The necessity for this judgment became clear to us after receiving communications from several Muslim lawyers, separately voicing their concerns and asking me to speak to the issue of the Muslim community in the British Isles. Of particular concern was the activity of a body calling themselves the Muslim Council of Britain. This committee, despite its high-sounding name, has no authority over the British Muslims. It possesses neither ‘amr, which would legitimise it in Muslim Law, nor does it even possess elective authority since not chosen by an all-inclusive franchise. This Council has long been seen as a puppet instrument of the British government and has been noted in the past for underwriting government programmes, themselves either dubious or detrimental to our Muslim community.
The text of this Council sent out to “Imams, ‘ulema, Chairs and Secretaries of mosques, Islamic organisations and institutions” begins with a reference to the “serious concerns expressed by the Prime Minister and the Police Authorities about the high probability of an imminent terrorist outrage in the UK.” It then says, “I have no doubt [. . .] you are already discharging your Islamic duty in helping to preserve the peace of the nation.” Perhaps this phrase reveals the contradiction inherent in their position. It is not the job of British Muslims to preserve the peace of the nation, that is the responsibility of its armed forces. Islamic duty is: having made Shahada, that you observe the five prayers, appoint an Amir to authorise the collection of Zakat, observe the Fast, and take the Hajj if able. The ayat of Qur’an that follows is totally inappropriate to the situation. The actions requested by the Council basically ask that the Muslims become an unpaid vigilante group in the employ of the police and secret service. More distressingly, it urges: “to develop active contacts with other faith communities and civic organisations in order to help maintain social peace and good community relations.” The civic organisations are not mentioned by name. What other faith communities did they have in mind? Buddhists? Ganesh-worshippers? Krishna-worshippers? Kali-worshippers? Seventh Day Adventists? The Council then places seeking Allah’s help as point seven in the programme. They then ask that this message be transmitted “in your Friday Sermon”, a term perhaps used to show their neo-christian credentials.
Further to this an e-mail was sent out by them which begins: “We have received notification from various government departments and the security services. . .” Ironically the official doctrine in the USA and in its European satellites is secularism, a complete separation between church and state, and note, the linkage in Britain is purely a symbolic one in connection with the role of the monarch. In Turkey too, the excellent Turkish Prime Minister was embarrassingly forced into this position after the shameful Istanbul bombings. An official Khutba was sent to every mosque. Now at that point there is a breakdown of the secular doctrine. If the state speaks from the mosque, then the mosque must be free to speak to the state. At that point the instrument of government can no longer function in the democratic frame. The Council, with the same strategy applied in Turkey, indicating that the instruction comes from NATO, declared in this e-mail: “Part of our strategy is to marginalise and expose the fringe radical elements in our midst, recognising full well that this is a potentially high-risk strategy.”
One of the letters I received goes on: “. . .and which then asks me, as a Muslim lawyer, if I am willing to implement this strategy.”
He continues: “It is still early days, but it is not difficult to foresee the times when Muslims will be invited to denounce other Muslims in exchange for safety, in the same pattern as the ‘periods of grace’ which were granted by the Spanish Inquisition so that people could denounce ‘heretics’ and save their skins. Anyone who had been denounced was then imprisoned and tortured in order to obtain ‘a confession’ and of course more names.
“Already I can see in the mosques that I visit that many Muslims are confused about what is happening and what to do. Young men are being arrested without charge under the recent Terrorism legislation and it is impossible to know whether they have really been up to something or whether this is part of a strategy to intimidate Muslims.”
Disturbingly, what this Muslim lawyer fears may be already happening. Another lawyer informed me that on taking up the case of some Guantanamo inmates, his offices were visited by Security personnel who warned him to be careful, as Muslims connected to imprisoned terrorists had been seen entering his premises. This was to prevent legal representation coming from Britain. Now, significantly, the paranoid Home Secretary is dementedly planning to introduce legislation which would result in the imprisoning of people who were known to connect with people already connected to terrorist suspects.
Before the innocent British Muslim community is asked to be the guardian of the country, our community should be aware of who has actually destroyed that peace and social order. The contradiction at the heart of the matter is that Britain is a kafir country, ignorant and atheist, and its majority religion, indeed only active one, is Islam. Britain needs a new polity. Its only dynamic social force is its Muslim community. The parliamentary bi-cameral framework, never in the hands of the masses, had always remained in the hands of a benign and paternalist aristocracy. This had produced a remarkable stability up until the 1914-45 European War and the invasion of the United States into Europe. The second half of the last century saw the slow winkling-out of the aristocracy from their superb country houses and lands through a deliberately targeted taxation, and a gradual transfer of power from the lords and the gentry to a new entrepreneurial wealth-class with a statistically high presence of jewish financiers and managerial moguls. From Wilson to Thatcher this new oligarchy could be observed to take control of Britain’s time-honoured institutions, and at the same time under these Prime Ministers they systematically de-structured cabinet government, that system of open government which had survived up to the death of Churchill. Through a series of Select Committees, by the transfer of cabinet power to Prime Minister, and by the dumping of specific powers and responsibilities to highly financed non-governmental entities, visible power appeared vested uniquely in the office of Prime Minister. However, the invisible power of the wealth oligarchy was then able to run the country as a dictatorship. One of the immediate effects of this was that parliament then attracted a different sort of people, obedient and ambitious.
With the descent into the Blair government there came a new stage in the collapse of that social order that had seemed to survive world war. Blair represented the new type of democratic leader, without experience, without ideology, without background, and without principles. Politically, these were his virtues, while his vices were a serious character flaw that left him searching for a father and a cause, and envy of the rich and powerful, and most seriously, a present-ist viewpoint with no understanding of the past.
Thus it was, crippled by lack of imagination, he was led by a U.S. president into providing military corps for the imperialist project of the American-based world financial system. He was surrounded by what one parliamentarian called ‘his Synagogue’-Levy, Goldsmith, Weinstock, Jack Straw, et al-as his inner circle, while his outer circle was that Ashram of crime, the Hinduja brothers and others of that ilk. Then, as if to mock the impotence of parliament, he appointed a Home Secretary who was blind. At the time of the anti-Muslim riots in Manchester, a frustrated Community Leader said to me, “I cannot say to the Home Secretary-come and see for yourself!” Again, since the nature of a blind man is an on-going experience of fear, since unable to know his environment, it is this man who is passing the fascistic legislation which certainly marks the end of the British liberal tradition. Pre-emptive arrest and holding for torture and interrogation is bad enough, but sentencing on a possibility is the end of society. Of course, in Islamic Law, a blind man may not be appointed as Minister, since the minimal requirement of a Minister is that he would be legally fit to serve as a witness in a trial.
There can no longer be any doubt among Muslims everywhere that a) there is no war on terrorism but there is a war on the World Muslim Community, b) that terrorism, while not only repellant, has no record inside any Islamic polity in fifteen hundred years of its history, with the exception of the heretical and cast-out sect of the Isma‘ilis, c) that part of the terrorism may be programmed by kafir secret services, d) that the current terrorism is now widely acknowledged to have its classical model in Czarist Russia, and thus is an intrinsic part of the internal crisis in late capitalism, e) that terrorism has become an instrument of the current power system to hammer and intimidate millions of Muslims into leaving the Deen and taking on the masonic doctrine of Tolérance, and f) that the end of servile collaboration with the kuffar will result in the mass imprisonment and murder of the world Muslim population.
If there is any doubt of these matters, I refer to the statement of a member of the U.S. government on CNN television before millions of people. Bob Kerrey openly declared that we must be absolutely clear that we are not fighting Al-Qaeda and terrorism, but we are fighting Islam. He went on to say that “the U.S. [and presumably Britain] in Iraq were a christian army fighting in a Muslim country.”
Since the doctrine which veils these ruthless programmes is already in operation, it is the necessity of the Muslims to think outside the framework and inner dialectic of kafir thinking. The financial oligarchy which now rules the world has taught its servants to put forward a particular doctrine, precisely to keep the attention of the masses from the quotidian fraud perpetrated by the usury economy and its taxations. Far from being a conspiracy, this adherence to one doctrine is to be found in all the pronouncements of civic leaders from the Prime Minister to the christian bishops. Blair’s statement that the terrorist does not represent what he called “real Islam” has to be set alongside his declaration elsewhere that Islam means human rights and democracy, a doctrine espoused by the U.S. puppet Musharaf in Pakistan.
What then is the doctrine that has to be used to persuade people that the move from monarchy to republic was evolutionary and inevitable, and did not really represent a move from personal rule to inhuman systems government? What is necessary to make people conform to democratic government when it has already proved the instrument of genocidal and total war across the whole world? How do we keep people from noticing that money devalues in their pockets and that a decreasing number, now already reduced to hundreds, hold the greater part of all the world’s wealth? The philosophy goes under different names, and a host of books have been written propagating it, many by influential in-back members of the U.S. Administration, and many by financiers themselves. This iceberg of thought heading for the Titanic of liberal society, in that small portion forced to appear above the surface, goes by the name of post-modernism and present-ism, and has an operative policing of the masses called Political Correctness. As Professor Jonathan Clark says, “A de-historicized mental universe must also be an atheistic one [. . .] The self is not born ‘free’ in the sense of ‘timeless’. Personal identity is established largely by history, by the persistence within an individual of a set of experiences and learned ways of reacting. To lose one’s memory is not emancipation but a serious mental disorder, for without memory we cannot function as ourselves. If a society loses its history it has the same effect on a larger scale: [. . .] that society could not have only a disembodied existence. It would have lost all those many things which made it itself.”
He notes, “On the one hand we look to the past for practical guidance. The problems we face are historically structured: only by knowing the story so far can we have any idea of what to do next. On the other hand, we address the past in order to escape from it.”
He notes: “A society which sees itself as unconstrained by the past-undisciplined by duty, by morality, by honour, by custom, by religious aspiration-will therefore be a society with many lawyers and much litigation. That is indeed the society in which we now live.”
In summary he says, “To forget our history is not to be free, but to be mad. Far from making us free, presentism would make us unable to act, for what we did would be meaningless.”
Professor Clark gives this bleak vision of the social effect of post-modernism: “By claiming to emancipate the present from the past, presentism promises to abolish the future also, for the future cannot look essentially different from that which we now have. The world ceases to be a narrative of suffering and achievement, and becomes a timeless cultural shopping mall. Generations cease to relate to each other, since the termination of development makes currently dominant values seem normative. Past generations cease to relate to future generations, since past generations did not shop in the same mall. Future generations will raise no problems of difference or continuity, since, it is presumed, they will continue to shop there.”
Our concern is that the Muslim community be not distracted by the turbulence of the waves but becomes conscious of the deep underlying currents which, if they read them well, will let them sail the ship of Britain into safe Islamic waters. It is true that we have not produced many significant inventions recently, but at least we did not design and drop the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That could be seen as the final collaborative effort of the so-called judeo-christian civilisation, for it was invented by jews, built and dropped by christians. On the other hand, it is time for them to own up to the fact that Moghul architecture is vastly superior to the lavatroid monuments of Lutyens.
Thus in order to locate our Hukum on England’s future outside the discourse of the blinded kafir leadership, we must cast a cold eye on a remarkable past which, if read properly by our Muslim community, will be seen as the strongest indication and the historical licence for the absorption of the national community into a new polity led by, governed by and rescued by a Muslim, Urdu-speaking Islamic leadership of wealth and power.
* * * * *
England’s past begins with a known tiny indigenous community and a significant community of settlers from the Baltic. Following the period of Roman occupation which operated from Hadrian’s Wall southwards, the arrival of christianity from Ireland, through Iona, marked the third change of religion in its early history. That is to say, from Druidism, to Roman gods, to pre-Roman christianity.
When Beorhtic, King of Wessex ruled his people (ruled 786-802 AD), chronicles recorded Norwegian raids on the Dorset coast. Northumbria fell to Norwegians. The kingdom of Deira, its capital in York, became Danish, as were the Five Boroughs of Lincoln, Stamford, Derby, Nottingham, and Leicester in the English Midlands, as well as the Kingdom of East Anglia.
The Gesta Danorum of Saxo Gramaticus, written in the 12th century, and the earlier Historia Normanorum of William of Jumièges, both explained that the population of Norway and Denmark had become too great to be supported. Emigration was enforced by hardship at home. The Norse also settled in the north-eastern peninsula of France, now called Normandy after these earlier settlers. There was no England in this period, let alone a Britain. In the north, the Kingdom of Northumbria expanded to make the Gaels of Strathclyde and the Scots of Argyll tributary territories. When its king, Ecgfrith, invaded what is now Scotland, however, they were utterly defeated by King Brude, King of the Picts, at Nechtansmere near Forfar in 685. The last important Northumbrian king, Aldfrith, died in 704. This saw the end of dynastic stability in the north. In the south, the sons of King Penda became powerful and at one point ruled a federation of kingdoms from the Humber to the English Channel. King Offa established a Mercian supremacy. The ancient dynasty of Kent became extinct. Sussex became a Mercian province, as did Wessex. Offa ordered the execution of the East Anglian leaders. Although declaring himself a “Rex totius angolorum patriae”, his power did not reach beyond the Humber.
King Offa is famous for building a dyke, 120 miles long, to keep out the Welsh-speaking forces of Gwynned, Powys and Gwent, who attacked his western frontier. The Mercian kings claimed descent from Woden, who ruled Schleswig-Holstein around Kiel Bay, and whose legendary hero was called Offa. Thus, the later Offa of the Dyke bore a name that showed a linguistic link with England’s Baltic origin.
A sign of Mercia’s increasing wealth was the soundness of its gold and silver currency. The King struck his gold coins based on those of the Baghdad Khalifs, bearing the Shahada on one side and Offa Rex on the other. Power moved gradually south, from Northumbrian kingdoms to Mercia, and next, in turn, to the West Saxons. In 825 King Egbert of Wessex subdued first the Mercians in Wiltshire, and then Kent, Essex, Sussex and Surrey. East Anglia in turn submitted to Egbert. The royal House of Wessex was to maintain a kingdom in southern England that was to retain its identity over the next 200 years.
There then began the massive onslaughts by sea of the great Viking forces. The sons of Ragnar Lodbrok took York in 866. The longships came up the Thames to Sheppey. They found allies among the Britons of Cornwall. Norse and Danish raiders attacked all along the south and east coasts. Kent was hit in 850. Vikings wintered in Thanet, and in Sheppey in 854. In 855 they moved into Shropshire. In 851 they reached London by the Thames with 350 longships.
England sustained 200 years of Norse and Danish aggression. It must be understood that these were not piratical or hit-and-run raids. The invasions, led by Halfdan, Ubbi and Ivar, resulted in the permanent occupation of large tracts of England.
In 865 an enormous Scandinavian army landed and settled in Mercia. By 866 that army had advanced to take York. By 869 they had crossed over into East Anglia. In April 871 the longships came up the Thames to Reading. Halfdan, the Danish ruler, had coins struck in his name at London.
By 875, a decade later, Halfdan sent troops to attack the Picts in the north and the Britons in Strathclyde. The Wessex King Alfred slowly gained enough force to make a treaty with Guthrum, who then ruled half of England, now called the Danelaw, which controlled a line from north of Manchester across the country, to the mouth of the Thames. South of the Danelaw, and excluding all Wales, lay King Alfred’s Wessex. From there he made the deeply insightful decision to establish the anglo-saxon tongue, and decreed the schools to teach English throughout Wessex. He ordered key books translated, including the Spanish historian Orosius’ Universal History, and Bede’s History. He ordered the collection of English Annals called the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
It is this event that must be understood and related to our present time. Without King Alfred, who died on 26 October 899, Microsoft programmes would probably have been in German, which was the language that lost by a narrow vote to English in the brand-new USA’s choice of national tongue.
In 921, when Ragnald of York, King of the Danelaw, died, that main territorial zone was breaking up. In 978 a youth ascended the Wessex throne, later to be known as Ethelred the Unready. What he was mainly unready for was the result of Harald Bluetooth’s unification of Denmark and partial conquest of Norway. Ninety-three ships soon arrived off Folkestone and went on to attack Kent and Essex. By 1006 they were living on the Isle of Wight and were plundering and settling Hampshire and Berkshire. From Reading they marched over the Chilterns to Avebury, and past Winchester to the coast. The 1009 Danish offensive, led by Thorkell the Tall, was even more formidable. They wintered on the Thames, burned Oxford, and took Cambridge and Northampton. Just after 1016, ‘England’ was united under a Danish king. King Cnut divided the country into four earldoms, Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia under Thorkell the Tall, and Wessex under Cnut’s direct rule. His taxation of the country, the Danegeld, paid for his fleet and his command. Most of the earls he created were Danish. The Danes knew how to govern, while the ‘locals’, the anglo-saxons, made obedient peasants. Cnut died in 1035, a great king famed for rebuking his courtiers’ flattery by having his throne put in front of the flood-tide and from it vainly ordering the waves to recede. He brought order and peace.
The inheritance of the kingdom reverted eventually to Harold, who soon had to march his army north to face again a new generation of Viking warriors, King Harald Hardraba of Norway and Tostig, at Stamford Bridge outside York. It was to be the last battle won by the old anglo-saxon kingdom. Afterwards he had to force-march his victorious army south to meet a new invader, William, Duke of Normandy.
William of Normandy landed on the English Channel coast. With his army of around 12,000 he brought the jews into England from a jewish quarter in Rouen, it was said, to increase the flow of coinage needed for debt payment.
The two armies met at the Battle of Hastings. Harold fell, shot by an arrow in his eye, and William became King William, the Conqueror of England. In order to pacify discontented anglo-saxons, and to anticipate further incursions from the Norse, the Norman ruler built 25 castles from Carlisle to Dover. The conquest of England was complete.
William ruled England for 21 years. The governing class, with a couple of exceptions, thus had been foreigners at the inception of his kingship. The new nobility and top clergy owed their allegiance to the king, because appointed by him.
The Norman revolution imposed a general system of military tenure, and feudalism created a tenancy by knight-service. A Norman noble, now English landowner, was obliged to provide a number of trained and mounted knights whenever the king demanded, roughly 4,000 knights to around 150 barons. The bishops of Canterbury, Winchester and Lincoln needed to provide 60 knights each, and the church’s whole contribution was 780.
William commanded a national census and survey of the Kingdom’s resources and land tenures in 1085. It was called the Domesday Book. So it was that a new and more developed system of Norse consultative rule, headed by a commander-king, replaced the old Danelaw of the earlier invaders. Little or nothing was left of the anglo-saxon peasant culture except a few good social habits retained from their earlier lords and masters, the Roman army, and a taste for beer. During William’s reign, the English elite houses and the administration all spoke French. The ‘English’ had used Danish in the Danelaw, English under Alfred, and French after the Conquest.
Over these eight or nine generations the French language established itself in England. With the Conquest came a flood of French-speaking nobles, squires, traders, and soldiers of the lesser classes. It can be said that through the reign of Henry II and the early Plantagenets, French was still the dominant language. However, the Black Death severely harmed the educational system of the elite and middle classes. Education was left in the hands of servants and latinised monks. French, remarkably, held its own, even fifty years after the Black Death, receding only after 1400. The society was still peasant, they paid dues on land that was in practice their own. As yet the wage-slave of capitalism scarcely existed.
In 1401 the Plantagenets were usurped by the House of Lancaster, which in turn emerged with a new regime and a new language. The second usurpation, that of the Tudors, is crowned by its literature, with Shakespeare consciously a propagandist for the latest regime. At the heart of Tudor rule lies a dramatic crack in the myth of English continuity. The seizure of the power by first the House of Lancaster and then by Henry Tudor as Henry VII, were dynastically ruptures. Yet a third rupture represents the illegitimacy of the monarchy at the very moment that it first had to bend to that new anti-monarchic force of emerging aristocracy.
This buried past, like all we have examined, has lain hidden by the ‘official’ historians of the English aristocratic rule that, while beginning with William Cecil, Elizabeth I’s chief minister, historically stretches on from 1688 to the abolition of the House of Lords in our time, led by Lord Cranbourne, a Cecil.
By the excellent political wisdom of monarchic rule, the rulership eventually devolved on a couple who embodied both the Norman hegemony and the earlier anglo-saxon lineage, giving the country a son who became Henry II, the first Plantagenet king of England. It must be remembered that by 1154 all the governing part of England spoke French. The jews the Conqueror had brought over to England were soon established as the kingdom’s unique financiers. Privileged, they alone under royal licence could lend money at usury. They were called ‘the King’s jews’. This monopoly of protection vastly enriched them. Jewish historians have justly boasted that the great castles and cathedrals of the 12th and 13th centuries were “built with jewish money”. Thus a small body of 20,000 families, confined in fixed areas and certain towns, were then the great financial agencies of England. The high interest rates, especially on the nobles who needed cash to go on the crusades, soon became intolerable. The usury brought ruin to many Houses, and by the accession of Edward I things reached a crisis. People turned against the jews with ferocity both in England and on the Rhine. There was no race doctrine to fire the attacks, the fuel was usury and its accompanying dispossession of debtors. Finally, Royal protection was withdrawn, then usury on nobles’ estates was blocked. By 1279 the jews were enduring civil persecution. In 1287 their crisis came. A massive fine was imposed on them, reducing them in turn to poverty. In three years they went into exile, and this gained the King both national support and popularity. The King’s licence was over. The jewish were not to return until the dictator Cromwell’s invitation.
In 1337 the Hundred Years’ War between France and England broke out. In 1348 the Black Death plague also broke out, ravaging Europe, and as we have noted, in England causing a significant side-effect, a change of language. From the infiltration of the Normans before the Conquest up to the Black Death is therefore more than 300 years.
In the narration of England’s growth and change, there is no more vital moment than the point when Henry VIII fathered Elizabeth Tudor. In order to marry Ann Boleyn, Henry had to get a Papal divorce from his Catholic queen. His ploy was to have the marriage annulled. The Pope refused. In the plots towards marriage, Thomas Cromwell, of the family of the later dictator, had Parliament declare Henry the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
Archbishop Cranmer declared Catherine’s marriage illegal and void. Ann was crowned Queen on June 1 and Elizabeth born on September 7, 1533. The full Act of Supremacy was passed on November 3 1534.
As a result of the Schism with Rome, Henry ordered the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Ironically, this impoverished the Crown and increased greatly the wealth of the landed gentry, and within a century that landed gentry were to destroy the personal rule of kings and take over power. The wealth of the monasteries was mistakenly given by Henry to the great Houses of England. Thomas Cromwell became rich by monastic estate expropriation, endowing his nephew with millions, thus making Oliver Cromwell a millionaire. Archbishop Cranmer declared the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, this being intended to replace the supposed divine authority taken from the Pope and now in the English King’s hands. For Henry was now Pope and King of England. Next, Cranmer declared the royal marriage he had consecrated three years before duly annulled. Ann was beheaded, leaving Henry free to marry Jane Seymour. This meant Elizabeth was bastard. With Elizabeth Queen, William Cecil took over effective rule in England. It was his programme to separate England from the old religion and replace it with the worship of nationality. Catholic Mariology was replaced with a carefully iconographed worship of Elizabeth the Virgin Queen. So it was that secularism, anglicanism and monarchy became the new Trinity. With a bastard monarch of a usurper regime, in turn inheritors of murderous usurpers, and with a new ‘protestant’ religion to rationalise the ruler’s ‘legitimacy’, the Cecils began a governance and guidance of England that was to survive the abolition of ruling monarchy itself, and see the creation of a puppet king under the rule of that same Cecil family. The power of the Cecils has long been hidden by the official history that has long pretended that the monarchy ruled. For example, at the turn of the century, Lord Edward Cecil had fought with Kitchener and served with Baden Powell, besieged in Mafeking. Lady Violet Cecil, his wife, became first the mistress and later the wife of the South African High Commissioner, Lord Alfred Milner.
This abolition of personal monarchic rule, with its replacement the Aristocratic State, was finalised by a further illegitimacy of power. The gentry’s exiling of James II, the legal ruling monarch, and his replacement with the puppet rulers from Holland, meant a new form of state, a country governed by an ‘upper class’, that is, an aristocracy. This class-ruled society survived until after 1945, when, bankrupted by Europe’s civil war (De Gaulle called it ‘the second Thirty Years War’) 1915-1945, the servant institutions of Parliament found new masters, the bankers and great investment houses.
It should further be noted that the Victorian epoch, which was always presented as the absolutist phase of British monarchic continuity, was led by a couple of bastards. It now appears that Prince Albert was the illegitimate son of a jew, and that Victoria herself was the bastard child of a courtier. Following Victoria’s death, King Edward VII was notorious for surrounding himself with jewish financiers. They lent to him, and he ennobled them. The first part of the second Thirty Years’ War showed what democratic politicians could do in the way of sending millions to their death while avoiding conflict themselves. 1914 to 1918 at its heart represented the historical collapse of Britain in a bizarre ritual of mass suicide by the European powers. It wiped out not only the mass of the country’s elite, but also the sons of the aristocracy, leaving the governing elite bereft of its future.
The final end of two institutions that had upheld England for centuries was to follow. In 1937 the new King Edward VIII abdicated the throne to his idiot brother, George, because the government refused to permit his marriage to a divorced commoner. This ended the last chance the Hanoverian monarchy had. He was popular with the masses, and was trained superbly for the job. The politicians perceived the danger that he posed, for he had shown a capacity to rule, while the job requirements of a constitutional monarch were stupidity and obedience. At the same time it marked the end of the Anglican Church, the institution of national christianity.
The Anglican Church had been created to facilitate a royal marriage and it came to an end with its refusal to facilitate a royal marriage. By the end of the last century it found itself drowning in a sea of divorces, condoning the openly self-confessed adulteries made first by the heir to the throne, then by his wife. Divorce and adultery swirled around the Queen’s sister, her daughter, and her two sons. A church that began in the tragedies of divorce, bastardy and beheading, ended in the comedies of the collapse of the bastard House of Hanover. Village churches and city cathedrals stood empty, its communicant membership a vanishing constituency.
The Archbishop of Canterbury who officiated over these Windsor scandals, and who called, to the derision of London dinner tables, Charles and Diana’s marriage “a Fairy Tale”, was Dr George Carey. Carey had long been a comic character, unfairly, due to his strangulated inability to master the diphthongs on which well-spoken English is based. Insecure in his own social background, he had gone to great lengths to ‘learn’ what the unelected governing financial elite required of its servants. Recently, in a much-publicised speech, he made a crude attack on Islam to please his masters. It contained all the usual outdated terminology of ‘Islam and the West’ and his congratulations for our having initiated calculus. He did not seem to know that algebra is not part of the Deen. In his muddled brain he miserably failed to see that many troubles in Muslim countries are historically a direct result of ‘Western’ interference. (“Where does the West begin, I wonder?” queried the Raja of Mahmudabad).
There were two cynical and vicious propositions Carey had been cued in to say. He should of course be more careful in future, since part of his speech could, if examined ‘in camera’ by fuqaha, as is our legal practice in such a case, be construed as insulting the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. In any event, his crudity and insulting language stood more as a confession of his general ignorance than his knowledge of his subject, Islam.
His first grave error, which indicates a position which is utterly unacceptable to British Muslims today, was to talk of the British Muslim community as if it were foreign, from the East, and immigrant. Now. The Muslim community of Britain comprises almost entirely of citizens. His talk of “the welcome we have given to Muslims, to worship freely and build their mosques. . .” is outrageous. Further, we and some of our colleagues have a Scottish or English genealogy going back much further than the Carey family who emerged unknown into the Dickensian epoch. He denies the existence of the significant indigenous Muslim community. When an irritated socialist MP said to a Muslim delegation in a House of Commons room, “If you don’t like it here, you can go back to where you originally came from!” Hajj Abdalhaqq, English translator of the Qur’an replied, “And where have I to go, Normandy?” referring to his Norman forebears.
His second offence, not without its comic side, was Carey’s arrogant suggestion that it was time that Islam had a Reformation. This is the current atheist policy. The joke is, that Carey wants us to go down the same path that the miserable christians have gone down. They have had their Reformation and look where it has got them! The Churches are empty. What they had declared forbidden they now declare permitted. There is no leadership. No moral guidance. They have no agreed doctrines. The Anglican Church is split down the middle. The sacramental holy biscuit is no longer miraculously transformed into a grisly piece of 2000-year-old flesh. To Reformists, it is now a mere symbol, yet the Anglican Reform Church cannot go back to Rome. The Pope was last seen sticking his request into the Jerusalem Weeping Wall, which is not even part of the true Temple of Solomon. Nor have they a future.
Islam is Deen al-Haqq and immutable. At the same time it has all the legal methodology to allow Muslims to discriminate among any new phenomena that may arise. Carey’s ‘modernism’ to which he has slavishly adapted, is already outdated. The future of Britain is inescapably Muslim.
* * * * *
What then was the purpose of our survey of England’s past? From it two things emerge. The first was that language is not a fixed and immutable societal reality. Language is determined by the usage of a literate, grammatically masterful elite who determine the movement of commerce and the transactions of power. English has not been the fixed reality of life in England. Britain itself has spoken Pictish, Gaelic, Roman, Danish, French, and also English.
It must be understood that English, while currently dominant, is in rapid and unstoppable decline.
At the first level-speech, the language is breaking down on a constant descending graph. It is not just Dr. Carey who speaks a barely understandable English, it is endemic from the Prime Minister down to the hip-hop educated masses. The letter ‘T’ in median or terminal position has totally disappeared from speech. Diphthongs flatten to single sounds, or splinter into pentathongs. Shakespeare’s verse can now only be heard in the dislocated form of urban usage.
At the second level-vocabulary and grammar. These are in a further state of disintegration. The technical elite do not speak English but a kind of Microsoft, incomprehensible to the media-taught masses who now speak a hip-hop creole, fragmented and post-grammatical. The last few Ministers of Education, themselves have a dismal speech record.
At the third level, education, there is no chance that England will see a future with a coherent and cultured elite. The education system is in permanent crisis from crèche to college.
* * * * *
What we have found is that England, Britain, is a place. It is a land. Those who live there and die there are its people. The ‘English’ have been anglo-saxon, that is indigenous and fen-land peoples from the Germanic lands, Roman, Danish, Norman, and now in our time, the peoples of the Sub-continent have settled with the in-coming tide of a dying colonialism. In the end, that is now, the British were too weakened by the Thirty Year European War and its accompanying American invasion, to hold India. So it was that Allah, glory be to Him, as He explains in His Book, yet again replaced a people who had ceased to worship him with a people who did.
The future of Britain as a Muslim island is dependent on only a few factors. English culture has collapsed. Nevertheless, Islam is NOT culture. Rather, it is a filter of culture letting past some things and stopping others. It is this the people need. Worship, ‘ibada, and guidance, huda.
For this transformation it only requires the Muslim community to enter the mainstream of life and let the dynamic of the ‘new English’, the Muslims, impose itself naturally. End import brides. The men must marry into the community. Reside among the larger community. Do Da’wa. Guide the people back to a morality that has Divine authority so that they understand that the terrible plague of child murder and sexual assault does not occur out of a vacuum but rather because, since they have made everything else permissible, that remains the one thing forbidden. Such is the nature of man that he will always desire the forbidden. The abolition of just social and behavioural impositions have destroyed any possibility of marriage, therefore honour and fidelity, since these must be abolished in order to free up the populace to find consolation in consumerism.
To achieve the desired end, a new polity in Britain, the sublime language of Urdu must become an active element. In current world usage the first language is English. The second is Chinese. The third is Urdu. At a time when the European Commission of the EU is declaring that it will be necessary for the enlarged EU to have one common language it is clear that it can only be either French or German. Urdu, by contrast, is already the lingua franca of the Muslims. Also, Urdu teaching of the Deen has not, as in Arabic, been contaminated by Carey’s reformist fantasies. A vitalised programme of teaching Urdu must be put into effect, and also offered to the post-christian masses.
Islamic Gold Dinar and Silver Dirham, and fulus, must be introduced into local market trading. Currency of choice must be seen as a basic necessity, and there is no freedom without it. There may be a few who think this is not possible. They have failed to see that the affair is already far advanced. Only ghetto-isation and government-sponsored ‘official spokesmen’ of the Muslims stand in the way. It is not an accident but a social reality that the basic food of the masses, in Scotland and Northern England in particular, is no longer what it had been since 1945, but is now curry. There are now thousands of curry houses across Britain, every city has several, and many a small town has one or two. There is even a large Good Curry Guide to GB.
A change in cuisine is a transformation of culture.
Now the language-to give people back a rich self-expression. Urdu.
And along with this-Da’wa.
We, the Muslim British, who will bring the Other British into Islam, will also introduce Islamic real currency, and abolish VAT, and other unjust taxes. The motto of the Murabitun who first made Islam a European religion in Andalusia, was-and is-
Da’wa to the Haqq.
Abolish Unjust Taxation.
Allah, glory be to Him, has declared in His glorious Book, in Surat an-Nasr (110:1-3).
In the name of Allah, All-Merciful, Most Merciful
When Allah’s help and victory have arrived
and you have seen people entering Allah’s deen in droves,
then glorify your Lord’s praise and ask His forgiveness.
He is the Ever-Returning.