Mawdudi revisited

Thanks to MCB Watch

The division of Islamic Jihad into “offensive” and “defensive” is not permissible. Islamic Jihad is both offensive and defensive at the same time. It is offensive because the Muslim Party attacks the rule of an opposing ideology, and it is defensive because the Muslim Party is constrained to capture state power in order to protect the principles of Islam in space-time forces.
Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi, Jihad fi Sabilillah (Jihad in Islam),

Panorama, Mawdudi and Selective Quoting

The BBC’s Panorama programme on Sunday 21 August 2005 investigated the Muslim Council of Britain’s (MCB) claims to be moderate and found them wanting. To say that the MCB was cross about the documentary would be to flirt dangerously with understatement; even before it was broadcast, the MCB had fired off a letter of protest (pdf) to the Director-General of the BBC, complained loudly to whichever journalists would listen, and issued a full rebuttal (Word document), based on a transcript of the programme. After the documentary was broadcast, a detailed letter (pdf) outlining the MCB’s complaints about the programme was sent to Mike Robinson, Editor of BBC Panorama on 23 August 2005.

This article will examine one complaint in particular the MCB made about the programme, namely its examination of MCB affiliate organisation, The Islamic Foundation, who have strong connections with the Pakistani Jamaat-i-Islami party, founded by Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi (often known as Maulana Mawdudi). The MCB describe Mawdudi as ‘an important Islamic thinker’ and The Islamic Foundation promote his books and ideology. But Panorama expressed concerns about this link to Jamaat-i-Islami and Mawdudi, especially because of Mawdudi’s ideology concerning the way an Islamic State should look and operate. Panorama quoted from Mawdudi who says that the Islamic State bears:

… a kind of resemblance to the fascist and communist states …

This raised the ire of the MCB and in their rebuttals both before and after the programme was transmitted, they accused the BBC of deliberately twisting what Mawdudi had written. The MCB wrote:

It is well known that it is possible through mischievous editing to choose carefully selected lines from the writings of just about any author which will then make it appear to suggest he is saying the polar opposite of his actual words.
[Source (Word document)]

The MCB then proceeded to cite two paragraphs from the book by Mawdudi from which Panorama had quoted just one line. The MCB’s aim appears to have been an attempt to demonstrate that Mawdudi’s Islamic State would really be an oasis of peace, calm, tolerance and moderation.

In the interests of fairness to the BBC, the MCB and Mawdudi himself, we reproduce below almost two pages from the book in question, Islamic Law and Constitution, starting from the beginning of the section in which both the Panorama and MCB citations occur. The text that Panorama quoted is in red and that which the MCB quoted is in green. I apologise in advance for the length of the citation, but it is needed to give the proper context, a context which, I would suggest, makes the MCB’s claims look very dubious indeed.

Islamic State is Universal and All Embracing

A state of this sort cannot evidently restrict the scope of its activities. Its approach is universal and all-embracing. Its sphere of activity is coextensive with the whole of human life. It seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity in consonance with its moral norms and programme of social reform. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states. But you will find later on that, despite its all-inclusiveness, it is something vastly and basically different from the totalitarian and authoritarian states. Individual liberty is not suppressed under it nor is there any trace of dictatorship in it. It presents the middle course and embodies the best that the human society has ever evolved. The excellent balance and moderation that characterise the Islamic system of government and the precise distinctions made in it between right and wrong elicit from all men of honesty and intelligence the admiration and the admission that such a balanced system could not have been framed by anyone but the Omniscient and All-Wise God.

Islamic State is an Ideological State

Another characteristic of the Islamic State is that it is an ideological state. It is clear from a careful consideration of the Qur’an and the Sunnah that the state in Islam is based on an ideology and its objective is to establish that ideology. State is an instrument of reform and must act likewise. It is a dictate of this very nature of the Islamic State that such a state should be run only by those who believe in the ideology on which it is based and in the Divine Law which it is assigned to administer. The administrators of the Islamic State must be those whose whole life is devoted to the observance and enforcement of this Law, who not only agree with its reformatory programme and fully believe in it but thoroughly comprehend its spirit and are acquainted with its details. Islam does not recognise any geographical, linguistic or colour bars in this respect. It puts forward its code of guidance and the scheme of its reform before all men. Whoever accepts this programme, no matter to what race, nation or country he may belong, can join the community that runs the Islamic State. But those who do not accept it are not entitled to have any hand in shaping the fundamental policy of the state. They can live within the confines of the state as non-Muslim citizens (zimmis). Specific rights and privileges have been accorded to them in the Islamic Law. A zimmi’s life, property and honour will be fully protected and if he is capable of any service, his services will also be made use of. He will not, however, be allowed to influence the basic policy of this ideological state. The Islamic State is based on a particular ideology and it is the community which believes in the Islamic ideology that pilots it. Here again, we notice some sort of resemblance between the Islamic and Communist states. But the treatment meted out by the Communist states to persons holding creeds and ideologies other than its own bears no comparison with the attitude of the Islamic State. Unlike the Communist state, Islam does not impose its social principles on others by force, nor does it confiscate their properties or unleash a reign of terror by mass executions of the people and their transportation to the slave camps of Siberia.
S. Abul A’la Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, Rev. Ed., Translated by Kurshid Ahmad. (Delhi: Taj Company, 1986 [1960]) p.144-147; emphasis mine.

Now the question that immediately strikes one in studying this passage is this: why did the MCB quote two paragraphs that are so close together in Mawdudi’s book, yet miss out the beginning and end of one and the start of the other? Admittedly Mawdudi (and his translator) believe in long paragraphs, but if the MCB’s aim was to prove that Panorama were being wickedly mischievous in their quoting, surely they should have seen the need to quote accurately themselves? It seems there is one rule for the BBC and one for the MCB, at least in the mind of Inayat Bunglawala (who wrote the letter of the 23 August) because the missing text from the MCB’s quotation is vital:

    • Mawdudi states that the Islamic State is a theocracy and is all embracing.

 

    • Nobody living in that State can enjoy any private space; the State’s gaze is all-pervasive.

 

 

    • Only those who are Muslims can play any role in governance. (Actually, only those who are Muslim and male; see p.262-3 of Islamic Law and Constitution).

 

    • Non-Muslims cannot be involved in governance.

 

  • Non-Muslims must live as zimmis [or ‘dhimmis’], a category of second-class citizen whose restrictions are carefully demarcated in Islamic law (and elsewhere by Mawdudi, see below).

One can see why the MCB failed to provide this textual context, for it utterly destroys their claims that Panorama twisted Mawdudi’s words and reveals the extent to which Mawdudi’s Islamic State does indeed resemble communist and fascist models. In both those systems, the ideology of the state is equally all pervasive, those who disagree with it are certainly ‘not allowed to influence the basic policy’ and so forth. Therefore it is Bunglawala and the MCB who are being ‘mischievous’ and, indeed, deliberately disingenuous by accusing Panorama of selective quotation in the very same document that the MCB demonstrate this shoddy practice themselves. The MCB are, as is so often the case, guilty of a shocking double-standard.

More of Mawdudi’s thought

Since we are discussing Mawdudi and his views of the Islamic state, this would seem an appropriate point to examine more of his thought — which developed over time — on the role of the Islamic state, its spread, the place of the zimmi and so forth.

Let us start with the zimmis and the question of how these non-Muslim minorities might come to find themselves living under the Islamic state, unable to participate in the political process. Mawdudi sees this happening in one of three ways:

The Islamic Shari’ah divides its non-Muslim citizens into three categories, viz:
(a) Those who become the subjects of an Islamic State under some treaty or agreement;
(b) Those who become its subjects after being defeated by the Muslims in a war, and;
(c) Those who are in the Islamic State in any other way.
Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, p. 278; emphasis mine.

The second category is revealing, for Mawdudi apparently envisages the Islamic State as being involved in wars that would add territory to its domain. Will these wars be “defensive” or “offensive”? Elsewhere, Mawdudi states that these terms are inappropriate:

The division of Islamic Jihad into “offensive” and “defensive” is not permissible. Islamic Jihad is both offensive and defensive at the same time. It is offensive because the Muslim Party attacks the rule of an opposing ideology, and it is defensive because the Muslim Party is constrained to capture state power in order to protect the principles of Islam in space-time forces.
Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi, Jihad fi Sabilillah (Jihad in Islam),Translated by Prof. Kurshid Ahmad. (Birmingham: UK Islamic Mission Dawah Centre, 1997 [1939]) p.14.
(Can be downloaded here as a pdf).

In yet another of his writings, Mawdudi explores the military aspects of the Islamic State in more detail. Commenting on Qur’an 9:29 in his Tafhim al-Qur’an, Mawdudi writes:

The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is not as one might think to compel the believers into embracing Islam. Rather, their purpose is to put an end to the sovereignty and supremacy of the unbelievers so that the latter are unable to rule over men. The authority to rule should only be vested in those who follow the true faith; unbelievers who do not follow this true faith should live in a state of subordination. Unbelievers are required to pay Jizyah (poll tax) in lieu of the security provided to them as the Dhimmis (‘Protected People’) of an Islamic state. Jizyah symbolises the submission of the unbelievers to the suzerainty of Islam. ‘To pay Jizyah of their own hands humbled’ refers to payment in a state of submission. ‘Humbled’ also reinforces the idea that the believers, rather than the unbelievers, should be the rulers in performance of their duty as God’s vicegerents.

.
Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an: English Version of Tafhim al-Qur’an, Vol. III, Surahs 7-9, Translated by Zafar Ishaq Ansari. (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1990) p.202; emphasis mine.

Fighting, then, is a requirement in order to put an end to non-Islamic systems of human leadership and government. Elsewhere, Mawdudi is even clearer:

Islam wishes to do away with all states and governments which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of this ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of standard-bearer of Islam, and regardless of the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic state. Islam requires the earth — not just a portion, but the entire planet — not because the sovereignty over the earth should be wrested from one nation or group of nations and vested in any one particular nation, but because the whole of mankind should benefit from Islam, and its ideology and welfare programme.
It is to serve this end that Islam seeks to press into service all the forces which can bring about such a revolution. The term which covers the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. To alter people’s outlook and spark a mental and intellectual revolution is a form of Jihad. To change the old tyrannical system and establish a just new order by the power of the sword is also Jihad, as is spending wealth and undergoing physical exertion for this cause.
Mawdudi, Jihad, p.4.

In short, Mawdudi believes that Islam needs the sword in order to bring about its spiritual and moral vision of the world:

Those who propagate religion are not merely preachers or “missionaries”; they are the functionaries of Allah, so that they may be witnesses for the people, and it is their duty to wipe out oppression, wrongdoing, strife, immorality, arrogance and unlawful exploitation from the world by force of arms.
Ibid, p. 10; emphasis mine.

It is worth noting that the translator of Mawdudi’s little tract on jihad is none other than Professor Khurshid Ahmad of The Islamic Foundation. Professor Ahmad was interviewed by John Ware in the BBC Panorama programme and challenged about Mawdudi’s radical ideology:

John Ware: It’s not clear to me what relevance Maududi has to the lives, every day lives, of most British Muslims. But your institution promotes Maududi.. I mean it’s absolutely top of the list on your online book[store].
Kurshid Ahmad: I think that is a total misconstruction of our objectives. Maulana Maududi, I said, is one of the most important thinkers of the 20th Century Islam. We respect his views and we have also published some of his works.
John Ware: You don’t think the idea of Islam being a revolutionary ideology is potentially a dangerous one for young Muslims living in a secular country?
Kurshid Ahmad: Not at all, not at all. It’s a blessing.
John Ware: It’s a blessing?
Kurshid Ahmad: It’s a blessing because what is a revolutionary idea? A revolutionary idea means that let people try to change the world on the basis of values of faith in Allah, justice, service to humanity, peace and solidarity. So revolution is not something to be afraid of..
[Source]

Perhaps Professor Ahmad had forgotten parts of what he had translated, for it is crystal clear what Mawdudi saw the role of the Islamic state as being and why, indeed, this kind of ideology is potentially extremely dangerous. Here is another quotation:

[T]he objective of the Islamic Jihad is to eliminate the rule of an unIslamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule … No revolutionary ideology which champions the principles of the welfare of humanity as a whole — as opposed to upholding national interests — can restrict its aims and objectives to within the limits of a particular country or nation.
Mawdudi, Jihad, p.12.

This citation helps us see why Mawdudi believed the Islamic State is like Communism and Fascism in some ways, but not others. Like totalitarian systems, the Islamic State is monolithic, combines ideology and politics, and seeks to replace all alternative models. Dissent is not allowed, for the word of the State is law. Yet the Islamic State is unlike Communism and Fascism, believes Mawdudi, because its objective is the ‘welfare of humanity’. Quite what this ‘welfare’ consists of is highly questionable, especially when one considers the rest of Mawdudi’s writings.

Freedom of religion

We have already seen the inherent injustice of Mawdudi’s model of the Islamic State in the way that it does not allow non-Muslims to be involved in the system of government; Mawdudi’s Islamic State thus has a lot in common with the old apartheid regime of South Africa. But a further problem is that under such an Islamic State, Muslims themselves do not enjoy freedom of religion — if a Muslim decides to change his or her religion, they are to be punished by death according to Mawdudi:

To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution.
Sayyid Abul A‘la Mawdudi, The Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law, Translated by S. S. Husain & E. Hahn (1994 [1953]) p.17.

Mawdudi goes on to cite proofs from the Qur’an (p.18-19), the hadith (p.19-22) and the first Caliphs (p.22-27) for this point of view. According to Mawdudi, these authoritative sources all support the death penalty for apostasy and therefore it must be enforced. Anybody who argues otherwise is elevating human laws above divine laws and this is unthinkable:

Which law will be more worthy to be called Muslim: The law which was in use during the rule of the Prophet and the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs and which was accepted with full agreement and without break for thirteen hundred years by the whole Muslim community’s judges, magistrates and legal scholars or the law formulated at present by some persons who have been influenced and overcome by non-Islamic studies and non-Islamic culture and civilization and who have not obtained even a partial education in Islamic disciplines?
Ibid., p.31.

As well as the opinion that apostates from Islam should be executed, Mawdudi also believed that non-Muslims living in the Islamic State (zimmis or dhimmis) have no right to preach their religious views. Mawdudi explains:

[W]hen within the boundaries of our authority we do not grant any person who is a Muslim the right to leave Islam to accept another religion … we also do not tolerate the proclamation and spread of any other religion in opposition to Islam. To grant other religions and ways the right to propagate and then to declare a Muslim’s change to another religion a crime are affirmations which contradict one another.
Ibid., p.37; emphasis mine.

Once again, Mawdudi brings this back to his understanding of the purpose of Islam, namely to supercede and subjugate all other ideologies and systems:

According to these verses [Q. 9:33; 8:39; 2:143] the true purpose of the Messenger’s [Muhammad] mission is to ensure the victory of the guidance and Religion of Truth, which he has brought from God over every other competing order of life of a religious nature … As the successors of the Messenger after the Messenger’s departure are heirs of the religion which he had brought from God, in the same way they are heirs of the mission for which God ordained him. The very purpose of all their struggles, it is agreed, is to make all religion the sole preserve of God.
Ibid., p.40; emphasis mine.

Dhimmis (non-Muslim persons) in the Islamic State need to remember their place. They are not there to preach, says Mawdudi, but rather:

According to this verse [Q. 9:29] the true position of Dhimmis under Islamic rule is to be content to remain low. As Dhimmis they cannot try to become great.
Ibid., p.41; emphasis mine.

Conclusion

In extensive citations from a range of Mawdudi’s writings on Islamic law, politics and Qur’anic commentary, we have seen how his view of the Islamic State is one of a totalitarian theocracy, whose laws cannot be challenged (since they are divinely given), in which non-Muslims are subjugated and cannot be involved in political leadership, in which Muslims who wish to convert from Islam are to be executed and non-Muslims are forbidden from preaching their religious beliefs. It would seem that Mawdudi’s recognition that such a state bears some resemblances to Communism or Fascism was an accurate assessment and Panorama’s quotation of his words a fair summary of his thought. Perhaps our biggest complaint with Panorama is that they should have quoted more of Mawdudi’s writings, since he makes no attempt to play down his nastier opinions.

But what of the MCB? Why quote misleadingly from Mawdudi when trying to prove Panorama were themselves quoting wrongly? Why cover up Mawdudi’s views about non-Muslims, apostasy, religious freedom, or the need for Islam to take over the world and suppress all non-Islamic systems of government?

We would suggest that the answer is twofold. First, the MCB wanted to attack the BBC with all guns blazing and the admission that Panorama were correct about Mawdudi would detract from this. When it comes to winning arguments, the MCB seem to think that the end justifies the means and that truth is an irrelevance. Second, there was the need to defend an affiliate. The Islamic Foundation promote and expound the works of Mawdudi and his views obviously cast them in a bad light. Since the MCB allow no criticism of themselves or affiliates, the need to defend The Islamic Foundation required generating a smokescreen in the hope that nobody would actually read Mawdudi.

But we have read Mawdudi extensively and his views are plain to see. The MCB’s thinly disguised attempts to mislead people about them via selective quotation, disingenuous statements and distraction techniques only make the rest of Panorama’s claims about the MCB look all the more plausible. Those who defend and promote radicals like Mawdudi need to be prepared to admit what his views really were.

 

4 thoughts on “Mawdudi revisited”

  1. Everyone should read pages 9 & 10 of “Jihad In Islam”. Islam is world conquest.

    The other book mentioned can be read here:
    https://archive.org/stream/TheIslamicLawAndTheConstitutionAbuAlaMawdudi/The%20Islamic%20Law%20and%20the%20Constitution%20-%20Abu%20Ala%20Mawdudi#page/n419/mode/2up/

    ‘Slimne is a lie and ‘slimes are liars. The ostensible objective of Jihad is Allah’s good pleasure through establishing and extending his rule: Dar al-Islam. The real objective is accrual of spoils.

    Read pages 144, 145 & 214 of the second volume of Hedaya, the Isdamnic law used by the Ottoman Empire:
    https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.221893/2015.221893.The-Hedaya#page/n153/mode/2up

    Still doubt the fatal fact? crack open Maududi’s Tafhim and red the commentary on 8.39 & 9.29. He tells you Jihad is for Allah not for $. Now read 8.67 and answer this question: What was Moe’s prime motivating factor?

    Revisit the archive and search for Sahih Bukhari vol. 4. Open it to page 108 and read what is said about spears, including the footnote. How did Moe get his livlihood? Search for vol. 4 of Ibn Kathir’s “The Life Of The Prophet Muhammad” and read page 1. Why was 9.29 revealed?

    Open Guillaume’s “The Life Of Muhammad and search for “prey”, it is what Moe prayed for at Badr: the caravan as a prey. Search for “wealthiest fort”., he prayed for conquest at kaybar. Search for “the good of this town” and back up to the previous page where it tells to whom he addressed his salat. Who would be the “lord of the devils and all into error they throw”? And the good of this town and all that is in it? Hilali & Khan tell us that”good of this world” in 8.67 means “ransom money”. Syntesyze that and curse Isdamm for it is mercenary.

    Memory does not serve well, but I think King Abedullah’s altafsir.com inclues the commentary of Abdulah Yusuf Ali and Mohammad Asad. Look up their remarks on 8.39 & 9.29 and compare what they and Maududi wrote to the Isdamnic law in Hedaya. Who do you believe? There is another article “Jihad and Intentions” that spews the same crap. In Bukhari’s fourth volume, you can read more relevant ahadith. The Mujahid gets the reward he seeks. The ultimate reward is tearing hymens half the day in Allah’s celestial orgy.

    The internet Archive has more crap than you can shake Adobe Reader at. Search for all in one volume hadith.

    To resolve your doubt, return to the archive and Bukhari, read all of the “Book Of Khumus”. What did Moe fear most?

  2. https://publicintelligence.net/anders-behring-breiviks-complete-manifesto-2083-a-european-declaration-of-independence/
    … Section 3.44 Page 938

    3.44 Traitor – classification system – Category A, B and C traitors

    The nation is divided, half patriots and half traitors, and no man can tell which from which.” … Mark Twain

    This classification system is used to identify various individual cultural Marxist/ multiculturalist traitors. The intention of the system is to easier identify priority targets and will also serve as the foundation for the future “Nuremberg trials” once the European cultural conservatives reassert political and military control of any given country.

    Any category A, B or C traitor is an individual who has deliberately used his or her influence in a way which makes him or her indirectly or directly guilty of the charges specified in this document: 1-8. (Refer Section 3.2 page 780 – Charges against all cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Europe (category A and B traitors)) Many of these individuals will attempt to claim ”ignorance” of the crimes they are accused of.

    Category A traitor
    – Political leaders (NGO leaders included)
    – Media leaders (chief editors)
    – Cultural leaders
    – Industry leaders

    Category A traitors are usually any current Heads of State, ministers/senators, directors and leaders of certain organisations/boards etc. who are guilty of charges 1-8. (Refer Section 3.2 page 780 – Charges against all cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Europe (category A and B traitors))
    Category A traitors consist of the most influential and highest profile traitors.

    10 per 1 million citizens.
    Punishment: death penalty and expropriation of property/funds

    Category B traitor
    Category B traitors are cultural Marxist/multiculturalist politicians, primarily from the alliance of European political parties known as ”the MA 100” (parties who support multiculturalism) and EU parliamentarians. They can be elected and non-elected parliamentarians, their advisors and any public and/or corporate servant who has been and still are indirectly or directly implicated in committing the following acts.

    Category B traitors can also be individuals from various professional groups (but not limited to): journalists, editors, teachers, lecturers, university professors, various school/university board members, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists/celebrities etc. They can also be individuals from other professional groups such as: technicians, scientists, doctors and even Church leaders. In addition, individuals (investors etc) who have directly or indirectly funded related activities. It’s important to note that the stereotypical ”socialists”, collectivists, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc are to be considered on an individual basis only. Not everyone who are associated with one of these groups or movements is to be considered as a cultural Marxist/multiculturalist.

    Former category A traitors; Heads of State, Ministers/Senators etc., directors and leaders of certain organisations/boards etc. can be re-classified as category B traitors for practical targeting reasons (they have lost influence and will not yield the same target value/effect as current category A traitors).

    Certain ANTIFA leaders or organisers related to ANTIFA movements (and other dedicated members) are considered category B traitors. Non-essential members are considered category C traitors. Many professionals such as f. example journalists, influential sociologists or university professors etc. are considered and categorized as category B traitors as we consider them political activists and not merely professionals. They will of course claim ignorance and state that they are a-political. This strategy might work for them until the day where they are visited by a Justiciar Knight – their judge, jury and executioner.

    1000 per 1 million citizens.
    Punishment: death penalty and expropriation of property/funds. Punishment can be reduced under certain circumstances.

    Category C traitor
    Category C traitors are less influential and lower priority targets (often individuals who have facilitated category A and B traitors) but who are still guilty of charges 1-8.

    10 000 per 1 million citizens.
    Punishment: fines, incarceration, expropriation (considered as acceptable indirect casualties in larger operations where WMDs are involved).

    Category D individuals
    Category D individuals have little or no political influence but are facilitating category B and C traitors and/or MA100 political parties/media companies through various means. They are not guilty of charges 1-8 but work with or for individuals who are. The classification is of relevance when calculating/estimating indirect casualties concerning larger operations where WMDs are involved, as any category D individuals is not considered an innocent “civilian” but rather as a secondary servant/facilitator.

    20 000-30 000 per 1 million citizens
    Punishment: none (not considered civilian)

    Number of Category A and B traitors on Western Europe
    There are approximately 400 000 category A and B traitors in Western Europe using the current classification system (1010 per million).
    • France … 65 650
    • Germany … 82 820
    • United Kingdom … 62 216
    • Netherlands … 16 665
    • Belgium … 10 807
    • Sweden … 9393
    • Austria … 7839
    • Norway … 4848
    • Switzerland … 498
    • Luxembourg … 7777
    • Spain … 47 167
    • Italy … 60 600
    • Portugal … 10 807
    • Denmark … 5555
    • Ireland … 6060
    • Greece … 11 312
    • Finland … 5353
    • Iceland … 322
    • Cyprus … 800
    • Malta … 417

Comments are closed.