BOOK: Sultan vs Dracula

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance

The following work by non-white (attempted) Muslim writer, artists and poet Razwan Ul-Haq arrived in the post this morning:

Sultan vs Dracula

The book, which is 400+ pages long, can be purchased direct from the author for £7.99 (+ postage and packing) from here. The author also has a blog on Islamic sci-fi.

Here’s an advert for this interesting Islamic Counter-Racist, decolonial and ‘post-Orientalist’ re-imagining of the Dracula story as appears on youTube:

Interested readers are invited to check out the following earlier blog post in connection with the above book:

The Vampire Culture of The Psychopathic Racial Personality

Peace

Tit-for-Tat or What Goes Around Comes

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Consider this:

Tit-for-Tat

During a recent trip to Al-Andalus, I had an opportunity to visit the former masjid / mosque / mezquita in Cordoba with my (attempted) wife* who pointed to a possible connection between the fall of Christian Byzantine power to Islamicate power in 1453 with the conquest / opening of Istanbul and the subsequent conversion of a church (cathedral) to a mosque, and the fall of Muslim power in Al-Andalus to Christendom in 1492 with the conquest of Granada by the Castillians.

However, in this connection, it is significant that the mosque of Cordoba was notconverted to a church by the Castillians following the fall of Granada in 1492 on the basis of “tit-for-tat”, i.e. doing to the Andalusian Muslims what had been done to the Byzantine Christians vis-a-vis places of worship / veneration; this is because the mosque of Cordoba had been converted to a cathedral two centuries previously in 1236.

In short, while Islamicate political domination of a key symbolic site within Christendom, viz. Constantinople, precedes the reversal of such domination at another key symbolic site, i.e. Al-Andalus, ‘religious‘ domination by Christendom (conversion of the Cordoba Mosque to a cathedral in 1236) precedes the reversal of such domination at another site (conversion of the Hagia Sophia to a mosque in 1453).

Interesting ‘dialectical’ inter-play of the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘political’. What goes around comes around.

Peace

The Vampire Culture of The Psychopathic Racial Personality

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

VTI.jpg

Vampires are becoming increasingly visible in mainstream/popular [=White Supremacist(Racist)] culture, particularly among members of the younger demographic. This is significant because the vampire is increasingly being recast as a tragic/romantic figure: Consider, for example, the portrayal of Dracula in the 1992 film adaptation starring Gary Oldman in the title role, and the vampire, Edward Cullen, one of the central characters in the Twilight Saga novels. (At the time of writing, the Wikipedia entry on “Vampires in film and television” contains links to 194 pages out of a total of 288.) Continue reading

COMMENT: More on The Trickery of Tripoli

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

FIRSTBATH

In my previous post, COMMENT: The Trickey of Tripoli, I mounted an Islamic counter-Racist critique of the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid’s attempt to pre-emptively de-legitimise the possibility of ‘Holy War’ (actually, jihad or liberation struggle) in the Philippines by issuing a statement that conflict with the Americans was forbidden. Abdul Hamid did this at the request of Oscar Straus, then US ambassador to Turkey, in a show of good will towards and friendly relations with the American government once he was given assurances by the US that the religious rights of the ‘Mohammedans’ (sic) would be protected under American rule.

“I say and I say it again, you’ve been had. You’ve been took. You’ve been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok.” (Malcolm X)

Perhaps the piano-playing, opera-loving sufi Sultan was unaware that US imperialism, colonialism and Racism (White Supremacy) were imcompatible with Islam (sic).

But what is Hamza Yusuf’s excuse? “Is it coz I’s WHITE?”

Any non-white victim of Racism (White Supremacy) who thinks that Yusuf’s endorsement of Abdul Hamid’s position is in recognition of the latter’s commitment to universalism is, IMHO, out of his or her mind. This is because the historical record readily establishes that the US ambassador’s appeal to Article 21 of a treaty between Tripoli and the United States was nothing more than a deceit, a con, a trick since US President William McKinley’s invading AmeriKKKan forces were committed to the “civilising mission” of Racism (White Supremacy). In this regard, I should like to point interested readers to the following four-part work by Nathan Gilbert Quimpo:

Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism – Part 1
Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism – Part 2
Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism – Part 3
Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism – Part 4

Part 3 makes particularly important reading for the Muslim counter-Racist and should put to rest any delusions concerning the enlightened [=en-whiten-ed] nature of US imperialism vis-a-vis Spanish colonialism.

In this light, and as a Muslim counter-Racist, one has to regard Shaykh Hamza Yusuf with suspicion. (For an Islamic defence of this position, the interested reader is referred to my earlier blog articles, “PROJECT: Identifying The Muslim Race Traitors (if any)“, “Why Every White Muslim Must Be a Race Traitor” and “Yvonne Ridley: A Jane Brown?“.)

Peace

COMMENT: The Trickery of Tripoli

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Recently, I watched Islam & Democracy: A Clash of Civilisations? featuring Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Noah Feldman. During his opening speech, Yusuf referred to an exchange which took place in 1899 between US ambassador to Turkey, Oscar Straus, and the last Ottoman Caliph, Sultan Abdul Hamid. I decided to follow up this incident because Yusuf’s citing it as an example of enlightened Muslim statesmanship struck me as problematic, although unsurprising (since Yusuf is a white person), from an Islamic counter-Racist perspective. I will explain why shortly. However, it is first necessary to understand the nature of the exchange and in this connection, the following extract, taken from an article entitled What “What would the Caliph Do?” by Mustafa Akyol which originally appeared on his website, The White Path, on December 18, 2005, provides a useful summary:

Actual Ottoman-American cooperation in foreign policy took place in the face of the Muslim insurgency in the U.S.-occupied Philippines. The American ambassador to Turkey Oscar S. Straus (a Jewish diplomat, incidentally, who was welcomed by the Abdulhamid regime at a time when his colleague, A. M. Keiley, was declared persona non grata by the Austro-Hungarian authorities simply for being of Jewish parenthood) received a letter from Secretary of State John Hay in the spring of 1899. Secretary Hay wondered whether the Sultan under the circumstances might be prevailed upon to instruct the Mohammedans of the Philippines, who had always resisted Spain, to come willingly under our control. Straus then paid a visit to the sultan and showed him Article 21 of a treaty between Tripoli and the United States which read:

“As the government of the United States of America … has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmans; and as the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the partners that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two countries.”

Pleased with the article, Abdulhamid stated, in regard to the Philippines, that the Mohammedans in question recognized him as Caliph of the Moslems and he felt sure they would follow his advice. Two Sulu chiefs who were in Mecca at the time were informed that the caliph and the American ambassador had reached a definite understanding that the Muslims would not be disturbed in the practice of their religion if they would promptly place themselves under the control of the American army. Subsequently, Ambassador Straus wrote, the Sulu Mohammedans … refused to join the insurrectionists and had placed themselves under the control of our army, thereby recognizing American sovereignty.

This account is supported by an article written by Lt. Col. John P. Finley (who had been the American governor of Zamboanga Province in the Philippines for ten years) and published in the April 1915 issue of the Journal of Race Development. Finley wrote:

“At the beginning of the war with Spain the United States Government was not aware of the existence of any Mohammedans in the Philippines. When this fact was discovered and communicated to our ambassador in Turkey, Oscar S. Straus, of New York, he at once saw the possibilities which lay before us of a holy war … [H]e sought and gained an audience with the Sultan, Abdul Hamid, and requested him as Caliph of the Moslem religion to act in behalf of the followers of Islam in the Philippines … The Sultan as Caliph caused a message to be sent to the Mohammedans of the Philippine Islands forbidding them to enter into any hostilities against the Americans, inasmuch as no interference with their religion would be allowed under American rule.”

Later, President McKinley sent a personal letter of thanks to Ambassador Straus for his excellent work, declaring that it had saved the United States at least twenty-thousand troops in the field. All thanks to the caliph, Abdulhamid II [emphases added].

Both Mustafa Akyol and Hamza Yusuf praise Sultan Abdul Hamid for his actions. However, from an Islamic counter-Racist perspective, one wonders what the Philipinos who were being colonised thought about his decision to legalise a US colonialist invasion. Did Sultan Abdul Hamid even bother to ask them? Or was he too pre-occupied courting US interests and too ‘bamboozled’ (to borrow a term of the late Macolm X) by Article 21 of the treaty between Tripoli and the United States to do so? Either way Sultan Abdul Hamid legimitised US colonialism and de-legitimised (Islamic) ‘insurrection’ [=jihad]. Apologists/’moderates’ (sic) might argue that this was a case of the maslaha (benefit) of saving lives – whose? American and/or Philipino? – outweighing the mafsada (harm) associated with armed resistance to – ‘insurrection’ against – an invading colonialist power. However, I’m not persuaded by that line of argument because that kind of (il)logic might be used to block liberation struggle (jihad) per se which is Islamically unacceptable.

Peace