Green Islam by R. Mark Musser

An Eco-Fascist Crescent Moon near Ground Zero by R. Mark Musser

Radical Muslims, Environmentalism & the Green Jihad by R. Mark Musser

Getting Gored: Global Warming & Al Jazeera by R. Mark Musser

Mann Al Jazeera


Prince Charles delivered a stunning speech to the Center for Islamic Studies at Oxford in June of 2010 wherein he called for a western pantheistic religious synthesis with Islam to help save the world from the impending environmental catastrophe looming on the apocalyptic horizon.  Shockingly, Prince Charles strongly believes that Islam can play a critical role in bringing back ancient religious traditions that will promote a much needed check on western man’s unbridled enthusiasm for capitalism, power and money where science has been inappropriately exploited by commerce since the Industrial Revolution.  Prince Charles presumes that such a course of action will return the western world back to a more reverent attitude toward Nature.  Tracing the wedding between science and capitalism to Galileo and his mechanistic view of the natural world, Prince Charles asserted that such views has brought modern civilization to the precipice of an environmental apocalypse, especially as the Third World tries to catch up.  Mother Nature has become objectified as an “it,” and hence exploited as such.  He then concluded his speech by quoting an old saying from Islamic nomads, “the best of all Mosques is Nature herself.”

Prince Charles Muslim

Although Prince Charles did briefly cite from the book of Genesis in the middle of his speech and appealed to Christian apologists G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis toward the end, his lecture was far from a Christian one.  Not only did he mix up pantheism with classic Judeo-Christian theism, but also with Islamic monotheism as well.  As the future heir of the Head of the Church of England, this may not bode well for the future of Anglicanism.  Furthermore, his blending of pantheism with theism is much more an issue of his own wishful thinking than it is something that can be theologically defended with intellectual integrity.

Pantheism is the belief that God is everything.  The Greek word ‘pan’ means ‘every’ and ‘theism’ means belief in ‘God.’  Built on pagan foundations, pantheism stands in sharp contrast to Judeo-Christian theism precisely because the Bible unabashedly asserts that God is the transcendent Creator of the universe.  This means that God stands outside the universe.  He is thus completely independent of His creation, all of which is perfectly illustrated in Genesis 1 where He speaks the entire universe into existence through His all-powerful Word.  God’s existence is thus not contingent upon the universe, but rather the universe is contingent upon Him.   While it is true that since the God of the Bible also declares Himself to be omnipresent, or everywhere at once, this suggests that He also lives immanently within the world.  However, this is not be confused with pantheism where God is not only reduced to the level of Nature, but in fact is a part of Nature.  In pantheism, God is the universe, or Nature Herself.  In other words, pantheism is a form of Nature worship where Nature is worshiped as god, usually in the name of Mother Earth or “Gaia.”

As such, Prince Charles’s reference to Genesis was thus extremely brief, reducing Adam and Even to mere environmental conservationists whose primary job was to protect the garden of Eden for future generations.  Only a modern environmentalist could possibly understand the opening chapters of Genesis in this way.  He conveniently ignored the most salient point in Genesis about man, i.e., that although Adam is formed from the soil of the earth, he was also made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-28).  This marks off Adam from the rest of creation (Gen 1-2; Psalm 8).  Genesis clearly teaches that this makes Adam and Eve the king and queen of the earth (Gen 1:26-31), something which modern environmentalists have been bristling at for some 200 years now.  To add insult to injury, God then commands Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth (Gen 1:28).  Such commands are an absolute anathema to the modern green movement as it constantly obsesses over human population growth and sustainable development, always trying to force people to reduce their human footprint.   What’s more is that this Genesis mandate has never been rescinded.

Neither is it a coincidence that original scientists like Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton were all Christian theists.  Contrary to popular opinion these days, their brand of science was a continuation of the Genesis mandate, something which Francis Bacon certainly recognized when he coined the phrase, “knowledge is power.”  By this, he specifically meant power over nature, something which Prince Charles criticizes throughout his lecture.  It must also be remembered that Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo challenged the semi-pantheistic Aristotelian view of the universe, not the biblical one, something which is almost always completely misunderstood and misrepresented with regard to the Copernican revolution.  The Catholic scholastics of the Middle Ages gave too much deference to Aristotle, which has unfairly given Christianity a bad reputation in the scientific community.  Strangely, it is this pantheistic Greek ‘science’ that Prince Charles wishes to return to when he criticizes modern science for being too mechanistic and too beholden to capitalistic consumerism.  What he also completely fails to realize is that science in the hands of progressive socialistic engineers with a government  whip has been far more brutal to people than anything free market capitalism has ever tried.

The Genesis mandate was designed by God for Adam and Eve to convert the wilderness into a garden through work, marriage and procreation (Gen 1-2).  The garden of Eden was in fact their model or pattern to follow.   In Genesis 2, God planted a garden right in front of Adam’s eyes to show him the difference between the wilderness and the garden.  The wilderness has thus never been the divine ideal in the Bible, even as far back as Genesis 1.  Even ancient Israel after the Exodus from the house of slavery in Egypt continued the Genesis mandate.  The Conquest of Joshua was specifically intended to turn the promised land of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob into beautiful privately owned farms parceled out to each Hebrew family for the glory of God.  This was something that the ‘green’ nature worshipers of Canaan were not doing.  In fact, after the Conquest, Israel often found themselves completely seduced by the Canaanite Baal nature worship practices that surrounded them on all sides.  The Old Testament time and time again declares that the reason why the divided kingdom of Israel was subjected to its respective captivities into both Assyria (722 BC) and Babylon (606-586 BC) was precisely because of their Baal nature worship (2 Kings 14:28-17:18; Hosea; Jeremiah 19:1-15).

As such, even more troublesome for Prince Charles is that after Adam and Eve fell into sin, the distance between the environmental and Judeo-Christian worldviews sharpens even more.  Adam and Eve were subsequently banished from the garden paradise that God created for them (Gen 3:24).  Harmony between man and nature is henceforth forbidden – and this by the edict of God.  In fact, the Lord purposefully frustrated nature to frustrate and discipline man in his sin (Gen 3:17-19; Rom 8:20-22).  Still more troublesome is that the Lord then shockingly introduced animal sacrifice to cover their shameful nakedness in sin (Gen 3:21; 4:4; Lev 1:1-5).  Ritual animal sacrifice was thus inaugurated to teach Adam and Eve about the serious consequences of sin, i.e., death.  Redemption must therefore be accomplished through a sacrificial substitute to die in the place of the sinful worshiper, all looking forward to the ultimate sacrifice of the Messiah on the cross (John 1:29; 10:1-17).  In other words, in the brave new world of sin, nature is sacrificed for man, not man for nature.  This hard lesson was quickly rejected by Cain (Gen 4:1-16).  His ‘green’ gifts were outright rejected by God, but Abel’s sacrificial lamb was accepted.  At this, Cain becomes extremely angry and kills his brother.  Thus environmentalism was at the heart of the first murder in human history.  Cain did not appreciate the fact that the ground from which he offered his green offering to God was in fact cursed.

As a deep ecologist, it is not likely that Prince Charles is unaware of this biblical albatross.  He thus had to go elsewhere to find a spirituality that is more compatible with environmentalism.  At this particular juncture, Prince Charles goes to the Muslims rather than to Brahmanism, Hinduism, Buddhism and the like.   He points out that the Koran repeatedly “describes the natural world as the handiwork of a unitary benevolent power.  It very explicitly describes Nature as possessing an ‘intelligibility’ and that there is no separation between the natural world and God.  It offers a completely integrated view of the Universe where religion and science, mind and matter are all part of one living, conscious whole.  We are therefore finite beings contained by an infinitude, and each of us is a microcosm of the whole.  This suggests to me that Nature is a knowing partner, never a mindless slave to humanity, and we are Her tenants, God’s guests for all too short a time.”  In the mind of Prince Charles, therefore, Islam and western pantheism thus have much in common.

Fretting over Nature’s finite resources by using Malthusian math, which has been completely discredited for over 200 years now, Prince Charles warned everyone present that “we are living beyond our means, already consuming the Earth’s capital resources faster than she can replenish them.”  Throughout the speech, he often refers to what he calls the “ever widening division we are seeing in so many ways between humanity and Nature.”  He also parroted the typical environmental obsession that the planet’s “life support systems are now struggling to cope under the strain of global industrialization.”  Even more typical, he tied together the current financial crisis with the looming environmental crisis, which he believes reflects an “inner crisis of the soul.”  He then sermonized that the resolution to this great crisis cannot consist of better green technology, but a return to western pantheistic religious traditions that even stretches farther east to ancient Islam, “the traditional way of life within Islam is very clear about the center that holds relationships together.  From what I know of its core teachings and commentaries, the important principle we must keep in mind is that there are limits to the abundance of Nature.  These are not arbitrary limits, they are limits imposed by God and, as such, if my understanding of the Koran is correct, Muslims are commanded not to transgress them.”  Here Prince Charles makes Islam’s traditions perfectly consistent with the modern environmental drive to force sustainable development upon the western civilized world.

Here, by joining together environmentalism and western pantheism with Islam, Prince Charles gets himself into all manner of troubles compounded by ten.  The last time the green movement became involved with a group as Anti-Semitic as Islam was in Nazi Germany.  At a time when more than a few environmental historians have been forced to write some books to downplay, the historical connections between National Socialism and the early German green movement, Prince Charles opens up Pandora’s Avatar box all over again.

To the surprise of many, National Socialism was a green movement in some important, fundamental ways. Its god was a western pantheistic god of Nature whose totalitarian will cannot be overcome as many Jews, Christians, liberals, and communists falsely presume.  Herein lies the Nazi hatred for both capitalism and communism.  Its Anti-Semitic racism and love for biology was rooted in the Social Darwinian ecology of Ernst Haeckel.  Its holistic nationalism and geopolitics was grounded in the environmental indigenous ideas of Goethe, Humboldt and Arndt.  Its Germanic green socialism was derived from Riehl, the father of sustainable development and public forestlands.  Its romanticized “blood and soil” agrarian pipe dream was borrowed from the nature loving Monist League.  The Nazi love for animals was acquired from Arthur Schopenhauer, the Anti-Semitic guru of environmental ethics and animal rights who blamed Genesis 1 and Judaism for what he calls the “odor of the Jews,” i.e., animal cruelty, “the fault lies with the Jewish view that regards animals as something manufactured for man’s use.”  Hitler could quote Schopenhauer verbatim.  Schopenhauer was Hitler’s favorite philosopher.  It was thus no coincidence that the first Anti-Semitic measure that was passed in Nazi Germany in 1933 was an animal rights law.  That the Jews would ultimately find themselves stuffed in cattle cars and sent off to concentration camps set up like stockyards, is thus perhaps not so curious.  Hitler brought to fruition Schopenhauer’s great wish that “Jewish view of the animals world must, on account of its immorality, be expelled from Europe.”  The end result of Nazi Germany was a ghastly green sacrifice of the so-called ‘Eternal Jew’ who tried to live above nature through capitalism in the west, and communism in the east.

Finally, National Socialism’s wild, artistic romanticism was further elicited from Richard Wagner, the famous opera composer who hated the Jews for commercializing art.  Wagner also absorbed the Anti-Semitic environmentalism of both Schopenhauer and Haeckel into his life as well.  As such, when Hitler once remarked that “whoever wishes to comprehend National Socialism must first know Richard Wagner,” this certainly included a strong respect for romantic green ideas, racial and otherwise.  Hitler even attributed his own practice of vegetarianism to Richard Wagner.  Indeed, on November 11, 1941, right as the Germany Army was within striking distance of the gates of Moscow, Hitler trumpeted, “but there is one thing I can predict to eaters of meat, that the world of the future will be vegetarian.”

Eco-fascism is thus no metaphor.  Greenpeace’s founder, Patrick Moore, who left the group because of their increasingly extremist views, has warned of a coming eco-fascism “where the planetary police would answer to no one but Mother Nature herself.”  However, it is one thing to call someone an eco-Nazi using metaphors, but quite another to discover that the Nazis had incorporated a green agenda into their political policymaking as well.  For obvious reasons, putting these two things together is exactly what modern environmentalists do not want.  When such a label begins to match its history at some important junctures, it becomes much more explosive, and the bringing together of environmentalism with Islam will not dispel the strong suspicion that the modern green movement wreaks of fascism.  It only injects much more octane into an already highly volatile atmosphere.

Copyright April 2010 by R. Mark Musser 

Permission is herewith given to copy and distribute by electronic or physical means as long as it is not sold – the copyright notice is included and credits are given to the author.