1.  The refusal of the Power Elite to accept the unarguable case of the scientists in the matter of global warming in order that the liberal doctrine of the extraction of minerals and the consumption of fuels continues to their immediate profit.

2.   The re-definition across half the world of an ethos of extreme poverty and malnutrition as a pandemic not even of the disease Aids, but of a medically disputed condition, HIV, which leads to it, and by that token implying that in what are by-and-large traditional and moral societies, there has been an unprecedented wave of unlimited sexual intercourse.

3.   The exploitation by the Power Elite of the young national entity, the USA, forcing it, against the will of its own masses, to adopt the role of a national imperialism which has allowed the unchallenged invasion and occupation of whole countries. A practice which, while it does not benefit that nation-state, assures the ongoing processes of expanding control being exerted by that Power Elite.

4.   The beginning of a collapse of social order inside the fortress-zones occupied by the Elite themselves. Indications of this can be found in the inability of the US government to rescue its poverty-stricken black population in New Orleans after the hurricane. The revolt of the under-class of French citizens in the outskirts of their cities, who, deprived of education, housing and even labour, had risen up across the country, torching thousands of cars and trashing work-places.

5.   The massive influx into the European Union from Latvia, Romania and the Ukraine of tens of thousands of young women to serve the highly organised sex industry demanded inside the fortress-zones to serve as a release mechanism for a technocrat class which has realised that, salaried, it will never taste the great rewards gained by its masters.

6.   The quite macabre phenomenon of the expropriation of a whole land which last knew legal status as a province of the Osmanli Dawlet, Palestine. The world liberal society which doctrinally declared that the State had to be secular and severed from religious rule, and also that a country was founded on the legitimacy of its citizens to ownership, found itself licensing the State of Israel on two things apparently abhorrent to it. Its Constitution declared it was a State for the world’s jews. Its claim to legitimacy was the unprovable and mystical claim that the land had been granted to it by God Almighty. The creation of this State, however, had an intriguing and never-confronted truth attached to it. The unique nature of Israel is neither the illegitimacy of its expropriation of Arab land nor its almost comical imposition of a Divine Covenant on the atheist United Nations, but rather that the dominant caste of the Financial Elite can be demonstrated to be members of that same race whose cruel persecution in the last century led to their understandable urge to have a land of their own, even if it meant displacing its historical inhabitants. The world is afraid of Israel not because of its constant one-party coalition political system, and not through its involvement in the abhorrent racist posturing of both sides, but rather because its people are the same people as the leading players of the Power Elite. For example, to apply their active racist doctrine and language, we could say that the head of the World Bank is NOT a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

This is the background against which we must examine the condition of present-day Britain. Chris Patten, that rare thing, a politician of moral integrity, is on record as saying that Margaret Thatcher destroyed the Conservative Party. There is now a significant consensus that Blair has destroyed the Labour Party. Thatcher also destroyed the Unions, which, while themselves capitalist entities, nevertheless allowed the State to claim it still had the interests of its own workers at heart. Blair’s destructive achievement, however, goes much deeper. This is not a reference to the tragic participation in the devastation of the Iraq War and the lethal chaos that has ensued. The slavish participation in a war whose imperatives were commanded neither by necessity nor common sense indicated nor merely that modern democracies are in themselves dictatorships, but that sovereign States like Britain and the USA were being forced into a mode of deconstruction. That deconstruction may be defined as a devolutionary process forced on the State by the Power Elite which demands that it divest itself of whatever historical inheritance it has, over ten centuries in Britain and two centuries in the USA, of its legal evolutionary process of legislation, institutions and roles, which by themselves assure the civic safety of the individual.

It was Blair’s choice of Lord Chancellor which made it clear to that very small group of informed people in a now education-free country what was implied by that choice. It meant, first of all, that Blair was a man utterly without any sense of the remarkable historical continuity that the island kingdom had preserved, or any awareness that its great institutions and political roles had been formed long before the corrupting imperatives of empire and capitalism, but rather, as the medieval nation had emerged into the post-feudal modern world. What we had witnessed was a party leader unfit to be a Prime Minister, even in a country stripped of its political power to control its wealth, choosing a Lord Chancellor equally unfit for a high office which demanded legal experience and a high moral commitment to those civic rights that through the centuries had been won at high cost.

When terrorism emerged in all its fury, an Arab phenomenon rooted in the seemingly limitless exploitation and expropriation of Arab peoples and land, it forced on the people of the world two obligations, which, if they were not met, would mean that the terrorism would herald a dark age with grave implications for the human situation. What were these two obligations? The first was that people had to confront that the irrational phenomenon of terrorist violence which included ritual suicide had to be the result of recognisable and definable social causes. The second was, that to avoid granting triumph to anarchic forces, society had to, no matter how high the cost, preserve that inheritance of civic safety for the individual which had been the one, and perhaps the only benefit of the historical process.

By the time Blair found himself in the front line of the Power Elite’s scenario, which determined that while the causes of terrorism must not be confronted, as their patrons considered Israel their symbolic homeland, even if they had no intention of living in it, so also at the same time it provided a serious opportunity to dismantle the legal framework which honoured the sanctity of the individual over all tyrannical processes. The Power Elite, by the manipulation of currencies and markets based on no measurable collateral, through its Corporation structures now owned the land, the produce, and the commodities, but it realised it still did not own the people. Here was the historical opportunity. That Elite of bankers, brokers and commodity ownership could make the last great leveraged buy-out. The people - yes, the people - were to be re-defined as property!

With an ever more disturbing unity, sets of almost identical legislation began to appear inside the political framework of the USA, Britain, France, and Germany. Without a single qualm, or even a ripple of verbal resistance, first a blind Home Secretary and then his successor without that excuse, informed us that the protection of the individual that had lasted centuries was to be ripped away, and in a final proof of the State’s legal ownership of the individual, one could be arrested on the claim that one might commit the crime.

In 1603 the first King of Britain, James I, arrived in London. As the Royal Train proceeded into town, a thief was caught in the procession and was found to have stolen more than that amount for which the sentence at the time was death. James ordered a warrant to go to the Recorder of Newark saying that the young man should be executed. Sir John Harington, on hearing what happened, wrote the following: “ ’tis strangely done! Now if the wind blows thus, why may not a man be tried before he has offended?” Almost exactly four hundred years later, the democratic dictator of Britain gives himself and his obedient government that right to dispense at will with the individual. It is not an accident that the end-game of humanism legislatively marks the end of the human creature itself.

This is the situation we are in now. It is clear that Blair is both politically and psychologically a broken man. It is doubtful that this ruined parliament will run its full term. Now, we have clarified that the phenomenon of terrorism, which has inescapable direct social causes, these causes being the effect of the irrational doctrines of corporation capitalism on the world’s poor and degraded, is something from which we as Muslims have to disassociate ourselves. This does not mean that we are passive participants who are prepared to watch the just legal framework on which the nation stands being taken away from under our feet.

It is our clear conviction that Britain, indeed the greater part of the European mainland, will take up the social order, justice and ease that is the Islamic Way as the Old Order of twentieth century capitalism crumbles around us. To this end we must be the voice of reason and also the voice of wisdom, and we must call on those forces in the country that best reflect the elements in it which we as Muslims perceive as beneficial. It is by social transformation that this process will take place. It will not take place under the humiliating and condescending terms with which the Blair government met the Muslims after the ugly London bombings. The Labour Party’s hastily designed masonic tablet of laws is abhorrent to us. His Home Secretary talked of working ‘with all faiths, including Islam, to build and strengthen the integration of faith into our national life.’ His talk of working closely ‘with the mainstream faith communities’ is quite unacceptable to us, because he has laid down a prior condition which as Muslims we must reject. Faith is Iman - not Islam. Their masonic acceptance of faiths indicates they will accept people’s inward convictions, but not that they impinge on the social nexus. In other words, they warn that the Muslim community of Britain may not in fact participate in a social transformation which they consider the unique property of the government itself.

Ironically, they further weakened the constitutional state of Britain when they asked Imams to make a Fatwa against terror. Look at the remarkable ignorance and unfitness for government which they demonstrate. From a constitutional point of view, to ask for a Fatwa is to abrogate the authority of the British State to an entity whose judgment becomes paramount, although that entity in turn has not been chosen by the Muslims. From the Muslim point of view, only the Shi‘a are governed by their Imams. In Islam itself, rule is not by Imams, and of course while they can counsel and advise, it is not their place to pass authoritative statements, for this is the sole right of the ‘Amir of the Muslims. It is a further ignorance to mistake a Fatwa for a Hukm. The Fatwa is a learned judgment, but the Hukm carries with it an order to obey. It is important now that we, the Muslims of Britain, should step forward and participate in every aspect of the political discourse, and indeed, the framing of laws.

Let me now say, for what it is worth, neither as Fatwa nor Hukm but as good counsel, for the Deen is nothing but good counsel:

1.   It is unthinkable that any Muslim should vote for the Labour Party in the light of its dismal record in the matter of preserving the constitutional security of the British tradition.

2.   The Muslim community should take advantage of the unexpected and rare opportunity that has come to Parliament by the possibility of a leader in the Conservative Party. For the first time in half a century we are presented with a man of quality, breeding and moral authority. His virtues are the virtues that Muslims respect.

3.   The Muslims should join the Conservative Party and give active support to David Cameron.

4.   A consultative body of important Muslim citizens led by a significant group of established lawyers should make themselves available in the first instance to the Conservative Party, and in the second instance to that Party as the party of government.

5.   This should result in the Muslim community taking a larger and more important part in the formation of a new Britain within a Europe which boasts Islam as its majority religion.

* * * * *