiration from religion. According to Huntington's ideas, the conflict between civilizations would grow. In the next century, the world would turn into a place of conflict. Huntington expected the greatest conflict to be between the Western and Islamic civilizations.

The Solution Revealed in the Qur'an to the Conflict Between Civilizations View

In the Qur'an, mankind is promised peace and well-being, not conflict. Allah says that even people of different religions need to come together and display tolerance:

Say, "O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." (Qur'an, 3:64)

That truth alone is enough to invalidate Huntington's expectation of a clash between civilizations. In order for there to be conflicts, both parties need to have an aggressive and hostile mindset, whereas Islam is tolerant of and reconciliatory to other civilizations.

The reasons for the tragedies experienced in the 20th century are mainly the ideas put forward in the 19th. Ever since the earliest times, ideologies which denied creation and claimed that matter was all there was then drew strength from Darwin's theory of evolution and began to spread ever wider. These twisted ideologies suddenly became a philosophy of life for whole societies.

The implementation of materialist ideologies in society led to the prevailing of a view in which only material things were seen as of any importance, by raising generations that oppressed the weak, despised family values, knew nothing of brotherhood or peace, were far removed from such spiritual values as love, sacrifice and respect, had no ethical values and took no pleasure in art or science. As a result of the ideas imposed on society in the light of the materialist mentality, it was intended to create communities that denied the existence of Allah and believed they had no responsibilities to anyone. The way the 20th century has gone down in history as a time of wars, disasters and strife is the result of that materialist mentality.

We have left the 20th century behind us. We are now in the 21st century, a new age. People have now seen that in the 20th century materialist philosophy, by whatever name it may have been known, brought nothing but destruction with it, and they are now turning to Allah. This turning to religion and spiritual values, particularly in the later part of the century, has rapidly embraced the whole world.

These developments are all signs that the time of the promise that the morality of Islam, that Allah has chosen for His servants, will soon come to prevail on the Earth. As can be seen from many verses in the Qur'an, Allah has given the glad tidings that the morality of the Qur'an will come to prevail, by means of the people He has chosen. Allah makes the following promise in the Qur'an:

Allah has promised those of you who believe and do right actions that He will make them successors in the land as He made those before them successors, and will firmly establish for them their religion with which He is pleased and give them, in place of their fear, security. They worship Me, not associating anything with Me. Any who disbelieve after that, such people are deviators. (Qur'an, 24:55)

No matter how much those who come up with theories about the future of the world might appear to differ from one another, they all have one point in common: that is pessimism. The events they evaluate from a materialist perspective prevent them from being optimistic. Even more important, they neglect to take into account that Allah always wants good and pleasant things for those who believe in Him.

	Allah is the Protector of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light... (Qur’an, 2:257)

1 The Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2001

AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT ABOUT JUDAISM, ZIONISM AND FREEMASONRY

This website considers the actions and plans for the future of certain Jews under the influence of some superstitious traditions or of radical, atheist Zionist ideology. People affected by these superstitious views from time to time also infiltrate the Israeli deep state and are even sometimes able to assume a defining role in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy. However, it will be useful to clarify certain issues in order to avoid various misunderstandings because of the information in this site.

The first matter needing to be clarified is that the information in this site does not involve all Jews. The great majority of Jews are unaware of the activities in question, what takes place behind them and their true objectives, and the great majority frequently state that they are opposed to such measures. Therefore, it is not Jewish society as a whole that is criticized in the relevant sections of this website.

The subject of criticism is superstitious traditions that seek to supposedly legitimize violence and ruthlessness by misinterpreting the Bible and a radical world view that regards other people as second class and considers it perfectly normal to inflict oppression and injustice on them on the basis of those traditions. In other words, it is radical, atheist Zionism, a social Darwinist and occupying ideology. Zionism emerged in the 19th century as an ideology that espoused a homeland for the Jews who were then without one. As time passed, however, Zionism underwent a process of degeneration, as happens with many ideologies, and that legitimate demand turned into a radical and irreligious conception that resorted to violence and terror in practice and formed alliances with extremist forces.

There are two varieties of Zionism today. The first of these is the Zionist conception of the devout Jewish people, who wish to live in peace and security in Israel alongside Muslims, seeking peace and wishing to worship in the lands of their forefathers and engage in business. Muslims are not opposed to Zionism in that sense. For devout Jews to live in peace and security in the lands holy to them, to remember Allah and worship in their synagogues, to occupy themselves with science and business, in short, to live and settle freely in those lands, is not something to alarm any Muslim. Indeed, it is a good thing that Muslims would rejoice at. Throughout the course of history it has always been Muslims who have enabled the Jews to survive the hardships and sufferings they have experienced, and who have sheltered and protected them.

The Zionist belief held by a devout Jew and, as described above, based on the Torah does not conflict with Islam. It is revealed in the Qur’an that Allah has settled the Children of Israel in that region:

Remember when Moses said to his people, “My people! Remember Allah’s blessing to you when He appointed prophets among you and appointed kings for you, and gave you what He had not given to anyone else in all the worlds! My people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has ordained for you. Do not turn back in your tracks and so become transformed into losers.” (Surat al-Ma’ida: 20-21)

Jews therefore have the right to live freely in these lands, but that right also applies to Muslims, and of course Christians, who have also lived in them for hundreds of years and believe in the sacred character of the region. These blessed lands are sufficiently broad, lovely and fertile for all faiths and communities to live together in peace. The right to life of one does not disqualify others from enjoying the same right.

To summarize, it is the “irreligious, Godless Zionism” that we condemn and regard as a threat to all mankind. These atheist Zionists, who do not defend the existence and oneness of Allah, but, on the contrary, encourage a Darwinist, materialist perspective and thus engage in irreligious propaganda, are also a threat to devout Jews and devout Christians. Atheistic Zionism is today engaged in a struggle against peace, security and moral virtue, and constantly produces strife and confusion and the shedding of blood. Muslims and devout Jews and Christians must join forces to oppose this Godless Zionism and encourage belief in Allah.

Relations between sincere and devout Jews and Muslims must exist within a framework of affection, respect and compassion. That is because this is the moral values and behavior that Allah reveals to Muslims in the Noble Qur’an and that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) shows us through his own life.

The People of the Book in the Qur’an

In the Qur'an, Allah presents Jews and Christians as the People of the Book, as well as explaining to Muslims in detail how their attitude towards them should be. The People of the Book are aware of the lawful and the forbidden, and base their moral practices on Divine inspiration from Allah. According to the morality preached in the Qur'an, and the practices of our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), it is required that Muslims treat believing Jews and Christians with love, care, compassion, and respect. The call of Muslims to Jews and Christians is revealed thus in the Qur'an:

"We believe in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are One and we submit to Him." (Surat al-‘Ankabut: 46)

This call makes it very clear what Muslims' point of view towards the People of the Book is: We live according to the moral principles professed in our holy books by respecting the limits set by Allah, by loving and respecting the messengers sent by our Lord, and by having faith in one Allah. Which is why we are beholden to treat each other with care, understanding, respect, and love.

We All Love and Respect the Same Prophets

Muslims have faith in all of the prophets which have been sent. They believe in the books sent to prophets in the past. This is explained in one verse of the Qur'an as follows:

Say, "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and what Moses and Jesus and all the prophets were given by their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. We are Muslims submitted to Him." (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84)

The Prophets Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Aaron, David, Solomon, John, Jesus, and Moses (peace be upon them all) are as important to Muslims as they are to Jews and Christians.

The respect of Jews for the Prophet Moses (pbuh), who is also a Prophet of ours, and their close bonds with him over thousands of years are very important to sincere Muslims. The great love of Christians for the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and their heartfelt attachment to him is of similar importance to Muslims. Of course those who feel love and respect for the Prophets Jacob, Isaac, Ishmael, Abraham, Lot, Ayyub, Moses, Jesus and John (peace be upon them all) are people for whom naturally Muslims will feel love and affection, and approach with understanding and compassion. Anything opposing this is not possible.

Allah reveals the moral values of those of the People of the Book who genuinely believe as follows in the Qur’an:

They are not all the same. There is a community among the People of the Book who are upright. They recite Allah’s signs throughout the night, and they prostrate. They believe in Allah and the Last Day, enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and compete in doing good. They are among the righteous. (Surah Al ‘Imran: 113-114)

The duty of devout Muslims is to embrace people who live by such moral virtues with affection and compassion, and to show them love and understanding. To reiterate, therefore, the Muslim attitude toward the Jews is based on the moral values revealed in the Qur’an and implemented by our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The revelation of the errors of irreligious, Godless Zionism or various superstitious traditions incompatible with the morality of true faith and the criticism of mistaken practices do not alter that fact.

Not All Masons Should Be Held Responsible for Atheistic Masonic Activities

In the same way that is a violation of good conscience to hold the entire Jewish people responsible for the actions of a few atheist Zionists, so the blame for the actions of atheist freemasons cannot be laid at the door of all masons. There are people within freemasonry who believe in the One Allah, who oppose the oppression implemented by and known to stem from senior masons in certain lodges, and who seek peace and good among all people. These people are trying to turn freemasonry from being an organization that stirs up disorder and acts against religious moral values to being one that strives to spread moral virtue. This work is exceedingly important and essential. And this situation should not be ignored as the negative activities of freemasonry are identified and criticized.

As one reads the other pages of the website, it must not be forgotten that it is atheist freemasonry that is being criticized. All these criticisms are aimed at the atheist aspect of freemasonry, ideas opposed to religious moral values and the oppression that this aspect causes. And the aim behind this criticism, as well as to enable people to see where the danger really comes from, is to spur freemasons, who are unaware of this aspect or who wish to change it, into intellectual action. A readjustment from within freemasonry and a movement for change along the lines of religious moral values will be highly effective and beneficial. Atheist freemasonry has been carrying out sinister activities all over the world for hundreds of years and has striven to bring about the global dominion of irreligion. However, the century we are living in is one when the corruption in question from atheist freemasonry over the centuries will finally come to an end and be vanquished. In this century, when Allah illuminates the world with His light, and by His leave, and with help from devout masons who believe in Him, freemasonry will turn into an organization that seeks to serve the spread of religious moral values.

PART II

POLITICS IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIETY

THE FALL OF ATHEISM AND THE RISE OF FAITH

Almost everyone who has studied human history, particularly its philosophical and social aspects, will agree that the nineteenth century was an important period, for it was during those years that the first steps were taken toward the future spiritual collapse. Its most important characteristic was the growth of atheism (i.e., rejecting God's Existence) as opposed to theistic beliefs and religion, which had been generally dominant in the world until then.

Although atheism has existed from ancient times, the rise of this idea actually began in eighteenth-century Europe, with the spread and political effect of the philosophy of some anti-religious thinkers. Materialists such as Denis Diderot (1713-84) and Baron d'Holbach (1723-89) proposed that the universe was a conglomeration of matter that had existed forever and that only matter existed. In the nineteenth century, atheism spread even further afield. Such thinkers as Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-72), Karl Marx (1818-83), Friedrich Engels (1820-95), Friedrich Nietzsche (1884-1900), Emile Durkheim (1859-1917), and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) applied atheist thinking to different fields of science and philosophy.

The greatest support for atheism came from Charles Darwin (1809-82), who rejected the idea of creation and proposed the theory of evolution, which gave a supposedly scientific answer to the question that had baffled atheists for centuries: How did human beings and living things come to be?

This theory convinced a great many people that there was a mechanism in nature that animated lifeless matter and produced millions of different living species from it.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, atheists formulated a worldview that "explained" everything: The universe had not been created, for it had no beginning and had existed forever. They claimed that it had no purpose, that its order and balance were the result of chance, and that Darwin's theory of evolution explained how human beings and other living things came into being. They believed that Marx and Durkheim had explained history and sociology, and that Freud had explained psychology on the basis of atheist assumptions. However, twentieth-century scientific, political, and social developments disproved these views, for ongoing discoveries in astronomy, biology, psychology, and social sciences nullified the bases of atheist suppositions.

In his book God: The Evidence, The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World, American scholar Patrick Glynn of the George Washington University writes:

The past two decades of research have overturned nearly all the important assumptions and predictions of an earlier generation of modern secular and atheist thinkers relating to the issue of God. Modern thinkers assumed that science would reveal the universe to be ever more random and mechanical; instead it has discovered unexpected new layers of intricate order that bespeak an almost unimaginably vast master design.¹

In short, atheism suffered a sudden collapse in the last quarter of the twentieth century at the hands of the very scientific and sociological concepts from which its adherents had hoped to receive the most support. In this article, we will look at its collapse in the areas of cosmology, biology, psychology, medicine, and sociology.

Cosmology: The Collapse of The Concept of An Eternal Universe and The Discovery of Creation

The first blow to atheism from twentieth-century science was in the field of cosmology. The idea that the universe had existed forever was discounted, for scientists discovered that it had a beginning. In other words, they proved scientifically that the universe had been created from nothing.

This idea of an eternal universe came to the Western world, along with materialist philosophy, from classical Greek civilization. It stated that only matter exists, and that the universe comes from eternity and goes to eternity. In the Middle Ages, when the Catholic church dominated Western thought, materialism was forgotten. However, in the modern period Western scientists and philosophers became consumed with curiosity about these classical Greek origins and revived an interest in materialism.

With the coming of the nineteenth century, it became widely accepted that the universe had no beginning and that there had been no moment of creation. Adopted passionately by such dialectical materialists as Marx and Engels, this idea found its way into the twentieth century.

This idea has always been compatible with atheism, for accepting that the universe had a beginning would mean that God had created it. Thus the only way to counter this idea was to claim that the universe was eternal, even though science did not support such a claim. Georges Politzer (1903-42), a dogged proponent of this claim, became widely known as a supporter of materialism and Marxism in the first half of the twentieth century through his book Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie (The Fundamental Principles of Philosophy).

By supporting the idea of an eternal universe, Politzer thought that science was on his side. However, very soon thereafter, the fact that he had alluded to by saying "if it is so, we must accept the existence of a Creator," that is, that the universe had a beginning, was proven. This proof came as a result of the "Big Bang" theory, perhaps the most important concept of twentieth-century astronomy.

The Big Bang theory was formulated after a series of discoveries. In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) noticed that the galaxies were continually moving away from each other and that the universe was expanding. If the flow of time in an expanding universe were reversed, the whole universe must have come from a single point. While assessing the validity of Hubble's discovery, astronomers were faced with the fact that this single point was a "metaphysical" state of reality in which there was an infinite gravitational attraction with no mass. Matter and time came into being through the explosion of this mass-less point. In other words, the universe was created from nothing.

In their observations made in the 1960s, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected radioactive remains of the explosion (cosmic background radiation). These observations were verified in the 1990s by the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite.

Confronted with all of these facts, atheists have been squeezed into a corner.

An example of the atheists' reaction to the Big Bang theory is seen in a 1989 article by John Maddox, editor of Nature, one of the best-known materialist-scientific journals. In his article, entitled "Down with the Big Bang," Maddox wrote that the Big Bang is "philosophically unacceptable," because "creationists and those of similar persuasions … have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang." He also predicted that it "is unlikely to survive the decade ahead."²

However, despite Maddox' hopes, the Big Bang theory continues to gain credence, and new discoveries continue to prove that the universe was created.

Thus, modern astronomy proves and states that time and matter were brought into being by an eternally powerful Creator, Who is independent of both of them. The eternal power that created the universe in which we live is God, the possessor of infinite might, knowledge, and wisdom.

Physics And Astronomy: The Collapse of The Idea of A Random Universe and The Discovery of The Anthropic Principle

A second atheist dogma rendered invalid by twentieth-century discoveries in astronomy is the idea of a random universe. The view that all matter in the universe, the heavenly bodies, and the laws that determine the relationships among them is no more than the purposeless result of chance has been undermined dramatically.

For the first time since the 1970s, scientists have begun to recognize that the universe's physical balance is adjusted delicately in favor of human life. Advances in research have enabled scientists to discover that the universe's physical, chemical, and biological laws, as well as such basic forces as gravity and electro-magnetism and even the very structures of atoms and elements, are all ordered exactly as they have to be for human life. Western scientists have called this extraordinary design the "anthropic principle": Every aspect of the universe is designed with a view to human life.

We may summarize its basic characteristics as follows:

• The speed of the universe's first expansion (the force of the Big Bang explosion) was exactly the velocity that it had to be. According to scientists' calculations, if the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than one part in a billion billion, the universe either would have recollapsed before reaching its present size or splattered in every direction in a manner that it could never be reunited. In other words, even at the first moment of its existence there was a fine calculation of the accuracy of a billion billionth.
  
  
• The universe's four physical forces (i.e., gravitational force, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetic force) are all at the necessary levels for an ordered universe to emerge and for life to exist. Even the tiniest variations in these forces (e.g., one in 1039 or one in 1028; that is-crudely calculated-one in a billion billion billion billion), the universe either would be composed only of radiation or of hydrogen.
  
  
• Many other delicate adjustments make Earth ideal for human life: the size of the Sun, its distance from Earth, water's unique physical and chemical properties, the wavelength of the sun's rays, the way that Earth's atmosphere contains the gases necessary for respiration, and Earth's magnetic field being ideally suited to human life. (For more information on this topic, see Harun Yahya's The Creation of the Universe, Al-Attique Publishers, 2001)
  

This delicate balance is among the most striking discoveries of modern astrophysics. Paul Davies, the well-known astronomer, writes in the last paragraph of his The Cosmic Blueprint:

The impression of Design is overwhelming.³

In short, the idea of a random universe, perhaps atheism's most basic pillar, has been proved invalid. Scientists now openly speak of materialism's collapse.⁴ God reveals the falsity of this idea in the Qur'an: "We did not create heaven and Earth and everything between them to no purpose. That is the opinion of those who disbelieve…" (Qur'an, 38: 27), and science confirmed that truth in the 1970s.

Quantum Physics and The Discovery of Divine Wisdom

One area of science that shatters the materialist myth and gives positive evidence for theism is quantum physics.

Quantum physics deals with matter's tiniest particles, also called the "sub-atomic realm." In school, everyone learns that matter is composed of atoms. Atoms are made up of a nucleus and several electrons spinning around it. One strange fact is that all of these particles take up only some 0.0001 percent of the atoms. In other words, an atom is something that is 99.9999 percent "empty."

Even more interestingly, further examination shows that the nuclei and electrons are made up of much smaller particles called "quarks," which are not even particles in the physical sense; rather, they are simply energy. This discovery broke the classical distinction between matter and energy. It now appears that only energy exists in the material universe, and that matter is just "frozen energy."

There is a still more intriguing fact: Quarks, those packets of energy, act in such a way that they may be described as "conscious." Physicist Freeman Dyson, when accepting the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion (2000), stated that:

Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom.⁵

In other words, there is information behind matter, information that precedes the material realm.

John Archibald Wheeler, professor of physics at Princeton University and recipient of the Einstein Award (2003), explained the same fact when he said that the "bit" (the binary digit) of information gives rise to the "it," the substance of matter.⁶ According to Schroeder, this has a "profound meaning":

The matter/energy relationships, the quantum wave functions, have profound meaning. Science may be approaching the realization that the entire universe is an expression of information, wisdom, an idea, just as atoms are tangible expressions of something as ethereal as energy.⁷

This wisdom is such an omniscient thing that it covers the whole universe:

A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.⁸

This means that the material universe is not a purposeless and chaotic heap of atoms, as the atheist/materialist dogma assumes, but instead is a manifestation of a wisdom that existed before the universe and that has absolute sovereignty over everything that exists. In Schroeder's words, it is "as if a metaphysical substrate was impressed upon the physical."⁹

This discovery shatters the whole materialist myth and reveals that the visible material universe is just a shadow of a transcendent Absolute Being.

Quantum is really the point at which science and theology meet. The fact that the whole universe is pervaded by a wisdom was revealed in the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago. One verse reads:

Your god is God alone, there is no god but Him. He encompasses all things in His knowledge. (Qur'an, 20:98)

The Natural Sciences: The Collapse of Darwinism And The Victory of "Intelligent Design"

As stated earlier, one of the main supports for atheism's rise to its zenith in the nineteenth century was Darwin's theory of evolution. By asserting that the origin of human beings and all other living things lay in unconscious natural mechanisms, Darwinism gave atheists the scientific guise they had been seeking for centuries. That time's most passionate atheists adopted his theory, and such atheist thinkers as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made its elucidation the basis of their philosophy. The relationship between Darwinism and atheism born at that point in time has continued until our own time.

But, at the same time, this core belief of atheism is the very one that has received the greatest blow from twentieth-century science. Discoveries in paleontology, biochemistry, anatomy, genetics, and other scientific fields have shattered the theory of evolution (See Harun Yahya's Darwinism Refuted). We have dealt with this fact in far more detail elsewhere. However, in short, we can say the following:

The most important branch of science for shedding light on the origin of life on earth is paleontology, the study of fossils. Fossil beds, studied with great intensity for the last two hundred years, reveal a picture totally at odds with Darwin's theory. Species did not emerge through small cumulative changes, they appeared quite suddenly, and fully-formed.

• Paleontology: Darwin's theory rests on the assumptions that all species come from a single common ancestor and that they diverged from one another over a long period of time by means of small gradual changes. Supposedly, the required proofs would be discovered in the fossil record or the petrified remains of living things. But fossil research conducted during the twentieth century presents a totally different picture, for no fossil of a single undoubted intermediate species, one that would substantiate this theory of gradual evolution among species, has been found. Moreover, every taxon (an animal or plant group having natural relations) appears suddenly in the fossil record, and no trace has ever been found of any previous ancestors. The phenomenon known as the Cambrian Explosion, which scientists classify as a period of time that occurred 540 to 490 million years ago, is especially interesting. In that early geological period, nearly all of the animal kingdom's phyla (major groups with significantly different body structures) appeared suddenly. The sudden emergence of many different categories of living things with totally different body structures and extremely complex organs and systems (e.g., mollusks, arthropods, echinoderms, and, as recently discovered, even vertebrates) rendered the theory of evolution invalid and proved creation, for as evolutionists also agree, a taxon's sudden emergence implies purposeful design, and this means creation.
  
  
• Biological Observations: Darwin elaborated on his theory by relying upon examples of how animal breeders produced different dog or horse varieties. He extrapolated the limited changes he observed to the whole natural world, and proposed that every living thing could have come from a common ancestor. But Darwin made this claim in the nineteenth century, when the level of scientific sophistication was low. In the twentieth century, things changed greatly. Decades of observation and experimentation on various animal species have shown that variation in living things has never gone beyond a certain genetic boundary. Darwin's assertions, like: "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale"¹⁰ actually demonstrates his great ignorance. On the other hand, observations and experiments show that mutations defined by Neo-Darwinism as an evolutionary mechanism add no new genetic information to living creatures.
  
  
• The Origin of Life: Darwin spoke about a common ancestor, but never mentioned how this person came to be. His only conjecture was that the first cell could have formed as a result of random chemical reactions "in some small warm little pond."¹¹ But those evolutionary biochemists who sought to close this hole in Darwinism were frustrated by the fact that all of their observations and experiments showed that no living cell could arise within inanimate matter by means of random chemical reactions. Even the English atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle expressed that such a scenario "is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."¹²
  
  
• Intelligent Design: Scientists who study cells and their molecules, along with the cells' remarkable organization within the body, and the bodily organs' delicate order and plan are faced with proof that evolutionists strongly wish to reject: The world of living things is permeated by designs too complex to be found in any technological equipment. Intricate examples of design, including our eyes that are far superior to any camera, the wings of birds that have inspired flight technology, the complexly integrated system of the cells of living things, and the remarkable information stored in DNA have vitiated the theory of evolution, which regards living things as the product of blind chance.
  
  By the end of the twentieth century, all of these facts had squeezed Darwinism into a corner. Today, in the United States and other Western countries, the theory of intelligent design is gaining ever-increasing acceptance among scientists. Those who defend it say that Darwinism has been a great error in the history of science, and that it came to be so by imposing materialist philosophy on the scientific paradigm. Scientific discoveries show that there is a design in living things, which proves creation. In short, science proves once more that God created all living things.
  
  

Psychology: The Collapse of Freudianism and The Acceptance of Faith

The representative of nineteenth-century atheism in psychology was the Austrian psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Freud's greatest assault was against religion. In his The Future of an Illusion, originally published in 1927, Freud proposed that religious faith was a kind of mental illness (neurosis) that would disappear completely as humanity progressed. Due to the primitive scientific conditions of the time, his theory was proposed without either the requisite research and investigation or any scholarly literature or possibility of comparison. Therefore, its claims were extremely deficient.

After Freud, psychology developed on an atheist foundation. Moreover, the founders of other schools of psychology were passionate atheists. A 1972 poll among the members of the American Psychological Association revealed that only 1.1 percent of psychologists in the country had any religious beliefs.¹³

But most psychologists who fell into this great deception were undone by their own psychological investigations. The basic suppositions of Freudianism were shown to have almost no scientific support. Moreover, religion was shown not to be a mental illness, as Freud and some other psychological theorists declared, but rather a basic element of mental health.

As Glynn says, "modern psychology at the close of the twentieth century seems to be reacquainting itself with religion,"¹⁴ and "a purely secular view of human mental life has been shown to fail not just at the theoretical, but also at the practical, level."¹⁵

In other words, psychology also has routed atheism.

Medicine: The Discovery of How "Hearts Find Peace"

Another branch of science affected by the collapse of atheist suppositions was medicine.

In comprehensive research on the relationship between religious belief and physical health, Dr. Herbert Benson of the Harvard Medical School came up with some interesting results. Although he has no religious faith, Benson concluded that faith in God and worship had a far more positive effect on human health than could be observed in anything else. Benson concludes that he has "found that faith quiets the mind like no other form of belief."¹⁶

Why is there such a special relation among faith, the human spirit, and the body? Benson, a secular researcher, stated that the human mind and body are "wired for God."¹⁷

This fact, which the medical world is slowly beginning to notice, is a secret revealed in the Qur'an:

Only in the remembrance of God can the heart find peace. (Qur'an, 13:28)

The reason why those who believe in God, pray to Him and trust in Him are physically and mentally healthier than others is that they behave in harmony with their nature. Philosophical systems opposed to human nature always bring pain, sorrow, anxiety, and depression in their wake.

The basic source of religious people's peace is that they act in order to gain God's approval. In other words, this peace is the natural result of listening to the voice of one's conscience. People who live the morality of religion simply "to be more at peace" or "to be healthier" cannot live according to the morality of religion; those who act with this intention cannot find peace in its true sense. God well knows what people store in their hearts and what they reveal. Peace of mind comes only by being sincere and attempting to gain God's approval. God commands:

So set your face firmly toward the [true] religion, as a pure natural believer, God's natural pattern on which He made mankind. There is no changing God's creation. That is the true religion-but most people do not know it. (Qur'an, 30:30)

In light of these discoveries, modern medicine is starting to become aware of this truth. As Patrick Glynn says, "contemporary medicine is clearly moving in the direction of acknowledging dimensions of healing beyond the purely material."¹⁸

Society: The Fall of Communism, Fascism, and The Hippie Dream

The collapse of atheism did not occur only in astrophysics, biology, psychology, and medicine; it also happened in politics and social morality.

The collapse of communism may be considered one of the most important examples of this. Communism may be considered the most important political result of nineteenth-century atheism. The founders of this ideology, Marx, Engels, Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), Leon Trotsky (1879-1940), or Mao Zedong (1893-1976), all adopted atheism as a basic principle. A primary goal of all communist regimes was to produce atheistic societies and destroy religious belief. Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's Communist China, Kampuchea (Cambodia), Albania, and some Eastern bloc countries applied immense pressure on Muslims and other religious people, sometimes to the point of committing mass murder.

Yet, amazingly, at the end of the 1980s, this bloody atheist system collapsed. When we examine the reasons for this dramatic fall, we see that what collapsed was actually atheism. Patrick Glynn writes:

To be sure, secular historians would say that the greatest mistake of Communism was to attempt to defy the laws of economics. But other laws, too, came into play … Moreover, as historians penetrate the circumstances of the Communist collapse, it is becoming clearer that the Soviet elite was itself in the throes of an atheistic "crisis of faith." Having lived under an atheistic ideology-one that consisted of lies and that was based on a "Big Lie"- the Soviet system suffered a radical demoralization, in every sense of that term. People, including the ruling elite, lost all sense of morality and all sense of hope.¹⁹

The twentieth century documented not only the fall of communism, but also that of fascism, another fruit of nineteenth-century anti-religious philosophy. Fascism is the outcome of a philosophy that may be called a mixture of atheism and paganism, and is intensely hostile to theist religions. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who may be called the father of fascism, extolled the morality of barbarous idolatrous societies, attacked Christianity and other monotheistic religions, and even called himself the "Anti-Christ." His disciple, Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), was an avid Nazi supporter, and the ideas of these two atheist thinkers gave impetus to the terrifying savagery of Nazi Germany. The Second World War, which caused the death of 55 million people, is another example of the calamity that such atheist ideologies as fascism and communism have brought upon humanity.

At this point, we must recall Social Darwinism, another atheist ideology that helped cause both world wars. In his Europe Since 1870, Harvard history professor James Joll states that behind each of the two world wars lay the philosophical views of Social Darwinist European leaders who believed in the myth that war was a biological necessity and that nations developed through conflict.²⁰

Another social consequence of atheism appeared in Western democracies. In the present day, there is a tendency to regard the West as the "Christian world." However, since the nineteenth century, a quickly growing atheist culture has held sway with Christian culture, and today there is a conflict between them in what we call Western civilization. And this atheist element was the true cause of Western imperialism, moral degeneration, despotism, and other negative manifestations.

Glynn notes that attempts to turn America into an atheist country also have harmed society. The fact that the sexual revolution, for example, that spread during the 1960s and 1970s caused immense social damage in terms of traditional moral values is accepted even by secular historians.²¹

The hippie movement was a demonstration of this social damage. A world without religion actually brought them to an unhappy end. The hippy leaders of the 1960s either killed themselves or died from drug-induced comas in the early 1970s. Many other young hippies shared a similar fate.

Members of the same generation who turned to violence found themselves on the receiving end of violence. The 1968 generation, which turned its back on God and religion and imagined they could find salvation in such concepts as revolution or selfish Epicureanism, ruined both themselves and their own societies.

The Movement Toward Religious Morality

The facts given above clearly show that atheism is undergoing an inevitable collapse. In other words, humanity is-and will be-turning toward God, and not only in the scientific and political communities. From prominent statesmen to movie stars and pop artists, those who influence opinion in the West are far more religious than they used to be. Many people have seen the truth and come to believe in God after having lived for years as atheists.

Interestingly, the developments contributing to this result also began in the second half of the 1970s. The anthropic principle first appeared in the 1970s, and scientific criticism of Darwinism started to be loudly voiced at the same time. The turning point against Freud's atheist dogma was M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled. For this reason, Glynn, in the 1997 edition of his book, writes that "over the past twenty years, a significant body of evidence has emerged, shattering the foundations of the long-dominant modern secular worldview."²²

Surely, the fact that the atheist worldview has been shaken means that another worldview is rising, which is belief in God. Since the end of the 1970s (or, from the beginning of the fourteenth century according to the Muslim calendar), the world has seen a rise in religious values. Like other social processes, because this develops over a long period of time instead of all at once, a majority of people may not notice it. However, those who evaluate the development a little more carefully see that the world is at a major turning point in the realm of ideas.

Conclusion

We are living at an important time. Atheism, which people have tried for hundreds of years to portray as the "way of reason and science," is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance. Materialist philosophy, which sought to use science for its own ends, has been defeated by science. A world rescuing itself from atheism will turn to God and religion. But, to what religion will it turn? With God's permission, that religion will be Islam.

The time is fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no knowledge of religious morality will be graced by faith in the impending post-atheist world.

1 Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence, The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World , Prima Publishing, California, 1997, pp.19-20
2 John Maddox, "Down with the Big Bang", Nature, vol. 340, 1989, p. 378
3 Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint, London: Penguin Books, 1987, p. 203
4 Paul Davies and John Gribbin, The Matter Myth, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992, p. 10
5 As quoted in Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God, Touchstone, New York, 2001, p. 7
6 Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God, Touchstone, New York, 2001, p. 8
7 Ibid., p. 28
8 Ibid., p. xi
9 Ibid., p. 48
10 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184
11 Charles Darwin, Life and Letter of Charles Darwin, vol. II, From Charles Darwin to J. Do Hooker, March 29, 1863
12 "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105
13 Edwin R. Wallace IV, "Psychiatry and Religion: A Dialogue", in Joseph H. Smith and Susan A. Handelman, eds., Psychoanalysis andReligion, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1990, p. 1005
14 Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence, The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World , Prima Publishing, California, 1997, p.69
15 Ibid., p.78
16 Herbert Benson, Mark Stark, Timeless Healing, Simon & Schuste, New York, 1996, p. 203
17 Ibid., p.193
18 Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence, The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World , Prima Publishing, California, 1997, p.94
19 Ibid., p.161-162
20 James Joll, Europe Since 1870: An International History, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1990, p.102-103
21 Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence, The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World , Prima Publishing, California, 1997, p.163
22 Ibid., p.2