Congo is the Nucleus of Africa

You know, wealthy individuals, individuals who possess a lot of assets, lot of resources, rich people, are treated pretty much universally with respect. They're treated as important in their society. People pander to them. People listen to them. People defer to them.

They're held in high esteem. I mean, generally speaking, this is the way it goes. If you have a lot of money, if you have a lot of property, or what have you, people tend to be deferential towards you. And some of this has to do with genuine respect, a genuine feeling of respect for what you have presumably achieved or accomplished in your life. The presumption is that you have risen to that level of financial success, maybe through entrepreneurship or hard work or savvy knowledge, skill, so on and so on.

And they respect you also because you're potentially a source of economic well-being for many other people, especially in traditional societies. You know, maybe you're a philanthropist. Maybe people seek you out, as an investor for startups and so on. So people deal with you very respectfully. Maybe it's just because your wealth translates to power in society.

So it's known that you have a lot of resources at your disposal, that you have a lot of connections, you have a lot of contacts, you have a lot of influence and so on. So people know that you could potentially help them. You could potentially help them in ways that no one else could. Mean, whatever the case may be, the fact is that the rich are generally treated with a higher degree of respect and a higher degree of deference than other people, generally speaking. And this is normal.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. But there's another type of person who sees the rich very differently. There's a type of person who will see someone who's very well off, who has a lot of money, who has a lot of resources, and so on. And the first thing that pops into his mind is robbery, theft, kidnapping, ransom. He immediately has a a criminal predatory instinct that makes him see anyone who has wealth as a target.

That's how he sees them. He wants what the rich man has, but he doesn't wanna earn it. He doesn't wanna develop the skills, and he doesn't wanna develop the talents and the business savvy and so on. He doesn't wanna put in the hard work, or build a business and so on. He just wants to kill that rich man and take his money.

He's a thug. He's a criminal, a bandit. He's a menace, like a jackal that steals the food that some other animal has hunted. Well, that's the West. You know, the story of Alibaba and the den of thieves?

There was that cave where they stole where they stored all of the stolen treasures. That's Europe. Europe is is nothing but a warehouse of stolen goods, pillaged primarily from Africa, India, Asia, and so on. It's nothing but a warehouse of stolen goods. That's what Europe is.

I mean, you wanna know how rich the global South is or how rich it's supposed to be, especially Africa, just look at how rich Europe is and realize that the wealth of Europe is plundered from the global South. And yet, the global South and Africa are still so rich that the plundering is ongoing. Do you understand? They have been pillaging Africa literally for centuries, but they have still not exhausted the natural wealth of that continent. In other words, all the beautiful buildings, you know, in Europe, all the infrastructure, all the extravagance, all the decadence of Europe, all of that was derived from just a fraction of the natural wealth that exists in the global South.

The abundance of Africa, the abundance of the global South is sufficient to build 100 Europes, and it still won't be empty. And if we're talking about it like it's a person, if Africa or the global South was a person, was an individual human being, while that person would be the most exalted, the most cherished person in the world, the most important person in the world, they'd be treated with absolutely the highest respect and deference imaginable. Everyone would try to protect that person. They would love that person. They would revere that person as the source of their own well-being, as the source of their own livelihood and their quality of life.

Imagine, that would be the person who makes everything possible, materially possible in your life. Your house, your car, your technology, your job, your income, that person would be the benefactor of every nation on earth. Or they would be celebrated, they'd be beloved by everyone. But if you think of the West as a person, well, that's that criminal, that's that kidnapper, that thief, that murderer who doesn't look at the world's benefactor as a blessing to humanity, but as a target to victimize and rob. That's literally what happened.

That's just what happened throughout history. I mean, think of the story of Hajr when Allah caused the water of Zamzam to flow. When the people came and found Hajar with that well, they respected her. They respected that that well belonged to her, and they asked for her permission to drink from that well. They didn't overcome her and attack her and claim the well of Zam Zam as their own.

That's how civilized people behave. I mean, alhamdulillah that there were no Europeans in Arabia at that time. Imagine if they had come across an endless water source in the middle of the desert, they would have seized the well of Zamzam for themselves, and until now you'd have to buy Zamzam water from France or from The UK and it would be 90% tap water, that's how they do. And see, everyone isn't like that. This is very important to understand.

Everyone's not like that. The people of the global South traded with each other for centuries. They respected each other's sovereignty, and their sovereignty over their resources. Nobody did what the West did. Nobody else has that thug mentality, that criminal mindset.

Everyone else, when they see, this people or that people, possessing abundant important natural resources, well, the first thing that they wanna do is become friends with those people. They wanna establish good relations. They want to be allies. They wanna be on good terms, so that the people whose resources they belong to will allow them access to those resources. There's no question of just outright overpowering those people and pillaging their resources, claiming them as your own.

No. That's abnormal. That's psychopathic. Wallahi just confuses the reality when you use the same words for what the West did, and what others did. Like saying, the West westerners will say, other other people colonized, other empires expanded, other people practiced slavery.

No. We need different words. Wallahi, we need different words for what normal nations did and what you people did. Because nobody did any of these things the way that you did these things. So it's completely dishonest and completely misleading to even use the same words.

I mean, you can even look at a modern example of this. In America, they have forced prison labor, which is tantamount to slavery, especially for inmates with life sentences. Okay? In America, you force prisoners to work for nothing for the benefit of private enterprise. Okay?

In Burkina Faso, they have a a prison labor program too. Inmates can do agricultural work. Ibrahim Shah Roy just purchased a huge number of tractors just for this purpose. But in Burkina Faso, this is a voluntary program for inmates, and they can actually reduce their sentences by three months for every one month that they work. The purpose for the inmate is rehabilitation, skill development, and to facilitate the reintegration into society.

And the purpose for society is to increase food production, to increase food security, and to expand the national economy. The surplus food that they produce will be used to feed inmates across the country and to sell in the markets. It's a program for self sufficiency, food self sufficiency, which benefits everyone in the country. Meanwhile, you force prisoners to work for nothing, for no money, no sentence reduction, and only for the profit maximization of private companies. But they'll say, well, they have prison labor, and we have prison labor, it's all the same.

But there's a huge qualitative difference. You're just liars. And this is the case with everything else. Imperialism, colonialism, slavery, and on and on and on. There's no comparison between the way you did these things and the way anyone else did these things.

There's no comparison. They're completely different. I mean, no country, no land, no people ever got poorer when Islam spread to their part of the world. When the Muslim empire expanded across Africa, across Asia, across the Arab world, Persia and so on or even into Europe, no one was worse off. They weren't pillaged, they weren't plundered, they weren't impoverished, they weren't subjugated, they weren't exploited.

No. Everywhere that Islam went, those societies benefited. They all, each and every one of them got richer, got better, got more educated, got stronger, got safer, had more rights, had more justice. This is just a historical fact. Everyone knows that the richest man in history was Mansa Musa in the empire of Mali, see?

Islam spread to Mali and Mali became an empire in its own right and produced enormous wealth, not by stealing from others, not by exploiting from others, not by pillage, not by plunder. They produce that wealth themselves. That's not imperialism or colonization, anything like, your imperialism and colonization. Which country did you ever colonize that got richer because you came? Which country got better?

Which country got stronger? Which became more educated, more literate, more cultured, more civilized, more just because of western imperialism? None. Zero. Everywhere that you went, made it worse.

Everywhere that you went, you made every place poorer, weaker, and less developed, exactly the opposite of what happened when the Muslims came to a place, and when Islam spread there. But you'll see, in your dishonesty, well, you know, the Muslims also practiced imperialism just like the West did, while the qualitative differences are so drastic that they literally led to opposite outcomes. I mean, the dishonesty is just staggering. And again, with slavery, the Muslims engaged in the slave trade, know, and the West engaged in the slave trade, it's the same, you had slavery, we had slavery, it's all the same, but it is so dramatically not the same. The trans Saharan, slave trade was Africans selling African slaves who were already slaves in their lands because this was just a category.

It's a category, an economic category almost, class category, that existed in basically every society as a mechanism for dealing with people in debt or prisoners of war or as a punishment for law breaking or extreme poverty or what have you. Slavery was just an economic class more than anything else, you know, much the way that right now you're debt slaves in the West today. So these existing slaves were sold to the Muslim world, and in the Muslim world they had legal rights, including, the right to buy their way out of slavery, the right to earn their own money, the right to own their own property, and so on. There was no racial element, there was no dehumanizing element to slavery in the Muslim world. I mean, a slave could literally become a king, could become a ruler, could become wealthy, even wealthier than his so called owner.

A slave in the Muslim world could become a high official in the government, could become a scholar, could become a businessman, could become an officer in the military commanding the Muslim armies. All of those things happened, and it was perfectly normal in the Muslim world. Being a slave in the Muslim world did not restrict you neither socially nor economically from upward mobility. Slaves could have power and prestige and wealth, they could have respect, and they did have respect and high standing in society. I mean, of the Mamluks for example, they ruled Egypt, an elite military class of slaves and former slaves.

Imagine, at one time in in history, right, the the the slaves of Egypt, Bani Israel had to flee Egypt, but under the Muslims, slaves literally ruled Egypt. So what are you talking about? But what about the West? You had dehumanizing chattel slavery, literally categorizing Africans as sub humans with no way out of bondage, They weren't allowed to learn or, to read or write. They had no rights under the law.

They were treated like animals, beaten, whipped, raped, lynched, murdered with impunity. They couldn't own anything. They couldn't earn anything. Marriages and families weren't respected in any way, racially stigmatized, it was absolutely inhuman. Nobody did that but you people, nobody acted like that but you.

Again, the qualitative differences are so epic that it doesn't even make sense to use the same word for what you did and what everyone else did. Muslim expansion had nothing to do with what you did, it was about spreading knowledge and spreading Islam, spreading the knowledge of Islam and it was about trade. It was never about conquest and plunder. And like I said, every place that Islam spread to only made those places better and made them richer. Every place that you went, you only made places more miserable and more poor.

I mean, look at India, under the Muslims, it reached the point where they constituted where India constituted 25% of global GDP. Imagine, India accounted for a quarter of all the wealth in the world during the Muslim rule. That was just in the seventeenth century, it's not that long ago. But okay, by the time the British left India, India only constituted 2% of global GDP, you destroyed that country. It's not a matter of opinion, this is a fact.

No land became poorer when Islam arrived. No land was impoverished by becoming part of the Muslim world, but every land that fell under western rule was drained. It was stripped of its wealth and it was left in ruins. How do you explain that? Well, the answer is simple.

Islam is genuinely a system of justice, but, the West operates on a system of greed. Allah subhanahu ta'ala tells us in the Quran that he made us khalifa on the earth. We're here to protect, to cultivate and to uplift, not to plunder, not to exploit, not to enslave. The lands that embraced Islam whether in Africa or in Asia or The Middle East or what have you, even in Europe, they were transformed into centers of knowledge, centers of trade and stability. Muslim rulers built civilizations, the West built empires based on slavery, theft and mass murder.

Again, like I said with India, imagine 25 of the global economy was coming from India under Muslim rule. It was one of the richest civilizations in the world. The Moguls developed infrastructure, architecture, advanced agriculture, they promoted trade, then the British came. And by the time they left, they they it went from 25 of the global economy to 2%. The British shut down industries, they looted the wealth, they engineered famines that killed millions of people, and that same pattern happened everywhere they went, everywhere they went.

You know, Egypt was a thriving economic hub under Islamic governance, then the British came and the French came and they turned it into a colony and they drained its wealth and they made it dependent on Europe. West Africa, you can look at West Africa, like I said, the Mali Empire, Songhai, Ghana, these were powerful independent nations under Islam built on trade and education. Like I said, Mansa Musa, the Muslim ruler of Mali is still considered today to be the richest man in history and he didn't steal that wealth, his empire produced that wealth. But look at what the West did to Africa. You enslaved its people, you stole its resources, you divided it with artificial borders just to ensure that there would be endless strife.

You created a system where Africa would remain poor forever while the while the West remained rich on your on on Africa's wealth, and you're still doing it until today. Islamic governance genuinely was based on adil, on justice, and on rahma, on mercy, and on economic equity. No ruler had the right to hoard wealth while the people suffered. The Islamic system prevented wealth from being monopolized by a corrupt elite. But Western colonization, Western colonialism, Belgium literally owned the Congo as the personal property of King Leopold.

Over 6,000,000 Congolese were massacred, were mutilated and enslaved just to extract rubber and minerals for Belgium, for King Leopold. That's the wealth that built Belgium. Exactly right there in Brussels where the seat of the EU is today. Go to Brussels, walk the street, look at the beautiful architecture, you know, marvel at how beautiful it is. Well, of that was paid for with Congolese blood, And yet today, when Africans try to immigrate or try to migrate to Europe, they're treated like criminals.

I've said it before, they're not coming to take your wealth, they're coming to try to reclaim just a little bit of their own wealth to come to the cities that they built. Islamic civilization was built on the pursuit of knowledge. The prophet Muhammad said, seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim, and we take that seriously. That's why under Islam, cities became centers of learning. Baghdad had the house of wisdom, which was a global hub for science and medicine and philosophy.

Again, in Mali, Timbuktu, the whole city was a university. It attracted scholars from all across Africa and beyond Africa. And of course, Andalusia in Spain, where the Muslims preserved and expanded upon Greek, Roman and Persian knowledge that the Greeks and the and the Romans that you talk about today, you wouldn't even know about them if it wasn't for us. But what did the West do when they colonized the world? They burned books, they forbade education, prohibited education for the native populations.

They rewrote history erasing the achievements of the civilizations that they destroyed. You want to wipe them completely out of history. Algeria under French rule is a perfect example. Before the French invasion in 1830, Algeria had the, one of the highest literacy rates in the whole region. But after a hundred and thirty two years of French occupation, literacy in Algeria had dropped to the single digits because the French were shutting down schools the whole time.

You know, Islam prohibits usury, interest because it enslaves people, but western capitalism thrives on it. That's why even after formal colonialism ended, the West kept countries in debt through the IMF and through the World Bank and so on, ensuring that their economies would remain under western control through debt slavery and and and interest. And their corporations control the resources. Africa doesn't own their own wealth, it's their wealth but they don't own it. Western companies own the mines in Africa, they extract the minerals, they set the prices, they ensure that the wealth will never benefit the people whose wealth it truly is.

I mean, look at Congo today. Congo produces 70% of the world's cobalt. That's the mineral that powers your smartphone, your laptop, your electric car. Without Congolese minerals, there's no Tesla, there's no Apple, there's no Samsung. Yet, the people of Congo remain among the poorest people in the world.

Why? Because their wealth is not theirs, it's stolen by western corporations, by western companies. Their system is kept in place through war. The West doesn't want a stable and independent Congo, that's why they fund proxy wars, why they support rebel groups like m twenty three. They use other African governments like Rwanda and Uganda to do their bidding, to keep Congo weak so that the wealth remains available for plunder.

Wallahi, this is a grotesque injustice. It's a grotesque injustice that disgraces the whole world. Congo is a bleeding open gaping wound on this earth. Understand this, Africa will never be free until Congo is free. No matter how well any in, individual African country does, the continent as a whole will remain wounded, mortally wounded, long as Congo is being plundered.

Please understand. Congo is like the nucleus of Africa's natural wealth. It's just like in physics. When the nucleus of an atom is unstable, the entire structure is at risk of collapse, sometimes violently. You know, in in in atomic science, the nucleus of an atom, the core of the atom, holding the protons and neutrons together through the force of their energy, if that nucleus is stable, well then the atom remains intact.

Its energy is contained, the structure is sound, but when the nucleus becomes unstable, when it's fractured or manipulated, the consequences can be catastrophic. It could undergo nuclear fission and trigger an atomic explosion. This is exactly what's happening in Africa in my opinion. Congo is the nucleus of Africa's resources. Cobalt, coltan, gold, diamonds, uranium, not to mention fertile land, life giving forests that literally regulate the earth's climate is the central source of energy that fuels not only Africa, but the modern world itself.

Like I said, every smartphone, every electric car, every satellite in the sky depends on what is extracted from the land of the Congo, but this nucleus has been deliberately kept unstable. Western powers and their corporate arms are constantly, splitting this nucleus, fragmenting the nucleus into warring factions, destabilizing it so that it never reaches its full strength. They fund militias, they install puppet governments, and they pit neighboring countries against each other just to keep Congo weak so that they can extract its wealth unhindered. But what happens when the nucleus of an atom is unstable? Like I said, chain reactions, radiation, explosions, this is exactly what has happened in The Congo.

Millions have died. The entire continent remains in a state of uncertainty because its nucleus, the Congo, is in a state of forced instability. If we want Africa to be strong, if we want prosperity in Africa and sovereignty in Africa, then this nucleus has to be stabilized. This means ending the plunder of the Congo. It means holding those quiseling African governments accountable for their complicity, like Rwanda and Uganda.

And it means cutting off the hands of multinational corporations that treat that continent as their own private mind. It means standing together, uniting around the principle that Congo's wealth must be respected. It must be cherished, not pillaged and plundered. Like I said at the beginning, if Congo was a person, they would be the benefactor of the whole world and everyone is supposed to love and protect that person. They're supposed to be appreciated, they're supposed to be cherished, they're supposed to be treated with the utmost respect because everyone depends on them, everyone benefits from them.

What Congo provides to the world is so important that it's taken for granted. That's just how vital it is. I mean, it's like taking for granted that the surface of the earth is solid, and you can walk on it, and you can build on it, and it won't move under your feet, and it won't shift under your house, you take that for granted. But it's the most important thing imaginable and you only realize just how important it is when there's an earthquake or when there's a sinkhole. Then you understand how important it is, well that's the Congo, that's the importance of the Congo.

But because the world has gone through this truly hellish period of western power, western supremacy, western domination, where the highest possible value according to the western mentality, the highest possible value is resource acquisition. The highest priority and the highest principle is the absolute freedom of the private sector. Absolute freedom of business to pursue acquisition. And by freedom I mean freedom from morality, freedom from justice, freedom from decency, freedom from responsibility, and basic feelings of humanity and fairness. Where greed absolutely reigns supreme above all else.

The richest, most precious, most important, most essential lands that are supposed to be protected, that are supposed to be respected, end up becoming the most victimized, the most subjugated, the most oppressed, and the most savaged. You really don't need any other evidence. You don't need any further evidence about the sickness and the backwardness of the and and the lack of civilization of the West beyond the Congo. The situation in the DRC is basically a comprehensive meme that encapsulates everything about the West's barbaric approach to the world. I mean, again, think about it.

At least at least 6,000,000 Congolese were killed. But King Leopold is not the archetype of evil that Adolf Hitler is. Between three to 4,000,000 Indians were starved to death, but Winston Churchill isn't Hitler, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses s Grant, all of them were genocidal killers. Napoleon Bonaparte in Haiti, in The Caribbean, in Algeria, and Charles de Gaulle in Algeria, none of those are Hitler. No, the fact of the matter is that Hitler was not unique, he was absolutely on par.

He was on par for the course. I mean, if Hitler had not attacked the Anglo Saxons, Europe and America would not have battered an eye at his atrocities because you've all done it. You've all done what he did, you've all done what Hitler did. Your pantheon of historical heroes and your pantheon of leaders from the past is nothing but a rogue's gallery. And all of your official villains in history is just a mirror, reflection of yourselves.

Hitler's just a reflection of you, all of you. And I'm saying the global South, Africa especially, you know, they've dealt with you so moderately, they've dealt with you so patiently, they've dealt with you so generously, in such a civilized and a decent manner because they are that way themselves. That's their nature. And because their fledgling decolonization efforts were undertaken at a time when they were still vulnerable. So they they they dealt with you as if you are normal people, as if you're like them.

Even though they themselves had experienced your brutality and your savagery, they didn't wanna be rough with you, they didn't wanna be harsh with you, they wanted to try to maintain, you know, some degree of harmony and goodwill. But you're not the people who understand that. You're not the people who respect that. You're not the people who appreciate that. And I'm saying the global South needs to deal with you the way you really are.

Now I'm not talking about aggression. I'm not talking about violence, I'm just saying it seems to me that the global south needs to cut you out as much as possible. They need to cut you out because you can't be trusted, You can't be relied upon to ever be fair, to ever be mature, to ever be reasonable because you've got killer instincts. You know, it's like that story about the frog and the scorpion. You're always gonna sting because that's just what you do, and it isn't intelligent to ever expect you to do otherwise, you know, like the frog giving that scorpion a ride across the river and the scorpion stings him, except, you know, if it's that western scorpion, not only would they sting him, but they'd they'd accuse the frog of trying to drown him.

They'd say that the frog that they just stung was trying to drown them. They say that they were actually trying to carry the frog across the river, not that he was riding on the back of the frog to get across the river. That's how the West does. I'm telling you they can't help themselves. There's nothing wrong with them.

You need to be as far away as possible. If you try to shake their hand, you're gonna find yourself in handcuffs, believe me. So you have to take a firm stance now. It's not like in the past. In the past, I know that taking a firm stance was a lot more dangerous, but today their capacity to threaten you almost doesn't exceed their throats, you know.

They can just say threatening things hoping that you'll believe them and cower in fear, but it's mostly a bluff. They're depending on you reacting to your memory of what they used to be able to do to you rather than upon any objective current evaluation of the real power dynamics that exist in 2025. I think you'll be surprised at how quickly they cave if you do take a firm stand with the West. Yeah. They'll say nasty things, you know, call you undemocratic or what have you, accuse you of this or that or the other, But it's all just noise.

That's all just noise, and you shouldn't let it faze you. They're the biggest criminals in history. They're the biggest criminals in history with the longest and most atrocious criminal record in history. They're not in any position whatsoever to moralize or to sermonize or to demonize anyone. So you have to make a decision in the global South whether you're gonna protect your people, protect your nation, protect your sovereignty, or placate the West.

Mean, it used to be the case that placating the West was the only way that you could protect your people, but that's not the case anymore. Now today, again, in 2025, placating the West just puts your people in danger. It puts your sovereignty at risk, and it undermines your security for no reason. There's no reason to do it. All they can do is huff and puff.

They can't blow anybody's house down. Their own house is collapsing. So you need to keep your doors locked as far as I'm concerned, keep them out as much as you can. The West built a mansion with your money, and they turned it into a crack house. And if you let them into your house now, they'll do the same thing to yours.