The Terrible Truth about Democracy and Terrorism

Part 1: Democracy

Part 2: Reflections on Terrorism

Perhaps it was the call by the government imposing on the nation two minutes of silence that marked the beginning of clarity in the current turbulent ethos of goalless terrorism and goalless imperialist occupation.

We recall that the utterly meaningless rite of a collective silence was initiated at the equally meaningless marble slab of the Cenotaph to silence the masses after World War I, lest they should turn on the political class and lay the slaughter of the tens of millions in that war at their door.

‘One day we will understand’ – that was the political message of the silence. Don’t ask questions! You will only get confused. What happened? It was the militarism of the Germans. It was the evil Kaiser. It was one bullet from the Serbian nationalist student Princip. The terrorist bullet gave the signal to let loose the dogs of war, and Europe committed suicide.

At its end the victorious party united in the smashing of monarchic rule in Turkey, Germany, and Russia. It was the war to end wars. We had to defend poor little Belgium.

Do you see how complicated it is? Do not ask. Stand in silence. Lay the wreath. Play a funeral march. One day you will understand.

Paul Morand sums it up: ‘What an alibi – History!’

Firstly let us define our opposition to and abhorrence of the terrorist and the act of terror. It is the political expression of nihilism. Nihilism is its own philosophy, voided of any moral evaluation or indeed political doctrine. The function of the terrorist act is in fact not to kill 50 or indeed thousands of people. Its unique reality is the staged splendour of its horror. It is individual self-mutilation on the theatrical stage of technology itself. The aeroplane, the skyscraper, the commuter train – all these are but the grizzly staging of a despairing individual who in the end can only say, ‘Now do you see – I do exist!’ By him or her, society cannot be changed, injustice cannot be righted, and new leadership cannot emerge, for the protagonist has left the stage.

The instigators, the trainers, the suppliers of weaponry, they are the intellectuals of nihilism. They can think it, they can instigate it, but they can never inherit from it a later leadership, since they were the cowards who let others die for the cause they themselves did not die for.

From a moral point of view, therefore, those who order the slaughter of others by the act of suicide but do not themselves commit suicide reveal the desperate and tragic flaw in their cause. The leader who sends others forward to die while he remains safely withdrawn from the conflict is surely the most despicable of people.

It is not accidental that the two great Russian writers, Turgenev and Dostoyevsky, who intellectually isolated and defined nihilism and its political practice, terrorism, were themselves feared by the Tsar and his regime, who even tried to accuse them of being spokesmen of it.

The reason for the Tsar’s fear of these great men was that he could not escape the nature of their diagnosis. To them, the individual nihilist destroyers with their bombs and assassinations were like a single lens which focused the general conflagration of social decline into an intense fire in one spot, the point of their suicidal destructive act. It was an inescapable truth which these great men laid bare.

There is no otherness to the terrorist. He is the mirror-image, the brother, blinded in his misery and unable to see us, but leaving his survivors shattered and afraid, stubbornly unable to see him.

Let us go back to the bullet that in the schoolbook version of the holocaust of World War I set the trains of death rolling out to the trenches. We find a web of interlocking disasters of major social and political importance.

The first part of the event lies in the European Powers’ deliberate attempt, territory by territory, to bring about the end of the Osmanli Dawlet. That process, from Kosovo to Bulgaria, was to result in a genocide of over five million from 1821 to 1922. This disintegration led, in turn, to a local uprising of the Serb people led by a demented and uneducated clerical class of Orthodox priests. This in turn aroused imperial ambitions in the sclerotic Austro-Hungarian Empire, coloured by a natural desire for peace on their borders.

Added to this dangerous mix were the well-known Secret Societies of Jewish and Russian origin, the most famous of which, the Black Hand, spawned the tiny group of student terrorists in Sarajevo. Now stir into this hellish soup a further ingredient. Three of the terrorists were discovered at their trial to be in the final stages of tuberculosis, the proof and badge of the degraded poverty in which the post-Osmanli Serbs lived.

Remember that the earlier heir to the Empire’s throne had committed suicide with his mistress, he in turn a private victim of the corruption and decadence of the Habsburg throne.

What the terrorists in Sarajevo did, therefore, can now clearly be seen as the mirror-image of what the all-but-totally petrified Empire of Austro-Hungary was doing to itself. Remember, too, that the Emperor’s beautiful and bulimic wife had earlier been stabbed to death by an anarchist in Geneva.

The truth is that where we find terror, there also do we find a corrupted and disintegrating society, a collapse of moral values already enervating and destroying social life.

The statistic of the tragic victims in the London terrorist attack matches almost identically the annual statistic of the murder of innocent girls from childhood to puberty in the houses, streets and fields of England’s green and pleasant land.

It is not terrorism that requires massive legislation, rather, it is in the lands where terror strikes that legislators and political leaders are required of a totally other calibre and of a totally as-yet undiscovered moral quality of courage and nobility, a leadership which will act not to save its political skin, but to elevate and revitalise the social nexus.

More serious than the hydra-headed monster of a terrorism erupting spontaneously, as it were, in various places, without a leadership, without doctrines, and utterly devoid of moral principles – more serious than that is the present failure and breakdown of all the major models of elected government in the system called democracy.

Most serious of all is that the leadership is thrown up by a mass electoral system, itself not the free choice of the masses, but a chosen oligarchy selected by the in-back wealth which finances the political party systems. If terrorism is a synchronicity of unpredictable acts of horror, democracy has become by its current nature a rigid totalitarianism.

While all the power systems of the democratic State are obedient to a leader with dictatorial powers, two elements mark his isolation. The President, or Prime Minister, has no identifiable challenge from the internal institution of Parliament or Senate, since the Ministers more even than the Members of such a body are mere place-men, utterly pre-occupied with retaining their position or, even better, being elevated to Ministerial rank, with all its material rewards.

The other, and even graver, inhibition on the so-called Leader in a democracy is that he himself is under orders from the financial elite. Not even the frivolous debt relief offered up by the democratic Leaders lay within their gift. Only after the banking oligarchy put a figure to their charity were they able to announce the reward. Neither the democratic institution, nor its communications system, the media, dares to point out that the cause of the poverty in Africa is not the result of mis-management and corruption, but of the very nature of the usury function built into the world banking system.

Only two weeks after the Prime Minister of Great Britain stood before the television cameras and let himself be lectured by a failed rock star of dubious origin about what he had to do to remove poverty from the world, the media announced that in Mali not thousands but millions of children were dying of starvation. The French democracy has a military presence in Mali supporting its regime and assuring the export of its mineral wealth into France, while the Foreign Legion drives about the desert settlements murdering the Muslim Tuareg aristocracy while they claim to be rooting out Islamic extremists in the deep Sahara.

The role of President or Prime Minister had up until 1945 represented a leader of substantive powers. It now required not even a politician, but merely an actor. He had become the Front Man. He was no longer paid for political expertise – he was paid danger money. The clumsy and despicable change of motive made by the British and American leaders in relation to Iraq is a clear indication of this. For months we were bombarded with a three-word mantra: Weapons of Mass Destruction. In order to sustain this myth, both countries humiliated and seriously damaged their Intelligence Services.

Indeed, the damage done to the Intelligence communities can now be identified as one of the reasons they failed to anticipate the terrorist attacks when they finally came. Later, we were ordered to believe that the invasion was to make the world a better place now that Saddam was gone. Given the totalitarian nature of democratic parliamentarism, responsibility must fall uniquely on the shoulders of the however spuriously elected leader, and on him alone.

Winston Churchill, in his great study of the British imperial adventure in North Africa, ‘The River War’ (1899), which recounted the campaign against the Mahdi in Sudan, wrote an outstandingly sympathetic account of the Mahdi’s revolt against Egyptian rule. He said: ‘Those whose practice it is to regard their own nation as possessing a monopoly of virtue and common sense are wont to ascribe every military enterprise of savage people to fanaticism. They calmly ignore obvious and legitimate motives … Upon the whole, there exists no better case for rebellion than presented itself to the Soudanese.’ Churchill also fought under Kitchener there, being in the aristocratic tradition, which came to an end with his death.

The seed-bed, the fertile ground from which the monster has sprung is nothing less than the century-and-a-half of brutal imperialism and the stripping of the vast wealth of Muslim lands. Byron-Farwell, in his study of the Victorian imperialist wars, explains:

‘In the last century, no-one below the Prime Minister controlled the Empire’s army, and even his ability to direct it was doubtful; until after the Indian Mutiny, half of Britain’s military strength was owned by a private chartered company. … No account of any aspect of British imperialism can be told without a mention of India and that peculiar institution: the Honourable East India Company. … There was not a single year in Queen Victoria’s long reign in which somewhere in the world her soldiers were not fighting for her and for her Empire.’

In 1838 Lord Auckland, Governor-General of India, issued the Simla Manifesto which announced that British troops would invade Afghanistan. Three years earlier Lord Auckland had written to Dost Muhammad, the Amir of Afghanistan:

‘My friend, you are aware that it is not the practice of the British Government to interfere in the affairs of other independent states.’

General Keene was despatched there with a new puppet Amir, Shah Shuja, the Hamid Karzai of his time. Shah Shuja was installed in Kabul but his rule did not extend beyond it.

The occupying force was soon to find out the bitter truth: you cannot buy an Afghan – but you can rent him! After the slow and relentless resistance, here and there, the Afghans made life impossible for the occupying force. In 1841 there was open revolt. On 6 January 1842 a British force of 4,500 troops, about 700 of whom were Britons, together with several wives and their children and about 10,000 camp followers, marched out towards Jellalabad. Seven days later the fortress at Jellalabad saw a solitary horseman riding towards them. It was Surgeon William Brydon, the sole Briton to complete the march from Kabul.

It is in India that we see the indissoluble linkage between the Money-Elite and their obedient servants the parliamentarians. When Lord Canning set out for India as Governor-General, he warned:

‘We must not forget that in the sky of India, serene as it is, a small cloud may arise, at first no bigger than a man’s hand, but which, growing bigger and bigger, may at last threaten to overwhelm us with ruin.’

With the first uprising against the British, the Muslims marched to Delhi. The Moghul Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, headed the uprising. This of course was the legitimate governance and the legitimate monarchic power of India. The civilised response of John Nicholson in a letter at the time best expresses the English position when faced with resistance. Following the so-called Mutiny he wrote:

‘Let us propose a Bill for the flaying alive, impalement, or burning of the murderers of the women and children at Delhi. The idea of simply hanging the perpetrators of such atrocities is maddening.’

The actual response was much more savage and sadistic. Queen Victoria wrote to King Leopold, the ghastly Butcher of the Congo:

‘The horrors committed on the poor ladies – women and children – are unknown in these ages, and make one’s blood run cold.’

She ordered a ‘Day of National Prayer and Humiliation’.

The despicable behaviour of the civilised British force in its revenge is well chronicled. It is vitally important for us, however, to underline the terrible and disastrous act of the most despised man in Indian history – Major William Hodson (1821-58).

He was the son of an archdeacon and a graduate of Trinity Cambridge. He was in the East India Company army. He was convicted by a military court of cruelty, lost his command, but was eventually cleared. He sought out and found the Moghul Amir in prayer at the Tomb of Humayun. He took him captive and then captured the three Shahzadahs, the Royal Princes.

In front of an enormous crowd, Hodson worked himself into what seems to have been a state of sexual frenzy. He seized a carbine from one of his men. He ordered the princes to strip naked. He then personally shot each one of them dead in cold blood, one after the other. He ordered the corpses to be thrown onto a bullock cart, and then rode proudly into Delhi.

The end result of all this was that the British made Delhi their capital. This was the de-facto end of the great civilised masterpiece of social organisation that was the Moghul Dawlet.

The Jewish Prime Minister, D’israeli, persuaded Victoria to let herself be declared Empress of India. If the Jewels in the British Crown were returned to the Muslims, that crown would be little more than Queen Victoria’s mop cap. Up until this transition India was a great country of simply enormous wealth and wellbeing. From then on it was slowly and systematically stripped of that wealth, stripped of a social order far superior to the sparse replacement at the hands of the British.

Now it is understandable that the tragic event of the assassination of the Princes left the Muslim ulema not only in shock, but devoid of an Emirate which would licence and empower the carrying-out of a Mufti’s orders. The crisis drove two important bodies of fuqaha out of Delhi, now the seat of a military and menacing occupation army. One group went to Barelwi and the other to Deoband.

It must be understood that up until the crisis these two bodies of scholars had an identical and classical view of Islamic Law within the tradition of the great Imam Abu Hanifa. These two bodies of ulema were to draw further and further apart. Those of Barelwi took refuge in love of the prophet, and in the honouring of the grave-sites of long-dead saints. The men of Deoband sought to exalt a pure Tawhid but in the end held only to Tanzih, correctly exalting Allah above creation, and thus failing to take account of His Rububiyya in governing the created world. In the end, both these schools had abandoned the Qur’anic order to ‘enter Islam completely’.

It is at this point we must confront what is from the Muslim point of view a very serious matter. There is only one Islam. The group who followed Ali rejected the social entity of the Islamic Dawlet and Emirate, so in this invented religion there is no need for a Khalif, everything is held in abeyance, and the people rely for their guidance on the Mullahs who lead the worship and teach in the mosques. In Islam the Imam’s function is to lead the Prayer, or if designated, take the sermon. There is a higher caste of lawyers, that is, the Fuqaha and the Muftis. They in turn cannot function unless there is an Amir to order the execution of their legal judgments. Imams may counsel but they may not command. The command among the Muslims is in the hands of its strongest men and whomever they may chose to lead them.

Now Khilafa is an obligation on all Muslims. The so-called experts who have been in the media defining our religion for us have spread far and wide the myth that the extremists and terrorists want to establish a Khalifate, while moderate Muslims are good little boys happy with any kind of civic governance. This must be forcefully rejected. Khilafa was never abolished. The last Khalif went into exile, taking with him the Cloak of Power. The terrorists do not want governance since their lone political act is itself anarchic and unauthorised. They have no Ba’yat, and Ba’yat of its nature in Islamic Law is done publicly in accordance with the Sunna.

The next phase of our deconstruction takes us to Arabia. The family of Ibn Saud extended their tiny desert rule over the people of Najd with the help of the great British imperialist programme that boasted such illustrious actors as Glubb Pasha, T.E. Lawrence and Winston Churchill.

The Saudi decision to embrace wahhabism gave the Saudi forces a seal of approval from the British imperialists who still sought to smash forever the great Osmanli Dawlet. As is now well known, the new Churchill-appointed King of Arabia in turn had to crush the wahhabi forces in order to sit back as the ignorant nomads they were and enjoy the vast wealth that was laid at their feet by first, a grateful Britain, and later America. The name of the principal oil corporation that embodies their wealth is Aramco, which unites the two politiques of the desert kingdom and the imperialist democracy.

The wahhabis were given complete control of the educational system in Arabia. The institution of Rabita was a kind of global wahhabi mosque-control system. It was over the last part of the 20th century that the pattern began to emerge. On the one hand there was a ferocious and active attempt by the wahhabism of Arabia to wipe out the Sufic phenomenon.

This activity has been known to us for decades and we have encountered it in the jungles of Thailand, in the deserts of southern Morocco, in Europe and in Pakistan. It then followed, due in part to the enormous scattering of wealth by the wahhabi leadership, that a variant set of forces began to reverberate in sympathy. The wahhabis adopted the Deoband. They supported Jamat al-Islamiyya under the dismal leadership of Mawdudi. Their subvention reached to the Ikhwan al-Muslimun, while their solution to Sufism was to be its replacement, the milky pietism of the Tablighi-Jamaat.

Again one cannot avoid the doubleness of organisations, events and people. Tablighi-Jamaat, praised by The Economist magazine, held up in Britain as how Muslims should be, this imperialist phenomenon was given a clean bill of health on a world-wide level.

While innocent Muslims are delayed at frontiers, the dreary groups of lost abandoned souls find themselves whisked through immigration without a murmur. The French say that the extremes meet. So it was that this pacific and emasculated group of alienated young men seeking temporary asylum in its puritan brotherhood proved to be the perfect recruiting ground for active service in a war without leadership authority.

A further strand of this story lies in the no-man’s-land between Israel and Lebanon. At a certain point in that ongoing war, a group of Palestinians found themselves isolated between the two countries along with the Shi‘a force from the Lebanon. It was in that strange military limbo that the Palestinians were indoctrinated into the Ismaili strategy of attack by suicide. In one move the human being, created specifically by Allah to glorify Him and to be the just and governing lord of creation, found himself reduced to being nothing more than the active software of an explosive device.

As reason must prevail, it is impossible to avoid the recognition that that first Afghan War which we have outlined is intimately connected with the current Afghan War. The infiltration of that unbalanced Saudi adventurer into the already mobile adventure of Musharaf the dog, and Pakistani Intelligence Chiefs, the Taliban army, doomed the whole affair to a tragic end. The tragedy of Afghanistan. Yet again an occupied country. The betrayal of the Muslims in India by the incompetent coward Mountbatten and his jewish wife doomed the Subcontinent to a never-ending struggle and a constant death-toll. No cry from the democratic USA or the democratic Britain to hold a democratic head-count in Kashmir. At the heart of all these interconnected imperialist events lies the wahhabi betrayal of Islam and its bitter tribal war against the prophet.

What then is the path to sanity and safety? What is the medicine for the Sick Man that is Europe itself? What is the hope and the constructive programme for the world Muslim community? I place the key of the affair in the hands of the Princes of the House of Saud.

In my student days in London I stayed in the house of diplomat friends. Often at the breakfast table I would find myself next to the Princess Romanov. I recall her saying to me, ‘The tragedy of our family cannot be blamed on Lenin and communism. It cannot be blamed on the things we did not do for the people. Our tragedy was that when the warning came, we did not listen and so we were not saved.’ My proposal is addressed to the now Crown Prince of Arabia and to all the younger Princes of the Household, especially those with a near position to the inheritance of power.

The atheist-humanism that has dominated the world for the last two hundred years has now entered its final stage, a total collapse which is both inescapable and inevitable. The German historian Ernst Nolte identified the upheavals of the twentieth century as being one European civil war which he dated from 1914 to 1945. The whole period is marked by the somnambulistic working-out of three programmes. In the first stage, World War I, we saw the mass suicide of a whole generation of European men in the, now to us, incredible slaughter of the trench warfare. For four years the people watched horrified as men walked and ran, wave upon wave, into a wall of bullets and shellfire, falling over each other in the mud of Flanders in an apparent enthusiasm for immolation. The latter stages which dominated the whole of the mid-century saw two massive programmes of genocide, each pursued again with this strange enthusiasm with which godless humanism sets about eliminating its own. Alongside the statistically awesome genocide of the jews and the gypsies in the West, the even more awesome achievement in the East saw the mass genocide of a Class. Once identified as jew or bourgeois your elimination was simply an organisational affair.

Two profound changes took place in the humanist society over this time. The end of the First World War saw the complete dismantling of the European monarchic system, a process which had been initiated by the English and defined by the French. Thus, the twentieth century became the arena for the social Darwinism which proposed that man had evolved from being ruled by Divinely ordained monarchs to the great historical fulfilment that was to be Government by the People. Marshal Foch had bitterly recognised that the wars of kings saw relatively few casualties because led from the front by the monarchs, while the war of the politicians assured mass slaughter because driven from behind by the politicians of democracy. It cannot be emphasised enough that the higher the political rhetoric about the glory of democracy as the final fulfilment of human independence, the further the modern state moved towards a totalitarianism which outshone and out-achieved the state control of the fascist-communist era. In the second half of the twentieth century not an urban street or highway but is covered by video scanners. Not a metre of ground but is monitored by satellite photography. While Chancellor Hitler lunched openly with a few friends and two bodyguards at the Ostaria Bavaria in Munich, fifty years later no European leader can expose himself to the people without a vast security ring of protection. The state knows how much the citizen spends, owes and even intends. As well as the absolute documenting and monitoring of the individual by the state, there is a double process of security checking based on the financial profile and practice of each individual by the banking system.

Looking back over the last hundred years the peak achievements of this anti-civilisation must surely be the triple genocides of World War I, the concentration camps, and the Gulag. In fact, the philosopher Giorgio Agamben has insisted that the iconic module of our society today is the concentration camp. Among the christians, kingship by Divine authority came to an end in the event of the beheading of Charles I. It only became eliminated fully in the social and political framework of Britain, however, in 1688 with the overthrow of the legitimate ruler James II and the aristocracy’s decision to put in place a puppet king imported from Holland. Every single schoolbook in Britain informs the pupils that this was the year of the Glorious Revolution, celebrated for being bloodless. It was far from bloodless, leading in its last historical convulsion to the brutal destruction of the Scottish Highland clan system and the appalling and genocidal Clearance of the Highlands. That was the first stage of the new mercantile atheist state, then a hundred years later it led to the further genocide of the Irish Potato Famines. It is the unique and unavoidable reality of the humanist philosophy, with its myth of the democratic state, that one section of the demos has to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Now all this increasingly sclerotic social system, every year burdened with more laws and more inhuman rigidity, is reaching its final, necrological condition. It first eliminated its own elite, then a race, then a class. That process permitted, one could even say that genocide cleared the way for, the new emerging power structure of financial oligarchy. The proof of this lies in the unarguable reality in which we now find ourselves—a world system of finance which has two dominant characteristics, the presence of the judentum and the bourgeoisie.

In order to reach and achieve this final stage, which in their hallucination they even call the end of history, one genocide remains. Yet this last phase, which we can call this present attrition, and which will become a policing and an enslaving of a people, will not be for their race or their class, but their religion. The atheist-humanist society, armed with its weapons of mass destruction and an immeasurable technological power, has decided openly to declare war on Islam.

Given the dialectical thinking of the humanists and in accord with how they conducted themselves in the last century, before wiping us out they have to characterise us, the Muslims, in such a form that their humanist masses will confirm the detached and necessary diagnosis which insists on our removal. The instrument, the chosen instrument for the delineation of the Muslim as an unacceptable rogue factor in a society whose fundamental principle is the denial of Divine worship, is to define the Muslims as being doctrinally committed to acts of terror and irrational, suicidal violence. It is against this background that we are forced to examine the emergence of a suicide culture spreading from the Middle East, and the legislative attacks by the so-called democracies on the education and social modalities of Muslim communities. It must be borne in mind that in the nation-state system, Islam has already been pre-defined as an alien and suspicious phenomenon. This leaves us with two social dynamics that we must now deal with as a Muslim World Community. Firstly, the mechanism and function of the terrorist programme, purportedly from us to them. Secondly, the state frameworking, imposition, and societal enslavement by the atheists on Muslim civic practice.

The term ‘terrorism’ has been adopted by the Freemasons and placed at the heart of their political discourse. That discourse, it is to be remembered, is not a dialogue but a monologue. There is no debate. Media are not only handed the analytical viewpoint, but also the vocabulary they have to use. To hide the genocide of the Muslims, at its inception in Bosnia, it had to be re-named ‘ethnic cleansing’. At the time, in Geneva, with Dr. Izetbegovic, we began to hear the term, which he and his team violently opposed. Dr. Izetbegovic said to me, “This is to make it easier for them to kill us!” In every report out of Iraq, all the terrorist incidents are defined as coming from within “The Sunni Triangle”. Now there is no Sunni Triangle in Iraq, for the simple reason that there is no Sunni Islam, apart from some hundreds of heroic Muslims who have managed to lie low and hide their Deen. The regime in Iraq was authored by Michel Aflaq, a Lebanese christian socialist. His aim was a party that would situate the Middle Eastern states in a modern democratic and secular pattern. Up until the first Gulf War the Iraqi dictator received an annual telegram of congratulations from the Pope. The Catholic Church saw the Baath party as the means for the de-Islamicisation of Iraq and thus the Middle East. On taking power, his first action was the elimination of all the renowned and quite famous Sunni Muslim scholars. The dictator’s persecution of the Shi‘a did not begin until the Shi‘a Islamic revolution in Iran. Under the regime only two groups could gain promotion among the technocratic elite, christians and atheists. The people now engaged in terror in Iraq are these christians and atheists who have lost their place. Their call for a Sunni-Shi‘a war is simply a continuation of the atheist programme of the prior regime, and we must never forget that that regime was the gift of the Western power system to the Arabs.

Within a much wider so-called secularisation programme which had been practised by the European and then American states, that more inclusive analysis of these matters forces us to step back and study the structures set up by the Freemasons in a post-Osmanli Dawlet world. Such a wider perspective would then date the beginning of the genocide of the Muslims from the clear demographic records that show the genocide of six million Muslims in the break-up of the Bulgarian, Macedonian and Greek provinces of the Osmanli Dawlet.

So it is that to understand the present situation of our Muslim world community it is important to recognise that there has been an unremitting cycle of genocidal programmes perpetrated by the atheist humanists, often performed under the banner of the christian cross. Any attempt to let these staggering facts surface has been met with outraged claims that we are creating religious conflict. As Justin McCarthy has said in his definitive book on the subject, ‘Death and Exile’, the subject of which is the genocide of Ottoman Muslims from 1821 to 1922:

“The Ottomans received little credit for their long and unique tradition of religious toleration. Ironically, they paid a heavy price for it. Foreigners used the excuse of protection of the Christian millets and Christian brotherhoods as pretexts for intervention in Ottoman internal affairs. Members of Christian millets drew upon this sense of religious separation to create an anti-Ottoman nationalism.”

In 1861 the historian George Finlay, writing of the Greek War of Independence which began in 1821, noted that before two months had passed, upward of 20,000 Muslim men, women and children were murdered without mercy or remorse. He observed that the christian population had attacked and murdered the Muslim population in every part of the peninsula.

“The towers and country homes of the Muslims were burned down, and their property was destroyed. [...] From the 26th March until Easter Sunday, which fell, in the year 1821, on the 22nd April, it is supposed that fifteen thousand Muslim souls perished in cold blood and that about three thousand farmhouses or Turkish dwellings were laid waste.”

The Greek Orthodox Archbishop Germanos gave the cry of the uprising: “Peace to the Christians! Death to the Muslims!” In Missolonghi most Muslims were murdered quickly, but Turkish women were taken as slaves of rich Greek families. The Muslims of Vrachroi were tortured to death. Jews were killed as readily as were Muslims. Entire Turkish populations of cities and towns were collected and marched out of town to convenient places, where they were slaughtered. Finlay goes on:

“In Tripolitza, for three days the miserable Muslim inhabitants were given over to the lust and cruelty of a mob of savages. Neither sex nor age was spared. Women and children were tortured before being put to death. So great was the slaughter that the Greek rebel Kolokotrones himself says that, when he entered the town, from the gate of the citadel his horse’s hoofs never touched the ground. His path of triumph was carpeted with corpses. At the end of two days, the wretched remnant of the Muslims were deliberately collected, to the number of some two thousand souls, of every age and sex, but principally women and children, were led out to a ravine in the neighbouring mountains, and there butchered like cattle.”

The distinguished contemporary historian Justin McCarthy states the theme of his important book, ‘Death and Exile’, a study of the ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821 to 1922:

“In each of the 19th- and 20th-century wars, Muslims were massacred and Muslims were forced from their homes. Millions of Muslims died and millions were exiled. [...] The compression of the Muslim Land and the expulsions were continuing historical events, presenting a continuing historical picture.”

A British investigator, Cullen, studying the situation of the Muslim refugees for the European Powers, at the Congress of Berlin stated: “I can come to no other conclusion but that the Russians are carrying out a fixed policy of exterminating the Muslim race.” From the Caucasus to Bulgaria, a systematic and devastating slaughter took place in the 1860s and 70s. On the mass murder in Bulgaria McCarthy writes:

“Examples of Bulgarian atrocities on Turks fill the diplomatic literature with graphic details of mass murders, rape, and pillage. After commenting on despoliation and nightly outrages in one village, one British representative commented, “Such cases as these are the rule, not the exception.” European observers (reporters from the Morning Post, the Times, and the Daily Telegraph) saw 120 Turkish bodies lying in the open in the village of Oklani (Lagahanli), where Turkish women had been locked up in houses, raped over a period of ten days, then burned alive. In some cases, Bulgarians were, in effect, taken into the Russian army, given uniforms and weapons, and used to persecute Turks.”

In British Foreign Office Report 195-1184, Calvert to Blunt, Philippopolis, 10 March 1878, it states:

“When the Russians took Philibe every Turkish house in the town was completely plundered—even to the doors and window frames. The mosques were turned into public latrines.”

In Consul-General Fawcett’s briefing to Layard, Constantinople, 9 July 1878, it reports the British representative Cullen as saying:

“The constant accounts I receive of Russian and Bulgarian cruelty were almost beyond anything I have ever heard of or seen in this dreadful war, although, as you know, I have seen much, and I can come to no other conclusion but that the Russians are carrying out a fixed policy of exterminating the Muslims.”

McCarthy’s demographic research, incontrovertible and chilling, presents the terrible statistics that indicate the deaths of millions of Muslim men, women and children, the destruction of their mosques and homes, their cattle, and their way of life. McCarthy himself admits,

“Statistics are inadequate indicators of horrifying loss. They can but outline the enormity of human suffering. [...] Nevertheless, the statistics must be seen to gauge the scope of Muslim losses.”

Scrupulously scientific, McCarthy has always taken the lowest demographic estimates, as he explains in detail. Here is the grizzly conclusion of what he considers the unarguable minimum statistic, although he recognises and insists that had the higher estimates been taken, the final figures of both mortality and migration would have increased by millions. So it is that the second half of the 20th century has seen the world endlessly bludgeoned with the admittedly shocking, but now recited by rote, statistic of six million murdered jews. Vast sums have been spent, forgivably humiliating and insulting the Germans, and unforgivably pummelling the rest of the world into guilt for this terrible crime, even the European families who died to rescue them. Yet until ‘Death and Exile’ was published in 1995, the death of five and a half million Muslims, in a statistic that takes us to 1922, had gone unrecorded. There is still no scientific summation of the immediate genocide that has taken place in the former Yugoslavia and the Albanian hinterland, let alone the continuing horror of Russian murder and rape in the Caucasus, watched over approvingly and silently by American and European Intelligence Services. The McCarthy book, which we strongly urge Muslim intellectuals to read, was published by the Darwin Press, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey (ISBN 0-87850-094-4).

Note: Most military mortality and some civilian mortality not included

Against this background, the massacre of Srebrenica can no longer be seen as an aberration of military command and UNO ineptitude, but simply the continuation of this policy. General Alagic, the great and courageous Bosnian leader, made it very clear to me during the significant time I spent with him in Istanbul and Granada that the sole cause of the US-intervention in Bosnia was the realisation that the Bosnian Muslim army was winning. In relation to the shameful Dayton Agreement I asked him one question: at the Dayton meetings, which signed the accord, how many of the Muslim military leaders attended the conference? General Alagic looked at his companions as the full implication of their reply sank in. Of course, not one military commander had a say in the so-called peace. Therefore, the resistant Muslims who had fought, died and seen their families massacred, had no voice in what was to follow. The result is an almost carbon copy of the politique McCarthy outlined in the earlier period—reduction of the Muslim population to minority status and placing them under a ruling council which could overrule those few decisions the Muslims were still able to make. Set over the Muslims of Bosnia to this day is a Gauleiter, the first of whom were jews, as is the case today in Iraq.

General Alagic published a book openly naming who the murderers of his people were. The book was confiscated and he was accused of fomenting ethnic division. Imagine that principle applied to all the Nazi-hunting holocaust industry that today comes out of Europe. The comic-opera War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague has miserably failed to arrest any of the principal criminals, let alone the known large numbers of murderers. Yet General Alagic was arrested and accused of war crimes. Before that, at home, the jewish Gauleiter even had him removed from office as Mayor of Sanski Most, where he had been democratically elected. Anyone for democracy? After imprisonment the trial collapsed, partly through lack of evidence and partly from a real fear that the Bosnian Muslims, now so tragically apathetic, had nevertheless had enough.

The full horror of the Bosnian War is not contained in the record of the Serbian atrocities. It must be understood that the occupying forces in the Balkans, and this quite dramatically also refers to Kosovo, are themselves an ongoing process of outrage against the Muslim population. My wife, with a group of Murabitun women, in Sarajevo to examine the safety of women in the post-war situation as well as the damage caused by the disruption of homes, the rape and torture, and the loss of children, was asked to examine one significant case among the many. I excerpt here from the official report:

REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
DISTRICT MILITARY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
SARAJEVO
NUMBER KTV-III 230/92
DISTRICT MILITARY COURT
Sarajevo

According to Article 5 of Regulation with legal force of District military prosecutor’s office (the Official Gazette of R B&H, no. 12/92), article 45, paragraph 2, item 2 of Criminal Proceedings Law, Article 157, paragraph 1 and Article 158, paragraph 1 of Criminal Proceedings Law in connection with Article 517 Criminal Proceedings Law taken as the Republic Law by Regulation with legal force for taking over of Criminal Proceedings Law (the Official Gazette of R B&H, no. 12/92), during direct war danger or state of war, I hereby submit:

DEMAND FOR LEGAL PROCESS

AGAINST: GENERAL MACKENZIE, commander of the UNO peacekeeping forces for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina based in Sarajevo.

During his stay in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as commander of a UNO peace force, he entered the territory controlled by the aggressor, i.e. Serbo-Chetnik forces, where there were concentration camps and prisons for the civil population, contrary to the Geneva Convention. As a commander he came to the women’s concentration camp at Sonja in Vogosca, managed by Vlaco Branislav, of the Serb army, and Chief Miro Vukovic, and stayed half an hour.

He arrived at the camp in a transport vehicle marked with UN insignia together with two escorts of the UN peacekeepers. He took four Muslim girls and drove them in this vehicle for the purpose of rape. These girls had been captured and brought to the women’s camp where they were forced into prostitution, where they were raped, and where they were exposed to other inhuman treatment. MacKenzie knew of the existence of the camp and that it denied protection of civil persons during wartime. He knew of the inhuman treatment in the camp contrary to international law. He went to the camp and took the girls, who had no possibility to defend themselves. Exploiting the situation of the mentioned girls, he abused them himself and raped them for the satisfaction of his physical lust. He too was in violation of international law, the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civil Persons during Wartime. So it is that he has perpetrated a war crime against the civil population, Article 142 of the Criminal Code of SFR of Yugoslavia, taken as Republic Law by Regulation with a legal force for taking Criminal Code of SFR of Yugoslavia (the Official Gazette of R B&H, no. 2/92).

Signed District Military Attorney
Bisic Mustafa

With all the evidence and the victims able to give evidence, it was an open-and-shut case of rape by a so-called peacekeeper. The NATO response to this event, the crime of Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, was simply to grant him immunity and ship him off to Canada.

It is now clear to all intelligent Muslims that the category of human rights is simply a way-station to elimination, not some path of higher justice. In the by-going it is hoped that Muslim women and feminist groups will identify the whereabouts of this criminal and bring his disgusting criminal record to the attention of his local community, and insist that this totalitarian immunity be lifted and that he still stand trial.

We have to recognise, however uncomfortable it is for us, the bitter truth that a systematic policy has been at work from 1821 up until the present, and that only now the success and dreadfulness of this scheme is reaching critical mass. The pivotal event of this organised programme, sporadic, varied in location, but always pursuing an identical policy, is nothing less than the collapse of Khalifate and the dismemberment of the Osmanli Dawlet. It is for this reason that one terrible chapter of this slaughter took place inside the Muslim heartland, in Turkey, where the probably Dönme dictator Mustafa Kemal set about an open programme of the abolition of the Deen of Islam. In fulfilment of the Dönme jewish-heretical sect’s programme to abolish the Khalifate, finish Islam as a world religion and place one of their people on the Khalifal throne, Kemal produced an almost unique crime, for Stalin also achieved it, in the abolition of the Osmanli language and written script, thus wiping out the whole intellectual history and consciousness of Osmanli culture. He closed the Sufi tekkes, and executed all the Sufi shaykhs. This was a policy to be assiduously practiced by the British-installed puppet king of Arabia shortly afterwards.

Today in Pakistan the policy continues. On instruction from the US the current Pakistani leader, who took power by a coup d’état, gratefully recognised by the EU and USA as legitimate, has ordered the closing of hundreds of Islamic madrasas, as well as imprisoning hundreds of ‘ulema whose only crime is teaching the Deen of Islam. This allows us to say that the militant policy against Islam has not diminished over the years but has rather increased. Inside Russia, from the Revolution up until the collapse of communism, the mass movement of Muslims from the Caucasus and Tataristan is well documented for our study. As the McCarthy research shows, mass movements of population are a parallel activity to mass deaths. Following the collapse of communism, this persecution in the great Stans of central Asia has scarcely ceased. In Uzbekistan, with a jewish president who changed his name to ‘Islam’, the primary, almost unique activity of the police is the persecution and torture of Muslims. In neighbouring communist China the wholesale genocide of the Uighurs continues on a daily basis, watched with supreme indifference by the soft-voiced, pacifistic Secretary-General of the UNO. These crimes are perpetrated in a political zone of silence and acceptance.

In 1963, on the Island of Cyprus there occurred what was to be NATO’s ‘dry-run’ for the Balkan genocide. At 2.10 am on Saturday, December 21, 1963, the planned extermination of the Muslims of Cyprus began. When the Greek General Ioannides deposed President Makarios, within the struggle for control by these two Greeks of the island of Cyprus, a military plan documented and prepared by the Greek Cypriot National Guard, was in the following weeks set in motion. It was a plan to wipe out the entire Turkish population of the island. Every village and every enclave of Muslims was to be wiped out. Most disturbing of all was that the plan required the Greek Cypriot civilian population to be organised and brainwashed into joining the slaughter. So it was that from 1963 to 1974, the persecution and murder of Muslim men, women and children took place against the background of the Greek-instigated uprising to give Cyprus union with Greece. So it was that the Greek coup d’état in Cyprus did not intend a simple union with Greece, but a Final Solution for the Muslim presence on the island. The plan was code-named Iphestos (Volcano) 1974 and was defined as an SEA (Internal Security) operation. It did not involve Turkey in any manner, it was an internal affair. The Greek Cypriots would kill, and the Turkish Cypriots would die.

Commander Haralambos Hios of the National Guard had sent his orders to the following units: the 256th and 276th Infantry Battalions, the 222nd, 261st, 306th, 316th, 321st, 366th and 391st Reserve Battalions, the 183rd Field Artillery Battalion, the 173rd and 190th Anti-Tank Artillery Battalions, the 47th Communications Company, and other reserve forces. These in turn passed on their instructions to the units under their command, giving the names of the Turkish areas to be “cleansed.”

Right from the start, the genocide operation was shown to be a joint one with the Military High Command in Athens, itself, let it not be forgotten, an obedient member of NATO. The Orders began: “This initiative to begin the operations is undertaken by the General Staff of the National Guard (GEEF) with the approval of the Cyprus Government and the Headquarters of the AED (Greek mainland Armed Forces).”

In 1974 the Cyprus Government was all-Greek, and was therefore illegal under the terms of the 1960 Constitution. Illegal or not, it was the recognised government of the island. So this government, recognised by the UNO and NATO, had given its approval to the genocide of a fifth of its people.

Tim Sebastian in the Mail on Sunday on February 25, 1996, reporting on the disturbing fact that the war crimes of Bosnia were being ignored, said that a United States Official told him: “At all costs the Western nations had to stay away from the word genocide—the G-word—so they called it ethnic cleansing instead. You could not say genocide because that would have required them to act under the UN Charter. They would have had to do something to prevent it. Genocide was the whole reason the UN was set up in the first place.” The most complete documentation of the planned and partly executed attempt to wipe out the Muslim population of Cyprus is to be found in ‘The Genocide Files’ by Harry Scott Gibbons, Charles Bravos, Publishers, London (ISBN 0-9514464-2 8).

Now that we have established an unarguable continuity of the application and practice of systematic genocide on the Muslims, set against the two cataclysmic events of the dismantling of the Osmanli Dawlet, the only successful multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society in history, and the destruction of the Moghul Dawlet and the shameful murder by the British of its last Emperor and the obscene and perverted assassination of his sons in front of a British regiment, it becomes possible at last to read the true meaning of this strange engine, the War Against Terror. In the light of history as we now see it, the partition of India can be seen as a half-successful attempt to be done with Islam in the Sub continent once and for all. We have been placed in an intolerable situation. A dialectic has been set up by our enemies, forcing us to either the thesis, about to be destroyed, or the antithesis, about to supplant the former, resulting in a synthesis which will be nothing less than the abolition of the Deen of Islam. In other words, we stand between ‘terrorism’ and ‘tolerance’, a scenario in which we end up with Islam reduced to an interior private religion with its own holidays and forms of worship, only aesthetically different from the christians, the buddhists and the judaeists, for they are all in the washing machine. At present we only have the media version of the terror. The temptation is, for intelligent Muslims do not buy it, to take recourse to conspiracy theory. This again is another of the technical procedures. Once we imply a conspiracy, we can be dismissed under a psychiatric category. This is why, however uncomfortable it may be for us, we must look at this matter of terrorism detachedly. We must cast a cold eye on this programmatic call to a war on terrorism.

The official version is that an organised body of radical, fundamentalist Muslims, which later were openly identified as being wahhabi, had moved onto a war-footing, yet they were not an entity that could be defined as a civic community, that is men, women and children, whose military wing had moved onto that state of war. The stage had been set for the Age of Terrorism by the phenomenon of Bin Laden and his activities in Sudan and then Afghanistan. It follows from this that from the very beginning of this affair there is ambiguity. Everyone knows that Bin Laden was a trained CIA operative in Afghanistan. Everyone knows that he is from a wealthy Saudi regime family close to the self-styled royalty. Everyone knows that the Sudanese government expelled Bin Laden, and prior to that offered him to the US, who refused him. A Figaro correspondent recorded a local CIA operative emerging from Bin Laden’s room in an Emirates hospital. This strange yet public record becomes confused on his return to Afghanistan. At this stage a low-level military grouping of Afghan and Pakistani fighters, called Taliban, emerged. Again, what is known and publicly acknowledged is that the Taliban were the creation of the Pakistani intelligence service and army. This means, of course, that Musharraf was an active partner. It was at this stage that an array of different strands of Islamic doctrine can be found represented in the converging forces around the Taliban. These forces have two deviational elements, while indisputably Islamic nevertheless. On the one hand there is the movement of conservative ‘ulema of the School of Deoband. Not all Muslims today are aware that the Deobandi, and the Berelvi, are two Islamic groupings which formed in villages outside Delhi following the collapse of the Moghul ‘Amr which resulted in their fleeing the capital to these two villages. So it was that the Deobandi ‘ulema, step by step, abandoned the correct Deen as laid down by Sultan Aurangzeb and defined in his great compilation Futawa al-Amghiri, and began to construct a fiqh without ‘Amr, leaving it dis-empowered but yearning for power, while the Berelvi ‘ulema retreated from a transfer of political power to the elevation of a spiritual power derived from dead Awliya. It could be said, now looking back, that the Deobandi would fall for the modernist deviation, disastrously married to wahhabism. The lethal and heady mix of a wahhabism that sometimes openly declared its enmity to the Rasul, may Allah bless him and give him peace, and so was a kind of militant anti-Islam, fused with the reformist zeal that echoed the wahhabism but also vibrated in sympathy to its cruel puritanism. It was the modernism which abandoned the strict rules of Jihad and somehow made it possible to murder Muslim civilians along with a targeted enemy.

Before going further, a word must be said about Mullah Omar. He was a self-declared Amir al-Muminin. He made no overt attempt to unify the Muslims. He took no bayats in a public way. He received almost no delegations. The punishments he meted out in Afghanistan went from the exaggerated to the indefensible. He neither called to Islam nor collected Zakat. When the outcome of his policies clearly implied the destruction of Afghanistan, a majority of Afghan ‘ulema called for his expulsion.

To shed some light on this tenebrous period it should be mentioned that the Taliban were invited to send a delegation to the 7th International Fiqh Conference in Pretoria on 29 and 30 September 2000. The Muslims wanted to hear for themselves what their position was. A delegation of three came, one from their Foreign Ministry, a translator, and a member of Pakistani Intelligence. They floated the argument that they could not expel Bin Laden as he was a guest. When it was pointed out that one could not defend a guest who would bring about the destruction of one’s country, they dropped this issue. I personally warned them that if they kept this man, their country would be invaded and destroyed. I even proposed that if he was so bent on what he claimed, it would be better to return him to Arabistan. The only deduction that could be drawn from these meetings was that in some way the lock-in between Mullah Omar and Bin Laden was out of reach even of the Afghans themselves. As that situation developed, the complexifications set in. What we now had was an apparent Amir and an apparent guerrilla leader. It also seemed that the Amir was financially dependent on Bin Laden. At a certain point that I have not identified, the trained paramilitaries in the Himalayas were given the name of Al Qaeda. All the names of this leadership have emerged in the US state department releases following the iconic event of the destruction of the twin towers.

The first shock to everyone, including the Muslims, was that the group destroying the towers were almost entirely from the Arabistan under Saudi control. At this point we have to grasp the strange ambiguity with which the media have examined the phenomenon of Al-Qaeda / Islamic Terrorist Networks. At this stage, onto the scene emerged a most disreputable and ill-informed group, the media’s cluster of terrorist specialists and experts, with a jargon mixing curiously the State Department vocabulary and the sociological language of second-class universities. They hold forth on a daily basis on the major TV networks, apparently knowing more about the inner workings of the world Muslim communities, and indeed the Deen itself, than all of us put together. In what has followed they have been both led and they have led, puffing, fomenting and spreading an ethos of apparent anti-terrorist discourse, which is a quite unveiled anti-Islamic policy. Before asking the crucial strategic question we have to recognise a very strange fact, and all who read this will confirm the truth of this matter. Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, the names of the dead terrorists, the Wanted List—with the exception of Bin Laden, none of us has ever heard of them, or experienced them in Islamic circles anywhere in the world. While we are two billion, the truth is that our leadership in the different nations is known in detail and in general. We know all the groups, we know all the Islamic leaders, we know the right-guided Sufis, and we know the deviant Sufis like the Nazimis, we know the Ikhwan, we know the modernists, the Jamaat al-Islamiyya, we even know the Deen-destroying Tablighi. In short, we know each other, and with our gullibility, which is a virtue, and our acquiescence, which is a vice, we saw it all stretched out before us. Yet with the advent of these individuals and this near-mythical projection of an organisation which seems to follow the scientific description of Nuclear physics in which the atom can be either perceived as particles or as waves, but never the two at the same time, we are offered an Al-Qaeda that has a central network or else has a web of autonomous cells.

Since the first dreadful event it has to be noted that really nothing has happened. After the New York event it has only been possible to register a diminishing wave of terrorist acts, with the exception of the bombing in Bali. On that matter I must record that I have been assured by Indonesian political leaders that whoever did it, it was not perpetrated by Indonesians. On the same note, the Chechen Sufic leaders, who know the moves of the wahhabi activists, that is those who undid the Sufic victory of the first Chechen War, are categoric that the Chechens did not bomb the Moscow underground, and that it was the work of the current version of the KGB, which is, let it not be forgotten, the present power system in Russia. All the experts are left to point at is this unfortunate British shoe-bomber, who appeared to be a mental deficient. In sustaining the increasingly imaginary threat of a future terrorist event, it has been necessary to ratchet up public anxiety through the suspension of flights to the US, ironically, only one of which involved an American plane!

This brings us to a further dimension of the ‘War on Terror’. Inside America, apart from the loss of life and the grief of the families of the WTC destruction, and do remember that it is a much lower statistic than that of the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the real result of the terrorist attack has been an astonishing legislation which has basically wiped out two hundred years of the much-vaunted civic freedom and open society rules which have governed the USA. It has also introduced and instituted an ongoing secret and civic police persecution of the growing millions of Muslims in the USA. It should not be forgotten that Islam is the dominant religion of the black community and the prison community, also it is a growing religion among the Hispanic community. It is for this reason also that there is no way in which we can wisely predicate that we have a war against the USA or the EU, for in the latter Islam is now the dominant religion.

We now come to the crucial strategic question. Following the rules of our fiqh, having identified what the issue is, we then have to ask a question which is like a lever that lifts the matter and points it in a particular direction that will lead to resolution of the affair. The question we must now ask is—who stands to gain by the act of terrorism?

This was the question Dostoevsky asked faced with the terrorism of the nihilists opposing the Tsar’s regime. The answer he came up with was one reality folded into another. Those interested in the classical view of terrorism can refer to his masterpiece on the subject, ‘Demons’, in the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation, published by Vintage in 1994. Nothing in the present situation forms a dépassement of his classical analysis, which is that the terrorists are a mixed bunch of social misfits and outcasts, adhering to a philosophy of nihilism. For this reason, neither the lives of their victims or themselves really matter, and the only transcendence is in the nihilistic act of annihilation. This truth in turn is enfolded in the greater reality, which is that the nihilism does not belong to a force of social change and transformation, but rather is itself spawned by, needed by, and guaranteeing the survival of, the tyrant state. So he saw that the Tsarist regime and the apparent anti-force of the nihilists were in fact one shared reality with no hope of a future. It was assured mutual destruction. Both the politicos of the official power system of the USA, from the helpless smirking figure of their un-reconstructed alcoholic president to his back-room cohorts of high finance, industry and investment, crouched around him in sinister fashion as if they had been chosen by some viciously anti-Semitic casting agency—as well as the shadowy figures of this world terrorism, which on closer examination is an equally dubious, equally ill-informed group, the detritus of an embittered and impoverished Arab world which has utterly turned its back on Islam, and has been denied entrance to the glorious club of consumerist kufr—both these groups represent one political reality which is the last phase of humanism, that humanism whose specialty is the genocide of one section of its people, that humanism which is atheist, anti-women and pro-usury.

So it is, that we find ourselves in a situation in which the Freemasons have openly declared war on Islam. At the moment their most powerful weapon, like a stealth bomber flies below the radar-shield, it swoops on us below the shield of reason and intelligence. They call it terrorism. The Freemasons have all the technology, all the weapons, and a subservient coalition of the armies of indebted countries. It follows from this that while they have a mastery of technical power, our victory cannot come either by military means or by false money. It will be recalled that Rasul, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, accepted the entry of a criminal into Islam, but made it clear that he could not let him come with the haram money he had gained. Everything that the deviant Isma‘ili terrorists have achieved has in fact been purchased with US dollars.

We must take a path that goes beyond ‘terror’ and ‘tolerance’. We must reject this dialectic that forces us to that synthesis which reduces us simply to enter the one great shopping mall and be fellow consumers with the Freemasons.

Once we have grasped this situation as I have outlined it here, then, and only then are we ready to look to the future and seek the guidance that will take us to success. We will continue to this next phase, its concerns, its instruments, its obligations and its limits.

S.A.S