Men and women who are Muslims,
men and women who are muminun,
men and women who are obedient,
men and women who are truthful,
men and women who are steadfast,
men and women who are humble,
men and women who give sadaqa,
men and women who fast,
men and women who guard their private parts,
men and women who remember Allah much:
Allah has prepared forgiveness for them and an immense reward.

When Allah and His Messenger have decided something
it is not for any man or woman of the muminin
to have a choice about it.
Anyone who disobeys Allah and His Messenger
is clearly misguided.

The primary responsibility of the Muslims is worship of Allah, glory be to Him, according to what He has decreed in His Divine Revelation of the Qur’an together with the Sunna of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and his foundational model, that is to say, the ‘Amal of the People of Madinah al-Munawwara, the Illuminated City. If the atheist materialists, even if they pretend they are christians or jews, enact procedures which interfere with the Muslims’ Divinely commanded obligation to glorify Him, may He be exalted, it is incumbent on the Muslims to oppose and remove that hindrance to the practice of the Deen al-Haqq.

The Muslims must bear in mind that the enemies of the Deen cannot succeed, since they are acting contrary to the very laws on which all existence has been set up. The laws of the creation are not hidden. Indeed, they are well-known and recognised, not only by scientists, but by all thinking people. The financial system of the kuffar devours the earth’s natural energy with such a ferocity of greed that the very harmony of the natural world, which is set up on that perfect balance of Allah’s Rububiyya, is shattered. The kufr of the kuffar is, that knowing the exploitation of the world’s mineral resources means the destruction of the eco-system, they cover up this reality and so bring about their own and everyone’s destruction. Mass suicide is the social project of kufr, but since their nature is to cover up, they will call it a one-world system of peace and harmony governed by the freely elected representatives of a universal franchise.

In 1901, H.G. Wells, the leading thinker of atheist materialism, wrote ‘Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought’. In it, Wells foretold: ‘for a multitude of contemptible and silly creatures, fear-driven and helpless and useless, unhappy or hatefully happy in the midst of squalid dishonour, feeble, ugly, inefficient, born of unrestrained lusts, and increasing and multiplying through sheer incontinence and stupidity, the men of the New Republic will have little pity and less benevolence.’ A.N. Wilson notes: ‘One of the scientists who worked on the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Leo Szilard, said that the idea of nuclear chain reaction first came to him when reading Wells’s The World Set Free (1914), in which atom bombs falling on world cities during the 1950s kill millions of people.’ He goes on to say, ‘It was not some Napoleonic tyrant who authorized the bombing of Hiroshima but a small-town lawyer, President Harry S. Truman, whose face could easily have been used to adorn the jacket of an H.G. Wells suburban comedy.’

So it is that the repeated acts of genocide, mass slaughters, the destruction of whole cities, Hamburg, Dresden, Guernica, the chemical pollution of Agent Orange in Vietnam and Cambodia, the seemingly mindless destruction of nations, Iraq and Afghanistan - all this we are told is to make the world free for democracy. It follows from this that the defining principle of what is clearly a mutually assured destruction is this categorical imperative on which all the acts of horror are based. It is incumbent on us, therefore, to know just what in reality it is. Even in its official definition for the masses it is remarkable how ambiguous and strange are its necessary conditions.

Democracy declares that in a universal suffrage, men and women in a national entity of prior definition may elect those who will govern their affairs. Thus, while the elected leader and his government are licensed to rule a limited period over that zone, the Nation State, the matter does not end there. Apparently, this blissful perfection is not attained where the regime is solely governed by a President, or is under single-party rule. This, to them, unsatisfactory situation also contains those countries with monarchal rule, that in turn is with the exception of the Kingdoms where the monarch is subservient to a parliament, as in Britain. It is in the nature of the motor-force of the democratic juggernaut, that these groupings will be re-structured, and must in their present form be considered transitional. In the final configuration, the only exception to democratic rule will be Vatican City for all the christians (whether they like it or not), and Kerbala for both the Shi‘a and Islamic religions, finally unified (whether they like it or not).

In the rhetoric of this apparent united world urge to give to the masses their right to chose their leaders and their government, there is a false historical perspective designed to silence those who might reject this exalted idea. There is a scenario now enshrined in every school-book from Helsinki to La Paz, in every History Magazine from London to Sydney, in every TV History Channel beamed worldwide, which tells the tale of tyrannical monarchs (Peter the Great killed his son, Henry VIII beheaded two wives) and even more terrifying dictators, Hitler and Mao, experts in genocide. It must be said that today’s media version of political history is a clear fabrication which cynically shrugs off the total rejection by the diminishing class of historians, and the increasingly inaccessible evidence of the historical archives in elite Universities.

In other words, it is not as simple as that. I have had the direct and bitter experience of working with the leadership of two Muslim nations which tried to emerge into independence following the collapse of the communist system. On 30 September 1996 Hojakhmed Noukhaev, the then-Deputy Prime Minister, appointed me Honorary Consul of the Chechen Republic Itchkeria. It should be recalled that there were two Chechen Wars. The first War was fought by the whole Chechen people, united by allegiance to the Sufic Tariqas which had so successfully preserved them under communist rule, to such a degree that a Stalinist agent reported back to Moscow: ‘You can make any man in the world a Soviet Man except a Sufi!’ The first Chechen War came to an end with a de jure ratification of the independent status of the Chechen Republic. In these urgent and dramatic days, the struggle over, there was a sudden international input, all of which manifested as a deep concern that the new Republic should be firmly based on ‘sound Democratic principles’.

I warned the military leaders of the Independence Struggle that if the peace was to be defined through a ‘democratic process’, the unity that had been achieved on the battlefield would be shattered, the leadership would turn against itself, and the resulting disorder would license intervention. I urged on them that the logic of war dictated that the victors should determine their political future, and if they did not, it would be taken out of their hands. In Paris I requested Maitre Jacques Vergès to help us urgently draft a founding document for the new independent State. This great lawyer, whose life has been a continuous struggle to defend the principles of justice for the individual, immediately offered his services free.

We met together with Noukhaev, and he began to gather together the necessary documentation. Vergès promised to put the matter before the Minister of State in their Foreign Affairs Ministry. In the end, despite all our efforts, the worst happened, and that worst was organised, planned, and successful. Part of the scenario was to lure Noukhaev away from both Yanderbiyev and Aslan Maskhadov, this was done by attaching to him a Polish jew whose job it was to turn him from the political conflicts to a subsidised retirement in the oil industry of Azerbaijan, where at least he has blessedly survived while the rest of the Leadership, one by one, have been assassinated. What followed is well known, that is, the organised infiltration of the Wahhabi Movement, and its usual cohort of low-life mercenaries, bringing with them not only defeat but in the end the unthinkable slaughter of innocent school-children.

At the outbreak of the Bosnian War, I flew directly to Geneva to support President Izetbegović. There were two incidents during that War which I can never forget. The first occurred while we sat huddled in the President’s hotel suite, trying to make sense of the rapidly unfolding horror story that was being enacted across the former Osmanli province. As we talked, a young equerry entered with another piece of terrible news from the war zone. Having told us, he stopped, and a look of bewilderment crossed his face. He gasped out, ‘I don’t understand it! It is as if they just wanted to murder all of us!’ It was only when the full and final outrage of the Dayton Peace Agreement was laid before us that I realised the young warrior’s exclamation was a political truth. Genocide is the necessary servant of acceptable demographics, as true then in Bosnia as it is today in Palestine. President Izetbegović was in an intolerable situation. Neither the kafir world system nor its army of mercenaries, NATO, were prepared to see an Islamic Republic in Europe. It was unthinkable.

As we learned in Geneva, it was equally certain that the Muslim nations were not prepared to enter the struggle. There could be Aid, but there could not be rescue. The Organisation of Islamic Conference invited him to attend a Special Session. The Prime Minister of Turkey offered his private plane to the President. I begged him not to go. I pointed out to him that he was exhausted, this would exhaust him further, and he was needed for the struggle ahead. In some way, and I say this without any blame, he believed in these structures, though he was soon to find out what damage they could do. As we studied the map of the Balkans, I begged President Izetbegović to make the struggle an Islamic one and not one of either ethnic or national liberation. I pointed on the map to Bosnia, to Kosovo, to Macedonia, and to Montenegro. I begged him to open up the war on all these fronts simultaneously, and I assured him that if he did not do that, then they would be picked off one-by-one to their complete destruction. It was his own politicians who held him back. His treacherous Foreign Secretary, Haris Silajdžić, shocked the Muslim world with his infamous sentence, ‘I am not a Muslim, I am a Bosnian.’

In the last stage of the conflict, something happened. I later discussed this with our great General Alagić, and even in consultation with his colleagues we could not ascertain what it had been. I record this because of my observation that in these compromising conclusions that end armed struggle, there is a moment when the protagonists are isolated with the dominant exterior power-force, and, following that encounter, somehow submit to a new remit which is precisely not the radical and liberating doctrine for which they fought. It has happened to Arafat, Mandela, Makarios, Sukarno, Noukhaev, and Izetbegović. The incident I refer to in Bosnia was brief, dramatic, and to this day unexplained. At a certain point of the War which saw both negotiations and hostilities happening side by side, Izetbegović, caught up in negotiation, aggravated by a concern for his daughter’s welfare, inexplicably found himself inside an armed enemy zone, that is to say, behind the lines and in the hands of the enemy. As strangely as he was captured, he was then later released after a significant period of time within which he was able to confer with the enemy. It was after this event that President Izetbegović abandoned his previous and well-known position of a man whose life was dedicated to creating an Islamic State, and turned into one who was prepared to fly to the USA and sit inside a military encampment, utterly isolated from the outside world, and sign an Agreement which created a hybrid State in which the demographics reassured the world that it could not be governed by a Muslim democratic majority.

It was some time later, sitting with General Alagić and some of his High Command in Istanbul, that I put this question to him: ‘General, at the drawing-up and the signing of the Dayton Agreement, can you tell me which or how many of the Generals who had fought the War sat at the Peace Table?’ There was a stunned silence. The Bosnian officers looked at each other, and then lowered their heads. General Alagić replied: ‘There is the whole story! Not one!’ There was a long silence, and then he added: ‘This means - it is unfinished business!’ This was that other unforgettable moment which is with me today.

Let us now cast a cold eye on some of the current ‘Democracies’ in the Muslim world.

Tunisia. Officially defined as a Presidential Democracy. The current President was chosen by Bourguiba. Shaykh Shadhili an-Nayfar, the Sultan of the ‘Ulama in his lifetime, publicly declared Bourguiba to be a kafir. The present ruler threw thousands of Muslims in prison, made the beard illegal, controls the ‘ulama, issues Khutbas, and employs widespread torture. He is encouraged in his position by the EU and USA.

Algeria. The tragic events in Algeria were the first open indication that the official definition of democracy as a submission to the will of the majority of the electorate was sheer nonsense. With the election of an Islamic Party (my own personal abhorrence of this Party is simply irrelevant in our present examination of the meaning and evaluation of democratic process), the response of the atheist State, itself a direct product of the Badisi Islamic modernists, was to throw the winning Party’s leadership into prison and begin the wholesale massacre of both the political class and the innocent electorate. The Generals who controlled the atheist State were not just ‘the Military’, they were the owners and directors of Algerian Oil. The systematic persecution of the Algerian electorate was greeted with vociferous enthusiasm by the French State and an obedient silence from the EU.

Pakistan. A democratic government and a legal Prime Minister. It could be said that he represented Pakistan with all its inherited issues, both its qualities and its vices. However, a massive trans-national operation was about to take place which could not be accomplished unless Pakistan was a vassal player to the project about to be launched. The carefully groomed and monitored figure of the puppet Musharaf received his orders and seized power in a trumpeted rhetoric of overthrowing corruption. Democracies need idiots at the helm, but it is always a little embarrassing when they say, like Musharaf, ‘They want a referendum? They want elections? That’s easy!’

Egypt. Everyone knows about Egypt. Even the Americans know about Egypt. With his jails crammed with political opponents, it is the talk of Cairo that to get someone to stand against him as President, Mubarak had to promise that afterwards he would not fling him in prison.

With the killing-fields of Iraq and Afghanistan we are again faced with this strange category, ‘in-transition to democracy’

It is clear from this examination of the term democracy that it simply is not what it says it is. The reality is that democracy has obligatory protocols, which, while not secret, are never questioned, as if they were facts of nature. For example, when Izetbegović signed the Dayton Agreement granting democratic status to the invented political entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the first paragraph following the definition of its name was that the said entity would accept a substantial loan from the World Bank. It further obliged the new State immediately to impose a Value-Added Sales Tax on all items, thus guaranteeing a quotidian stability to its banking system.

It is not what it says that reveals the pernicious evil of democracy, but what it so gracefully avoids saying in its high Jeffersonian rhetoric of People’s Rights. The democratic system of the political classes, atheist and materialist by policy, while not denying personal interior convictions, categorically removes governmental control over two things: the supra-national financial system and the supra-national Military-Industrial Complex, to use President Eisenhower’s damning definition.

Wealth and War remain the unique domain of a series of interlocking elitist groupings, some permanent (like NATO), and some ad-hoc (like the Venezuela Enquiry). No universal franchise gave a mandate to the current ugly sub-human dwarf who heads the World Bank, or for that matter any of the world’s banks.

The Military do not deal with Senates or Assemblies, they have their own internal hierarchies devoid of any personal oath of allegiance, the only kind fighting men can ever truly take. The reason for this is that the Military have another allegiance with a high monetary reward. In other words, they are now the Siamese twin of the wealth-producing armaments system, in short, they are a Military-Industrial Complex. The people are free to choose! Umar Pasha, our Muslim World’s unique expert in Islamic Law relating to modern finance, is on record as having said that people are not free to choose their own currency.

In political terms, the dynamics of human existence are dependent on the activation of wealth and war. ‘Amr is the ability to command the wealth and order the war. It is the ‘Amr which commands appointed Zakat Collectors to gather the Zakat according to its rules, and it is the ‘Amr which commands the people to the Ghazwat - these two indicate the presence of an Islamic ‘Amir. It is the hidden nature both of those who today command, and of the command itself, which is the hellish kufr under which we all live.

Let us now look at three Muslim countries on which the curse of democracy has currently fallen.

Palestine. Well, now you know. As if the Palestinians had not brought enough shame upon the Muslim ‘Ummah with their suicide-bombing, we now have to watch aghast as this self-styled Islamic Party ran screaming and shouting through their missile-damaged streets wearing American baseball caps and the latest new-democracy outfit, a slogan-scarf with the national colour of choice, like a Georgian or a Ukrainian. Reflect for a moment, oh Palestinian Youth, on what the victory of the ‘people’s choice’ means. Inverting the centuries-old Islamic tradition of Preference, which is the hallmark of Futuwwa, for before this the Fateh was a man of high principle and moral superiority, the fighters of Hamas have another preference. Where once the father would die to save his son so that his cause and his line could continue, for the first time in Islamic history, the fathers sent their sons off to die. The suicide dimension in itself was sheer cynicism. It has been demonstrated that almost 80 per cent of suicide-bombings could have achieved their target without the need of the suicidal subject. The significance of the suicide technique was, that following the death of the youth, it enmeshed the whole family in a loyalty to a political cause which they might never have acquiesced in had they not lost a son to it. This was an Isma‘ili technique of terror, and it was passed on to the Muslims of Palestine during their period of interaction with the Lebanon. Let us be quite clear. There is no injunction against fighting the enemy. There have been times in the history of Islam when very great leaders have sown terror, even among the Muslims, to purge them, as with Tamerlane and the Wars of the Ta’ifs. What can never be excused or accepted, let alone defended, is a conscious act of suicide for whatever motive. The famous French writer Henri de Montherlant, who committed suicide, wrote that suicide was the highest act of atheism a man could perform. First of all, it is to despair of the Mercy of Allah. Secondly, it is a nihilistic act which inescapably indicates that there is no hope in the situation. It is to declare - may Allah forgive us for even setting it down - that Allah cannot and will not, of His Power and Majesty, resolve the situation. Thirdly, and perhaps just as offensive to Muslim peoples, is the idea that a nation led first by Arafat, who by Islamic Law merited execution for his public insults against ‘Aisha, in the city of Oxford, and then by the quite dreadful personnel of the Palestinian Authority, a self-confessed mafia, could in any way present itself to the world as an Islamic struggle. I sat a whole day in Madinah in the house of a great Mauritanian ‘Alim, and refused to budge until he gave me an official definition of Jihad. His reluctance to give judgment finally overcome, he said to me, ‘The first necessity of Jihad is that the Banner of Islam must be raised high.’

What this profound definition means is that however great the moral justification in human terms for any struggle against tyranny, oppression and occupation, these as such do not fall into the same category as that event, which could be initiated by one of these elements, but which could only express itself in its true form as the challenge to establish the Deen of Islam. To fight Fisabilillah is not the same as to fight under the kafir slogan of ‘The just rights of the such-and-such a people’.

The Palestinian people have achieved nothing and will achieve nothing. The only pitched battle they fought was not against Israel, but against their fellow Palestinians in Jordan. This is the ultimate tragedy of Palestine.

The people have voted to be governed by people who send their own sons to their death.

The situation is not without hope. There is a solution. It is to see from the past what is needed in the present. Palestine was a province of the great Osmanli Dawlet. The noblest of all the Sultans, Abdulhamid Khan II, was driven into exile uniquely because of his refusal to hand it over to the jews. The only just determination that can be settled on the matter of Palestine is that the Palestinian people take new leaders from outside the political class, and, under their aegis, go with humility to Istanbul and say to its leadership: ‘We have failed to do this. Our place is with you. Come and take over our government, our debts, and our needs. Protect us and rescue us in the Name of Allah.’ This action would change the face of this great cursed territory that once produced scholars that lit up the world, from Aleppo to Basra.

Iraq. We are told we must be happy. It has a Constitution. It has a government. It even has a standing agreement with the World Bank and the IMF. Who could ask for anything more? At the heart of the Iraqi crisis is not the matter of democratic government. At the heart of Iraq is a certain unfinished business. Two events during the still-continuing Iraq War laid bare this unfinished matter. Two Iraqi cities rose up in resistance against the foreign occupying force. In the uprising of Kerbala there emerged a figure who was given enormous prominence and respect. The creation of this figure was a media event initiated by CNN but soon taken up by that new pack of dogs, the Media Experts in Muslim Affairs. This was a Shi‘a ‘Alim who was soon elevated to a kind of Papal status. He was always referred to with shock and awe - His Eminence the High Ayatollah Sistani. The other leading actor was another Mullah, who was presented as the radical activist and extremist. In the drama which followed, Kerbala was repeatedly defined as both a ‘Holy City’ and also as ‘one of the great shrines of Islam’. At the end of this carefully staged Siege of Kerbala, the militant leader who had been killing the Army of Occupation was allowed to make an orderly retreat on the understanding that it was a peace that had been brokered by the Most High Ayatollah.

The second siege was that of Fallujah. It was declared to be the scene of Muslim resistance to the occupation. This time the media confusedly had to define its inhabitants as a mixture of Saddamites and what they called Sunnis. Perhaps the most important political re-alignment of the Iraq War was the determination to end up with an Islam divided into two sects: the Shi‘as and what they call the Sunnis. The passive acceptance of this nomination is perhaps the most damaging event in the history of the modern Muslims. Politically it was clear to any thinking Muslim that once Islam could be seen as viable in one of these two forms, then the next task of the kuffar would be to decide which form it could most easily assimilate and gently tolerate out of existence, as it had already done to a Catholic and Reformed christianity.

A financially and militarily helpless Pope in Rome and an equivalent Ayatollah in Kerbala offered a perfect end-game. The response to the uprising in Fallujah was the opposite of the treatment given to Kerbala. With an indifference to the presence of men, women and children inside the city, and after a pretence that the innocent were asked to leave, the assault took place. The attack on the city was devastating, and whole districts were bombed and left in ruins. The taking of the city was clumsy, brutal, and with a shocking death-toll that the experts declared excessive.

In January 1843, on the orders of the Khalif of all the Muslims, Serasker Sadullah Pasha with three infantry regiments and one of cavalry, along with twenty guns, laid siege to Kerbala. This was because of the deliberate attempt to move central Iraq out of the Islamic Dawlet and set it up around the two Holy Shi‘a Cities of Kerbala and Najaf. The growing mercantile strength of the Iraq-Iran Axis needed a theological force to drive its material expansionism, in the same way that a Northern expansionism in the Thirty Years War used a theological basis for that terrible struggle. It was in the early eighteenth century, with a Safavid Bahrain re-activating Shi‘a doctrines, that the whole new religion began to re-define itself. The dialectic between the two main Shi‘a schools dynamised the imperatives of political growth. Put crudely, the Akhbaris derived their teaching from Ta’wil of the Qur’an and the sayings of the Shi‘a Imams, while the Usulis, on the other hand, represented that strong rationalist strain that underwrote any necessary pragmatic re-alignment of their religion. One is tempted to define the two schools as follows: the Akhbaris say - the Imams give us permission to practice Taqiyya. The Usulis say - That is irrational. We do NOT practice Taqiyya!

The internal conflict inside the Shi‘a religion is much greater even than its struggle against the Islamic religion, but as I have said, the changes in Shi‘ism were motivated not by spiritual insight but by the need to provide a module for an expanding economy. In the early days of the Shi‘a religion, Muslims could still consider that perhaps it was a sect of Islam. But in 1501 Shah Isma‘il became the Shah of Iran, imposing Shi‘ism on the country. He ordered the ritual cursing of the Sahaba and Muslim ‘Awliya. He burned mosques. He expropriated the land of the Muslims. In mid-16th century, under the Safavids, their scholars began to make great changes in the practice of Shi‘ism. Shaykh ‘Ali al-Karaki (died 1534) re-instituted Jumu‘ah, which had been considered invalid during the Occultation, and ordered blessings on the Safavid dynasty from the Mimbar. He adopted the Islamic Kharaj, also previously illegal. He ordered the abandonment of Taqiyya, now they were under Safavid protection. He instituted the public cursing of Islam’s first two Khalifs, may Allah forgive us for setting down these words.

Since the Shi‘a religion cut itself off from the Deen itself as it was founded by the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, contradiction and alteration become inevitable, ending up with something that is the opposite of our Deen. For example, in the 1830s Sayyed Muhammad Nasirabadi, the leading Mujtahid of Lucknow, said that interest could be taken from jews, christians, hindus, and Muslims (that is, not Shi‘a). Sayyed Muhammad confirmed that interest could be taken from mushriks by consensus, and that Sufis should be considered ritually unclean and mushrik. The proximity of this judgment to that of Muhammad ‘Abduh is not accidental, and reminds one that when he gave his judgments on banking and usury, he had just been sipping coffee with Al-Afghani, the notorious Iranian.

It was the Muslim Afghan invaders who swept down with a cleansing fury which put an end to the Safavid dynasty. It is this which reminds us that the destinies of the Iraqi lands and the mighty Afghan Amirates are not things that can be determined by a handful of young American graduates in geo-politics using a barely comprehensible vocabulary, even to themselves, under the patronage of an illiterate President and the High Priest of the World Bank spitting furtively on his comb before he tidies himself for the world’s media.

Only we, in our manner, and in the time of our choosing, can settle the tragic dilemma of Iraq, and it must take linkage from the actions of Sultan Abdulhamid II, whose order to his Shaykh al-Islam was that Da’wa should be done to the Shi‘a, and indeed that the application of reason and historical study would call them back to the Deen.

As for the matter of Afghanistan, we must look things squarely in the face and not be intimidated by the fascistic declarations of a US President already hopelessly out of his depth. Afghanistan has been invaded with greater ruthlessness and abomination than was practised by the Russians. The Taliban were a national army. Their dismal ignorance shown in their treatment of women was something that we could have and still must put right. In their brief spell of governance, they had totally eliminated the heroin cycle of production and export. Make no mistake, this was one of the vital and necessary causes of the US Invasion. Within one year, they had the heroin trade up and running at full production - something that could not have been done without a military infrastructure.

It is now vital that our people send in sociologists to examine the extent and the damage caused by the growing need for a functioning industry of prostitution, bearing in mind that in the US Army they see no restriction of sex or age in the gratification of sexual pleasure.

The news that the collapsing yet still subservient government of Britain is sending a massive contingent into Afghanistan has been met with a numb submission by the whole country. There are two bodies in the country who must actively oppose this. One is the Scottish people, for as has been the practice since the First Afghan War in mid-19th century, it has been the Scottish regiments that have been chosen to be the Illustrious Dead. One should reflect that the political class, not only would reject the idea that a Prime Minister and his Cabinet on the act of declaring war should go to the Front Line, as kings and princes once did, but would smile cynically as if such an idea were sheer impertinence. In order to have these troops brought back, the British Muslims should not take to the streets in useless demonstrations, but should avail themselves of a revitalised Conservative Party and its moral leader so that they become an active lobby which can influence affairs. Our view of democracy gives us all the more reason to use it positively, so that we are also able to act when those inevitable days come that it will collapse.

To summarise the situation in Afghanistan - the country has been invaded and a worthless puppet has been set up by the Occupying Army, like Quisling in Norway under the Nazis he will surely meet the same end. The so-called NGOs and Aid Organisations must be considered as part of that apparatus designed to destroy the historically powerful social structure of the land and to obliterate the Deen of Islam. The Taliban at its inception made a fatal error in their submission to an unworthy ‘Amir. He in turn was financially and morally seduced by the former CIA operative, an uneducated fantasist, Bin Laden. The ‘ulama of Afghanistan dis-associated themselves from the Taliban ‘Amir, and this judgment was correct. Taliban fighters are another matter, and we must strongly reject the idea that they are terrorists - they are young Muslim men in need of our leadership and protection. It is the now-urgent necessity of our ‘ulama and our Qadiriyya Shuyukh on both sides of the Khyber Pass to show that they cannot cooperate with the two puppet Presidents and their ineffective governments. To show that they consider the invading force brutal, uncultured and indifferent to the suffering of our people. It is incumbent on the Qadiri Shuyukh to speak up in a clear voice in defence of the survival of the Deen of Islam across the land. They must declare that the Fataawa ‘Aal-‘Amgheeri, and not the Kabul Constitution, is the governing document under Qur’anic authority which must dominate the region.

Allah the Exalted has said in Surat al-Ahzab (33:41-44):

You who have iman! remember Allah much,
and glorify Him in the morning and the evening.
It is He Who calls down blessing on you,
as do His angels,
to bring you out of the darkness into the light.
He is Most Merciful to the muminun.
Their greeting on the Day they meet Him will be ‘Peace!’
and He has prepared a generous reward for them.