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.
Establish Justice.
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.
|
