Independent Views
Islam vs. Democracy (II)
compiled and edited by

Democracy for Sale
Jul 26, 2003

In the first part of this series it was argued that Democracy was a mere mask disguising the real nature of the West’s political order and the evil it commits around the world.

Democracy however, is presented to the world as the best system evolved for the governance of human affairs. It is proclaimed as thoroughly modern, whilst everything else, particularly Islam, is presented as backward and a relic of the past. These days the US led crusaders are backing military action to install democracy around the world. Democracy we are told is universal and represents the zenith of human progress. Unfortunately many Muslims have been fooled by this mask of democracy; 500 of them gathered recently in the United States to create compatibility between Islam and democracy.

There are some fundamental flaws with the arguments for democracy put forward by the West. These are reflected in even the most recent thinking of their ideologues. The draft European Constitution (marking the creation of a secular Caliphate as a rival to the other One World Government established by the United States; (in reality of the same family – the Judeo Christian West) states: -

“Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but in the hands of the people”.

“Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilizations; that its inhabitants arriving in successive waves since the first ages of mankind, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, respect of reason,

Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, which nourished first by the civilizations of Greece and Rome, characterized by spiritual impulse always present in its heritage and later by the philosophical currents of the enlightenment, has embedded within the life of society its perception of the central role of the human person and his inviolable and inalienable rights, and of respect for law.“ (The European Convention 28 May 2003, draft preamble)

The idea that democracy is modern and Islam backward is incorrect. In fact democracy, as the draft constitution admits is the product of the Greek and Roman Empires, which predate Islam. The empires of Rome and Greek crumbled in the face of the superior political system of Islam. It was, Islamic civilization that carried the banner of human progress and development to unprecedented levels. It was Islam that took science to heights from which Europe benefited and developed.

The second false argument is the idea that progress in Europe leapt from the Greeks and Romans to the enlightenment. This convenient jump of history misses out some 800 years of Islamic rule in Spain, which profoundly influenced human and scientific advance in Europe.

A third argument often put forward is the idea that democracy is universal, i.e. applicable in all places and cultures. The reality has been that stable democratic political systems have been confined to Western Europe. Democracy has failed to take root in South or Latin America, in Eastern Europe, in Russia and the former Soviet Union, in Africa, in the Arab world or in Asia (hence the importance of India to the West). The rise of Western Europe as a civilization has little to do with democracy, and a great deal to do with military colonialism, imperialism, and in particular the decline of Muslim power and the looting of its wealth.

Nor has democracy produced a global advance in the human condition. Outside of its own borders the West has been little more than a killer civilization, leaving the bulk of humanity in a pitiful state.

Another argument put forward by both the West and some Muslims that promote democracy, is that religion is incompatible with scientific advance and learning. Whilst this was certainly the case in Christian Europe, it cannot be applied to Islam. Under Muslim rule, religious scholars and society, produced the greatest advances in learning and scientific/human progress in Europe.

There is a further myth, which needs exposing about democracy. It is stated in the European convention; the notion that in a democracy, power is in the hands of the people and not a minority. Democracies are supposed to be less corrupt, less nepotistic, more transparent, and act in the interests of the people ( as opposed to dictatorships or totalitarian style governments). The reality is that in democracy, corruption is much more sophisticated and less visible. Voting, Parliaments and Congresses are mere theatres designed to fool the masses into believing they have some say in the great decisions of the day.

Real power in democracies has always rested with powerful elites, organised groups and interests. Most decisions affecting the people are taken behind closed doors, where influential and unaccountable individuals, groups and interests decide policy - and even whether to go to war or not.

Increasingly this reality has dawned on people in western democracies. The electorates have all but given up on voting in the West. They have come to realise that their vote merely legitimises decision makers who more often than not, act according to someone else’s interests. They have a better understanding of western politics, than Muslims of immigrant origin in the West, who naively believe their vote, can make a difference, when the votes of the masses don’t.

These days in Western democracies, it is the total opposite of how it is meant to be. Powerful interests rule. In particular vested interests such as transnational corporations, international banks, the organization of Zionist interests etc. have effectively killed the notion of democracy. Decision making in democracies has been shifted to new levels and structures, which are operating as World Government led by the US. Parliaments and people have little influence. With the creation of the European Super State decision-making is being further reduced to a small unaccountable elite of beaurocrats and politicians who can be bought and sold by powerful interests.

Elected politicians and political parties are now slaves to this new world order. These powerful interests control political parties and politicians with their wealth.

Time does not permit a detailed examination of the corporate, religious and Zionist interests that have effectively hijacked the United States Government for themselves. Much of this has now been exposed. Those wishing to examine the state of “democracy” in the US simply need to read books like “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” by Greg Palast, and “Stupid White Men” by Michael Moore amongst others. Or simply browse the internet to examine the pitiful state of democracy in the US.

My concern here is with Britain, and the reason why the British Prime Minister has been so loyal to the United States led Crusade? A number of British politicians now realise that power in Britain is even beyond the reach of those who are elected by the people. George Galloway’s recent suspension from the Labour Party on account of his comments and alleged dealings with the regime of Saddam Hussein is hypocrisy. By having contact with the Iraqi regime, and supporting the Arab world he was doing little more than what other MP’s do. - particularly in relation to Israel.

The Labour movement and Labour Party have a long history of support for Zionism and Israel. [1] A party claiming itself as committed to anti-racism, anti-colonialism, equality and secularism, endorses the total opposite when it comes to Israel. Labour has been the natural home for supporters of Israel. Some Labour MP’s or their children have spent time working on Israeli Kibbutz. There are MP’s who are Labour Friends of Israel. They regularly have expenses paid trips to Israel, particularly early on in their careers. They use Parliament and politics to serve the interests of Israel and push for policies that benefit it. Some like Andrew Dismore spend much time trying to prosecute those Muslims who are anti-Israel. The last two British Home secretaries both of Jewish ancestry, Michael Howard and Jack Straw have worked closely with the Jewish Board of Deputies to introduce the current anti-Muslim Terrorism Acts mainly in the interests of the Israeli State and in preparation for “the war on terror”.

With many British MP’s and even the Prime Minister himself acting in the interests of Israel, it is remarkable that politicians and commentators, accuse Muslims of being disloyal, and if Muslims support their brethren overseas we are told to go back home. If there are dual loyalists, they are those British politicians and journalists who will do anything for the service of Israel. If they love Israel so much why don’t they go and live there? These loyalties are often disguised as in the case of Robert Maxwell former Labour MP, media mogul and Labour Party donor, who robbed pensioners to pay his corporate debts. When he died he was buried on the Mount of Olives in Israel the highest recognition for a Jew.[2]

These realities are now beginning to dawn on British MP’s and the Labour Party. Tom Dalyell’s recent attack on Tony Blair as being overly influenced by Jewish advisors, although relevant misses the point. The Labour Party especially through the current British Prime Minster has effectively become an instrument of Israeli State policy. But this did not happen through having some Jewish advisors. It is not a question of one’s race, it is a question of an organised effort by those Jews and non-Jews who are acting in the service of the State of Israel, either out of loyalty, conviction, money, or fear of damage to reputation and political career.

The British Prime Minister’s relationship with supporters of Israel has had a profound impact on current policy. When Blair became an MP he joined Labour Friends of Israel, a front organisation for Zionism established in the early part of the last century within the Labour Party. His political career has been carefully supported by the pro-Israeli lobby. In 1994 as Shadow Home Secretary, Blair and his wife Cherie went on a trip to Israel at the Israeli Government’s expense. It was after this that Gideon Meir of the Israeli Embassy in London introduced Blair to Michael Levy a retired Jewish businessman and fundraiser for Jewish charities. Levy was apparently impressed by Blair’s “drive” and “religious commitment”(read support for Israel). [3] From then on Levy was to become a key figure in the labour leaders political ambitions. Levy helped raise finance not just for the Labour Party but also for Tony Blair’s private office through a blind trust. Estimates of how much was raised to date vary from £7m to £40M. This coupled with the funding from other Jewish financiers of the Labour Party enabled Blair to have an independent private office through which he could now appoint unelected and unaccountable officers such as Alistair Campbell and Jonathan Powell.[4] Lord Levy’s reward was to become Blair’s unelected personal envoy to the Middle East (a total conflict of interest given his links with Israel).

With these sources of funding, Blair and the Labour Party had become totally independent of the Unions and their contributions. With the funding of his private office Blair the leader was even less dependent on his party and MP’s for their support. The Labour Party like political parties in the US was now becoming an instrument of support for Israel.

But support for Blair came from another crucial supporter of Israel in the media. Rupert Murdoch although not Jewish is an avid supporter of Israel (and friend of Ariel Sharon). He is owner of numerous media outlets including News Corporation, which owns the Sun, Times, Sunday Times, Sky and News of the World. [5] The usually Conservative Sun newspaper’s support for Blair at the last election is seen as crucial to Labour’s election victory.

So the stark reality is that in two of the oldest democracies in the world, it is the interests of minorities that rule and not the people. Both have become ruled by unaccountable Junta’s not too dissimilar to dictatorships.

So when everyone is baffled as to why Tony Blair supported the war in Iraq, when the majority of his electorate and the Labour Party were against it and why intelligence was concocted to support the case. The answer is quite simple “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. It was time for payback to the supporters of Israel for an occupation that the US and they wanted. He did it for Israel - and God!

Now there are some Muslims and non-Muslims who wish to emulate the Israeli lobby in supporting the Muslim world and its causes. The irony is that when they do this, these same politicians who will accept money from almost anywhere, suddenly become all moral (witness the return of funds from Arab donors by Hilary Clinton and ex Mayor Rudolph Guliani in the US, and the treatment of George Galloway in the UK). So the message to Muslims is simple, don’t waste your money. And those shouting Vote and Lobby, Vote, Lobby need to develop a better understanding of Western democratic politics and what Islam requires from them.


[1] Details of this intimate relationship can be found in “Publish it Not- the Middle East Cover Up” by

Christopher Mayhew and Michael Adam pages 27-248. Extracts are available from CMA.

[2] Details of how Maxwell used his position throughout his life for the service of Israel is now published in “The Assassination of Robert Maxwell- Israel’s Superspy” by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon..

[3] See “The Rise of New Labour” by Robin Ramsay published by Pocket Essentials. Especially chapter “New Friends –The Israeli Connection”.

[4] Jewish financiers of the Labour Party are highlighted in articles in the Sunday Times dated 17/11/1998 and 25/6/2000. Also a website dedicated to New labours friends and their links to each other is an excellent reference –

[5] See in which Murdoch says “I have always believed in the future of Israel and the goals of the international Jewish community”.


A profile of Conrad Black another Zionist media mogul and owner of the Daily telegraph can be found on






The article is adapted from  This is the second part in a series of articles written to advance an understanding of Democracy from an Independent Islamic Perspective.

Jahangir Mohammed is a director of  the Centre for Muslim Affairs,  United Kingdom.



All views expressed in this segment of our site are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily represent those of Laman Tarbawi/the webmaster.