Give me control of a nation's money and I care not
who makes her laws.
The official French newspaper of the time -1798- carried an account of Napoleon’s conversion to Islam and mentions his Muslim name ‘Aly Napoleon Bonaparte’. Napoleon is also quoted (in Christian Cherfils, Bonaparte et Islam) as saying that he would like to establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Quran. A more recent reference is in the book Satanic Voices by David Pidcock: http://media.isnet.org/off/Islam/New/napoleon.html
What is certain is that Napoleon was a very good tactician. He travelled widely and was well read. As the Emperor of France he was continually searching for ways in which he could strengthen his country, and had a deep knowledge of Shari’ah Law. His relationship with Christianity was one of a practical statesman - religion was useful as long as it was comforting to society, but dangerous if it led to fanaticism. And his frank disbelief in the Trinity caused him to adopt monotheistic attitude - not a million miles from Islam.
On the 9th of February 1807, Napoleon issued a rabbinical Fatwa prohibiting usury (the charging of interest). Napoleon clearly understood the root cause of Europe's problem. For, upon being shown a table of interest charges, he reflected for a while and made the following comment:
"The deadly facts herein revealed, lead me to wonder that this monster, interest, has not devoured the whole human race. It would have done so long ago if bankruptcy and revolutions had not acted as counter poisons." (Lincoln: Money Martyred; Omni Publications 1935).
It does not require much stretching of the imagination to understand why the banking organisations of the day were not too happy about a non-usurious system. Traditional western bankers saw their future prosperity at risk, and thus in the build up to the Battle of Waterloo, were pitched against Napoleon. If he won, they would be out of business.
War is always about money.
The prosperity of the Rothschilds rested upon backing the right horse in the Napoleonic wars and developing close relations with one or more of the warring governments involved. For the Rothschilds, this meant the British government. The Rothschilds became the paymaster of the British Army and the disburser of subsidies to the German, Austrian, Belgian and Russian allies. Before the French emperor’s defeat at Waterloo on June 18th 1918, the Rothschilds had already strategically placed themselves against him. In January 1814 they contracted to supply the Duke of Wellington with the monthly hundred thousand pounds sterling in ready cash to continue paying his armies to wage war against Napoleon. http://www.hbs.edu/bhr/archives/bookreviews/80/proberts-v80-3.pdf
The four Rothschild brothers helped co-ordinate activities across the European continent at this time, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold – and information. They became experts in crisscrossing the frontiers of Europe buying, selling and transporting millions of coins. The private intelligence service so gathered enabled Nathan Rothschild to receive the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the British government's official messengers.
There were vast fortunes to be made -- and lost -- on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo. If Britain lost, the value of English coinage would plummet. If Britain was victorious, the value of the currency would increase.
Late on the afternoon of June 15, 1815, a Rothschild representative took a fast boat from Belgium to the English coast with a report on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo.
At the London Stock Exchange, Rothschild dumped hundreds of thousands of British guineas on the market, and the value plummeted. Rothschild misled the markets into thinking that he had prior knowledge of a Wellington defeat at Waterloo and there was a panic to sell.
At its lowest price, and shortly before the ‘official’ news about Wellington’s victory arrived in London, Rothschild reversed his decision, bought the currency he had just sold, and the value of the guinea skyrocketed. His fortune multiplied twenty times on that one day, and he gained a position of such financial power in the City of London that by 1825–6 he was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a liquidity crisis.
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act created a consortium of privately held associated banks called the Federal Reserve Bank. The largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank were Rothschild’s of London holding 57% of the stock not available for public trading. There are some interesting ownership charts here:
It is difficult to track the exact ownership of these banks, however, the Rothschilds are probably the most secretive and powerful banking family in the modern world with assets in the hundreds of trillions.
What would have happened had Napoleon not converted to Islam, or at the very least, not prescribed Islamic and non-usurious banking practices for France? Would the Rothschild family not have been so interested in the outcome and possibly not made so much money on the war enterprise? Would Lincoln, Garfield, Mc Faddon and have JFk lived?
And what might have happened if Napoleon had won? (an unlikely event considering the entire European aristocracy and most of the banking families were pitted against him) Would we now be living in a world whereby money could be borrowed without interest? It is entirely feasible that we would not be experiencing the constant cycle of economic boom and bust; we would not be facing a national debt which allows the bankers their huge bonuses and the ordinary people the bill for it all. Call it Islamic, call it anything you like, life without interest would be more fair and more just.
Some aspects of Shariah Law currently exist in the French constitution based on the Code Napoleone. One well publicised case was that of the fatal car accident with Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al-Fayed. "The photographers were charged with an old part of the French Jurisprudence, for ‘not helping at the scene of an accident’- (David M. Pidcock, 1998 C.E.)