7 June 2004
Allah the Exalted has said in Surat Al ‘Imran (3: 98-101):
Say, ‘People of the Book, why do you reject Allah’s Signs
when Allah is witness of everything you do?’
Say, ‘People of the Book, why do you bar
those who have iman from the Way of Allah,
desiring to make it crooked,
when you yourselves are witnesses to it?
Allah is not unaware of what you do.’
You who have iman! if you obey a group of those given the Book,
they will make you revert to being kafir
after you have had iman.
How can you be kafir, when Allah’s Signs are recited to you
and the Messenger is there among you?
Whoever holds fast to Allah
has been guided to a straight path.
In the present world crisis the Muslim community of Britain have an important role to play. It is certain that the attempt by the present regime both to intimidate us and at the same time hector us into submitting to the outrageous doctrine of Tolérance has had a disturbing effect. Alongside the hypocritical declarations by the government that they are sympathetic to what they insolently call ‘true Islam’, which of course they redefine as democracy and human rights, stands the fact that the Muslim in the streets of the English city is not safe from persecution by the police acting under that same government’s orders. This police inquisition has been against the traditional attitude of the British police, who have always acknowledged the civic fact that, by and large, the Muslim community is peace-loving and law-abiding.
Added to this aggravation is the distasteful fact that, in socialist doctrine, the Muslims of Britain have never been recognised as a civic entity, but have been subsumed as a racial category squeezed between Africans and West Indians in a manner which would have made the Apartheid regime proud. The licence to define the Muslims as ‘Asians’ has guaranteed that the born-in-Britain generation should feel alienated from the State. As we have demonstrated, the concept of the Muslims in Britain as being an immigrant and unstable population is historically absurd. They must be seen for what they are, the last of a long line of settlers who have landed on these barren Islands to make their home. This deep political reality, however, is not reflected at all in the social and political institutions which still totter on in the collapsing ethos of monetarist Britain.
A suitable metaphor for present-day Britain is the Chelsea Football Club. The mass of supporters are civic debtors at best, and unemployed on benefits at worst. The crime rate in the area is high. In terms of the Club, they have neither a voice nor even a small share of ownership. The Club’s ‘government’, the Board, stood helpless as they saw the famous Chelsea grounds totter towards bankruptcy. The rescue that came indicated the true changing face of wealth in Britain. The new team and its coach are a mixed bag of alien mercenaries, and the Club was bought over everyone’s head by one of the Russian jewish oligarchy, who is now listed as the richest man in Britain, while the politically elected President of Russia struggles vainly to break the hold of the Yeltsin-appointed new robber barons of the oil and arms industries.
So it is that in accordance with the modalities of the new world capitalism, Britain is rich in the money markets, poor in the streets, and with a structural split between governance and wealth. We have elsewhere indicated that the true function of democracy is to reduce government to a low and cost-effective system for supporting minimal social services, and that money taken from the masses by taxation. Real power and real wealth remain embedded in the utterly independent banking system which bases itself on the non-intrinsic value currency comprising paper money, base-metal coins, and computerised numbers.
From this it is clear that Parliament has two functions today. On the one hand, in its role as a service industry of banking, it has to activate the policies which will generate wealth for the (utterly non-British) money elite. On the other hand it has the desperate task of keeping the masses from discontent by assuring a constant flow of officially illegal drugs among the people. A proof of this lay in an interesting comment by a Taliban minister in the year 2000. At the time they were in open diplomatic relations with the USA and had responded to our invitation to a public Johannesburg conference, at which we hoped both to clarify their position and to counsel them against some of their extreme behaviour and the persistent presence of the adventurer Bin Laden. During discussions they informed us that they had utterly halted to zero-level the output of opium production, and that in their negotiations with the U.S. officials they had been requested to allow a limited flow of heroin, since the abrupt cutting of the Afghanistan supply had adversely affected the heroin market in the USA.
By this reading we can identify the two aspects of democratic government at work in Britain, that is the dictatorship which functions under a Prime Minister surrounded by non-elected and in the majority jewish advisors. Fully to grasp the nature of this model of power it must be understood that the party system which is one filter, and the selection system which is a second filter, guarantee a certain type of person will enter the parliamentary arena. By a further token of refined selection, it assures that the possible small pool of individuals who may, by the apparent process of democratic, that is majority, choice, will be of a certain nature. That selectivity, which we may re-define as the de-selection of the gifted, did not pose a threat to the State while Britain remained a country governed by the landed gentry.
This was a state of affairs which started to fall apart just before World War I. Thus, during the 20th century, with the fortunate anomaly of Churchill, who was a brilliant throwback to aristocratic rule, Parliament itself began to weaken its internal systems so that by the end of World War II the make-up of Parliament, its members and cabinet, were more economically dependent and more socially insecure. As the personnel became weaker in moral character, so too the traditional system of parliamentary government began to give way to a more Napoleonic, departmentalised system, placing power in committees, and removing power from cabinet influence. To aggravate this came the principle of co‑opting onto committees unelected members of the financial oligarchy, both as witnesses and advisors. What had been started by Wilson in the 1950s was completed brilliantly by the monetarist-indoctrinated Thatcher at the end of the century. From Thatcher onward it became clear that that strange allure of middle-class mediocrities for the theatre and rituals of Washington politics had assured the desired and necessary servility of the British parliamentary leadership.
While the dual analysis we have made between politics and wealth-power is demonstrably more dramatic in the USA, there is no doubt that with the help of Hollywood and the media they have designed a government system that is so fascinating that it is easy to fall into the absurd illusion that this sorry parade of Presidents govern not only a great nation, but the world, when in fact they have been petty criminals, second-rate film actors, and re‑constructed alcohol and cocaine addicts, and all of them teetering on the verge of illiteracy.
This brings us to the present miserable holder of the office of the British Prime Minister. The last few decades of the 20th century had seen a series of highly organised attempts to remove from the parliamentary system a party which dared to suggest it would affect the financial reality and the financial system. Even the watered-down socialism of Britain stood in the way of what the monetarists arrogantly told the masses represented the natural Darwinian evolution of capitalism, both inescapable and beneficial. Thatcher, the middle-class housewife drilled in monetarism by Eysenck and Friedman, openly stated her goal as a British Parliament with Conservative and Labour in opposition, but in the same manner as Democrats and Republicans are in the USA. In other words, the only difference between the two parties would be how the Budget taken from the taxes of the masses would be spent on social services. In other words, Parliament would mind its own business, which was street-cleaning, and the financiers would mind their business, which was bankrupting the small capitalist and achieving a shrinking oligarchy which would expand in wealth by devouring that of the middle classes at home, and the acquisition of mineral wealth in the poverty of the Third World abroad.
Acute observers were distressed at the assumption of political power by Blair, following the death by alcoholism of the previous leader. Even the name! That awful, insecure bid to be populist in the shortened ‘Tony’, which somehow indicated a dishonest veiling of an ambition for leadership that could not be sustained by character integrity. It was unnervingly like the ‘Bill’ of Clinton. So many lies have been told about the nature of personal rule, and so much astonishing activity in re-writing history has taken place, that a modern young man cannot have access even to the fundamental fact that governance is dependent on individuals, and that the system of elected democracy that has now been imposed almost world-wide is a guarantee that that person who must move, who must act, who must defy and who must achieve is now, by the structuralism of the elective process, utterly guaranteed to be unable to act forcefully and achieve success.
This is the case today without even confronting the utterly discredited realities of inherited characteristics to govern. We have in our possession a document submitted to American universities, signed by 50 leading scientists including over 20 Nobel Prize-winners, objecting to the fact that scientific studies of secondary characteristics of inherited behaviour were virtually forbidden in the academic world, not for scientific reasons, but because by their nature they implied a dangerous critique of democratic governance. In other words, they know scientific scrutiny would reveal that a hereditary governance, that is kingship, would produce the highest common multiple, while the multi-million masses and the dual filter system is guaranteed to produce the lowest common denominator.
If there is doubt in the matter, it should be recalled that the only person to challenge the dictatorship in Blair’s, from the point of view of the British State suicidal, decision to abolish the House of Lords was Lord Cranborne who out-witted him and out-manoeuvred him. Although he could not break the absolutism of this inferior person’s authority, he demonstrated his own political expertise and supremacy, hardly surprising, for he was one of the Cecil family which had governed and ruled in England since Elizabeth I. To those interested in the demise of Britain and proof of its irrecoverability until the new Muslim elite take over the reigns of power, not by terrorism but by sheer intellectual, moral and spiritual superiority, read ‘Patronage, Culture and Power: the early Cecils, 1558-1612’ (Yale). You cannot fail to recognise the integration of leadership and financial power, the continuity of inherited governance, and the enrichment of the national culture.
Blair is surrounded by Levys and Greenstocks and Goldsmiths. He has a ‘Life-Style’ advisor, a jewess having an affair with a gangster, and he grants passports to hindu millionaires wanted for fiscal crime in the state of India. A man with no friends, private or political. A man desperately seeking approval, and finding at last what is missing in his shrivelled psyche by seeking that approval and political safety in rubbing up against the even more inadequate President of the United States, while openly called in the media the Poodle of the President. It is not that Blair does not have the chin to impose the Churchillian posture of defiance, he simply does not have the breeding.
It is clear that the British Parliament as presently constituted does not want Muslim representation. Bear in mind that we should not reject the idea if at the same time we do not lose sight of the realistic assessment made of it here. Again, the selectivity principle indicates that they will only accept someone with the nominal position of Muslim once it is clear that they in fact accept a definition of Islam which is in itself a militant attack on Islam. The main objection to Blair is not his policy in Iraq. That policy is shameful and that alliance is inevitable given the character analysis we have presented. Further, events in Iraq bear out our thesis. The media every hour are boasting an Iraqi government and promised elections. Cleverly, they relate the issue of sovereignty to the capacity of that government to dismiss the occupying force. It is not here that sovereignty lies. Sovereignty lies in power, and power lies in the wealth that assures the command is obeyed. The Iraqis have a new paper money with a new face on it. They have a new flag. They do not possess their vast national wealth, and its ownership is on no known agenda. The primary objection to Blair, even more serious than the traditional democratic politician’s role of sending other men to die in battle while they remain at home, is that he has publicly declared that ‘true Islam’ is tolerance and human rights. Islam, as we continue to say, is neither Terrorism nor Tolérance. This declaration of his, means, in the words of Aneurin Bevan, “He is either a knave or a fool—and we don’t want him in either capacity!”
A further objection to Blair is his disastrous, blind Home Secretary. We remind you again that in Islamic law a blind man may not serve as a Minister, as one of the conditions of holding office in government is that you are able to serve as a witness in a legal trial. Being blind, also, he is regrettably filled with the terrors of those who cannot see. As a result of this he is passing alarming legislation which purports to protect the citizen, but in fact will result in robbing him of his civic freedom and independence. All that legislation is a blind man allaying his fears. Blair too has these fears, although he does not recognise them.
Allah the Exalted has said in Surat al-Hajj (22:46):
Have they not travelled about the earth
and do they not have hearts to understand with
or ears to hear with?
It is not their eyes which are blind
but the hearts in their breasts which are blind.
Bearing in mind that we are without representation, and bearing in mind that we are the number-one religion in Britain today, our role in the destiny of Britain must be carefully thought out. A BBC survey indicated that within 20 years there would not be one communicant member of the Anglican Church.
Our rejection of Terrorism, which is unequivocal, and our rejection of Tolérance, an abhorrent and deceptive doctrine, far from limiting our options, opens wide to us a whole series of civic strategies which we must put into action. For the regeneration of Britain, our Muslim youth are necessary and central. It is also urgent that a section of our youth should recognise the manipulation of government and media in an attempt to ghettoise the Muslims and anathematise the Deen itself. In that matter, a sophisticated approach by the new generation is very important.
Let us look at the uncertain matter of the self-styled Imam of Finsbury Park Mosque. It is clear from his behaviour and his speech, both in English and Arabic, that he was an uneducated man. What his role has been it is not possible for us to say. What we do know is that according to an experienced and informed documentary maker, this man was recruited by the intelligence services while standing in an unemployment queue to get his benefit. He was useful. Either knowingly or unknowingly, he was an ideal instrument for the orchestrated media attack on the Deen of Islam and the determined policy of equating the terrorist entity with the Muslim mass. What you have to ask yourselves is—if he was this defender of terrorism and the agent of their forces, why was he on BBC and Sky television on a regular basis? Why did the media follow him everywhere? Why, following every outrage, was he given prime time on national television? Why were miles of copy devoted to him in the papers, and hardly ever were either our leading ‘ulema or our leading citizens asked to speak on these matters? In short, what was his function? Did he do a service to the Muslims—or did he do a service to the anti-Islamic forces? The bitter irony of his affair is that this same Home Secretary has been making long pronouncements about ascertaining that this man has a fair trial, while he has not opened his mouth about the innocent young Muslim men still held in the sodomic torture penitentiary of Guantanamo.
In the immediate future the European elections are being held. I call on the young Muslims of Britain to use them as a practice run for the coming national elections. Bear in mind that while the Blair-led Labour Party is utterly unacceptable to any Muslim voter, the second least attractive party is a Conservative Party run by a Rumanian jewish immigrant who cannot wait to stem the immigration of Muslims into the country. The role of the young Muslims is to use every means of propaganda and lobbying to assure the rejection of the Blairites from European affairs. If Blair is still in power at the time of the national elections, it will then be necessary to issue a Fatwa of a definitive nature drawn up by respected Muslim fuqaha. In the meantime we call on our Muslim youth to look to a great future in what is clearly destined by certain historical imperatives to be a future in which Europe is a Muslim continent, united by a triad of Urdu in Britain, Arabic in France, and Turkish in Germany. To us, the glorious anthem of Beethoven’s Ninth is our Sufic symphony.
Allah, the Exalted has said in his Glorious Book in Surat Al ‘Imran (3:102‑109):
You who have iman! have taqwa of Allah
with the taqwa due to Him
and do not die except as Muslims.
Hold fast to the rope of Allah all together,
and do not separate.
Remember Allah’s blessing to you when you were enemies
and He joined your hearts together
so that you became brothers by His blessing.
You were on the very brink of a pit of the Fire
and He rescued you from it.
In this way Allah makes His Signs clear to you,
so that hopefully you will be guided.
Let there be a community among you
who call to the good,
and enjoin the right,
and forbid the wrong.
They are the ones who have success.
Do not be like those who split up and differed
after the Clear Signs came to them.
They will have a terrible punishment
on the Day when faces are whitened
and faces are blackened.
As for those whose faces are blackened:
‘What! Did you become kafir after having had iman?
Taste the punishment for your kufr!’
As for those whose faces are whitened,
they are in Allah’s mercy,
remaining in it timelessly, for ever.
These are Allah’s Signs which We recite to you with truth.
Allah desires no wrong for any being.
Everything in the heavens
and everything in the earth
belongs to Allah.
All matters return to Allah.