Damning New Report on ‘Trojan Horse’ Scandal Released

Tahir Alam, a central figure in the takeover bid

Tahir Alam, a central figure in the takeover bid

Clarion Project:

A report into the so-called ‘Trojan Horse Plot’ has been released by the British Government. It details the findings of Peter Clarke (CVO, OBE, QPM) who was appointed by the government to investigate allegations of an ‘Islamist Plot’ to takeover certain schools in Birmingham.

The report found overwhelming evidence that a small group of individuals have been systematically taking over state run schools in Birmingham, forcing out non-compliant and non-Muslim staff and forcing radical Islamist values into the education system.

The report outlined three major effects on the children at these schools:

1.     Children at these schools are learning to be intolerant of difference and diversity.

2.     Children at these schools are having their horizons narrowed rather than broadened.

3.     Children at these schools are being encouraged to accept unquestioningly a hardline version of Sunni Islamism. This will leave them vulnerable to radicalization later on.

It concluded:

There has been co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action, carried out by a number of associated individuals, to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos into a few schools in Birmingham. This has been achieved by gaining influence on the governing bodies, installing sympathetic headteachers or senior members of staff, appointing like-minded people to key positions, and seeking to remove headteachers they do not feel to be sufficiently compliant. Some of these individuals are named in this report; most are not. Whether their motivation reflects a political agenda, a deeply held religious conviction, personal gain or a desire to influence communities, the effect has been to limit the life chances of the young people in their care and to render them more vulnerable to pernicious influences in the future.

Read more at Clarion Project

Also see:

UK Bans Pro-Jihad Islamist Groups

"All my brothers living in the west, I know how you feel. When I used to live there, in the heart you feel depressed. The cure for the depression is jihad." — British jihadist Abdul Raqib Amin (aka Abu Bara al-Hindi)

“All my brothers living in the west, I know how you feel. When I used to live there, in the heart you feel depressed. The cure for the depression is jihad.” — British jihadist Abdul Raqib Amin (aka Abu Bara al-Hindi)

by Soeren Kern:

“I believe that adulterers should be stoned to death. I believe that we should cut the hands off of thieves. I believe the Sharia should be implemented in Denmark. Maybe we should change the Christiansborg Palace [the Danish Parliament building] to Muslimsborg to have the flag of Islam flying over the parliament in Denmark. I think this would be very nice.” — Anjem Choudary, while in Denmark to establish Islam4dk in June 2014.

“[Choudary's network] has now been proscribed as a terrorist organization operating under 11 different names, but neither he nor any one of his associates has so far been prosecuted for membership of an illegal group.” — Times of London.

“The cure for depression is jihad.” — Abdul Raqib Amin (aka Abu Bara al-Hindi), Scottish jihadist.

The British government has banned three groups linked to Anjem Choudary, a Muslim hate preacher who wants to turn the United Kingdom into an Islamic state.

The move comes after the groups were found to have organized jihadist recruitment meetings in which two Muslim youths from Cardiff were persuaded to fight with Islamic insurgents in Syria.

The Home Office said on June 26 that the groups Need4Khilafah, The Shariah Project and The Islamic Dawah Association are all aliases of al-Muhajiroun, a Salafi-Wahhabi extremist group that was banned in 2006 but has continued to operate ever since then by using different names.

Al-Muhajiroun (Arabic for “The Emigrants”) has also operated under a host of other names, including al-Ghurabaa (Arabic for “The Strangers”), The Saved Sect (aka The Savior Sect), Muslims Against Crusades, Muslim Prisoners, Islamic Path, Islam4UK, Women4Sharia and Islamic Emergency Defence, which is still operational.

Al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect were both banned in July 2006, after they organized a march through downtown London to protest the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed. Demonstrators linked to the groups waved placards reading, “Butcher those who mock Islam,” “Kill those who insult Islam,” and “Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way.”

Islam4UK was banned in January 2010. At the time, the group described itself as having been “established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law” to “convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favor of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia [in Britain].”

Muslims Against Crusades was banned in November 2011, after the group launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates were to function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

All of the bans have been based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which states that a group can be proscribed if it “commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

Section 1.1 of the Act defines terrorism as the “use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public…for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

Announcing the latest ban, Britain’s Minister for Security and Immigration, James Brokenshire, said, “Terrorist organisations should not be allowed to escape proscription simply by acting under a different name.” He continued:

“That is why we have today laid an order which will, from tomorrow, recognize the Need4Khilafah, the Shariah Project and the Islamic Dawah Association as aliases of the group already proscribed as both al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect.

“The group is also known as al-Muhajiroun. This means being a member of or supporting the organization is a criminal offense.

“Al-Muhajiroun remains of significant concern to the UK and the international community, and this order will ensure that it cannot operate in the UK as Need4Khilafah, the Shariah Project and the Islamic Dawah Association.”

The latest ban—a conviction for membership of either group could result in a prison term of up to ten years or a £5,000 (€6,300; $8,500) fine—is unlikely to deter Choudary, who has repeatedly mocked the government’s efforts to prevent him from radicalizing British Muslims.

According to a report published by the Times of London on June 27, Choudary’s network “has now been proscribed as a terrorist organization operating under 11 different names, but neither he nor any one of his associates has so far been prosecuted for membership of an illegal group.”

Choudary, who lives and thrives thanks to the generosity of the British welfare state, responded to the ban by warning that he will never be silenced. He said:

“If they arrest me and put me in prison, I will carry on in prison. I’ll radicalize everyone in prison. My paradise and my hell are things which are beyond this reality. My paradise is in my heart. If they put me in prison I’ll carry on there. If they kill me I will die a martyr.

“There is nothing, really, they can do which could dampen my hopes and aspirations. I will carry on being a servant of [Allah] for the rest of my life, inshallah [if Allah wills] — whatever they do they will face the consequences of their actions on the day of judgment.”

According to the Times, British police keep Choudary under close watch, but say he is a “difficult target” because he is “very familiar with the law,” (Choudary attended law school) especially on offenses relating to incitement.

Choudary has been promoting radical Islam since the 1990s, when he partnered with the Syrian-born cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad to found al-Muhajiroun. The group disbanded in 2004 but re-emerged under the name al-Ghurabaa until that was banned in 2006. It has since responded to proscription orders by constantly devising new names to keep the hydra-like network one step ahead of British authorities.

The latest ban came after it was discovered that Need4Khilafah and the Islamic Dawah Association organized meetings to recruit British Muslims to fight in Iraq and Syria.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Also see:

Four Ways to Fight Extremism in Britain

by Samuel Westrop:

If British politicians are serious about putting a stop to the misuse of charity for pro-terror purposes, lawmakers could propose legislation that removes the effective immunity of charitable trusts from liability when their trustees are found to have used funds for terrorist or other unlawful activities.

Two British Cabinet Ministers are “at war” over the growth of Islamist extremism in public institutions, The Timesreported this month.

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has blamed the Home Office, according to The Times, for the increasing influence of extremist groups, citing recent attempts by “hardline Islamists” to infiltrate British schools.

A source at the Department for Education stated that the failure to tackle extremism has resulted in schools being targeted by “a group of people who are ideologically Islamist” and “extreme without being violent.” Gove, The Times reported, believes that the Home Office displays a “reluctance…to confront extremism unless it develops into terrorism,” and that “a robust response is needed to ‘drain the swamp’.”

Gove has a point. While thousands of hours of Parliamentary debate and countless pieces of new legislation have introduced extraordinary powers for the government, the police and the security services to tackle acts of terrorism, little work has been done either to define “extremism” or curb its influence. Previous attempts to combat extremism have mostly entailed throwing taxpayers’ money at self-proclaimed “moderate” groups, some of which were later revealed to be run by Islamist agitators – as Prime Minister David Cameron acknowledged during his 2011 Munich speech.

Although “non-violent” Islamists play a central role in the radicalization of those who later become convicted terrorists, as repeatedly discussed, their influence over sections of the public sector is rarely challenged or even properly scrutinized.

The authorities’ attempts to battle terrorism are often framed as a struggle for balance between liberty and security. Similarly, politicians attempting to tackle the spread of extremist ideology understandably need to be mindful of threats to free speech. There is, however, legislation the government could easily introduce to promote accountability and curb extremist activity without compromising freedom of expression or other liberties.

1) Stopping Terror Subsidy

A considerable number of Islamist groups, such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas in Gaza, operate a system of da’wah [outreach, proselytizing; literally, a call to God] – providing various social services, such as education, healthcare and welfare payments, which are designed, as Stanford academic Eva Milgrom notes, “to reshape the political consciousness of educated youth.”

As counter-terrorism expert Matthew Levitt writes, the social infrastructure produced by da’wah activities “are crucial to Hamas’ terrorist activity: they provide cover for raising, laundering, and transferring funds, facilitate the group’s propaganda and recruitment efforts, provide employment to its operatives, and serve as a logistical support network for its terrorist operations.” [1]

By providing these social services, Islamist groups such as Hamas gain political and moral legitimacy among their constituents, which extends to the terror group’s patrons in the West.

Even if British charities do not provide money directly to Hamas’s terrorist activities, the contributions are fungible: they enable the release of funds, originally allocated for other services, instead to be used for terrorism. In turn, funding social programs in Gaza serves to legitimize and strengthen Hamas’s rule.

The problem is not limited just to terror groups in Gaza – groups which are offshoots of al-Qaeda are also instituting similar da’wah programs. In 2012, for instance, al-Qaeda terrorists in Mali provided various forms of welfare in areas under their control. “[Al Qaeda] and their affiliates, Ansar Dine (Defenders of the Faith) and the Movement for Jihad and Unity in West Africa,” The Times reported, “have subsidised state utilities, capped food prices and made welfare payments to the needy.”

Similarly, in 2014, reports revealed that British charity workers, praised by leading media outlets, were, in fact, building schools in Syria that bore the flag of the most extreme terror group in Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), now tearing through Iraq.

British lawmakers might look to a precedent set by a June 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in which the court asserted that the U.S. government has the right to “prohibit providing material support in the form of training, expert advice, personnel and services to foreign terrorist groups, even if the supporters meant to promote only the groups’ non-violent ends.” Elena Kagan, the lawyer who argued the U.S. government’s case and now a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, told the court: “Hezbollah builds bombs. Hezbollah also builds homes. What Congress decided was when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs.”

2) Removing the Immunity of Charitable Trusts

A number of commentators have noted how fundamentalists exploit organizations’ charitable status to promoteextremism and fund groups with ties to terrorism.

Interpal, for instance, a large British Islamic charity, supported by countless politicians, is, under U.S law, adesignated terrorist organization.

Interpal’s trustees openly work with senior leaders of the terrorist group, Hamas, and Interpal officials organize regular “convoys” to Gaza. The convoys, named “Miles of Smiles,” support many of the Hamas government’s welfare programs mentioned earlier. The convoys are financed by the Union of Good, a coalition of charities that works to obtain the financial support for Hamas’s political and terrorist activities.

 

Interpal trustee Essam Yusuf exchanges warm greetings with Hamas terror leader Ismail Haniyeh, in Gaza.

Victims of Hamas terror might well have sued Interpal if were there any actual chance of obtaining redress. It is impossible, however, for individuals to bring claims through the courts against charities such as Interpal because, like many other British charities, it is an unincorporated charitable trust. That is, under English law, it does not exist as a legal entity — it has no legal structure and therefore cannot be sued.

The only people who can face legal charges are a charity’s trustees, who are responsible for all actions attributed to the charity. These trustees, however, are not, under British law, actual employees of the charity; moreover, they rarely hold any assets in their own names, so there is little or no prospect of recovering any damages or legal costs.

If British politicians are serious about putting a stop to the misuse of charities for pro-terror purposes, they could propose legislation that removes the effective immunity of charitable trusts from liability when their trustees are found to have used funds for terrorist or other unlawful purposes. This could be achieved through a statutory provision that would provide the courts, once liability was determined, with the option of requiring a charitable trust to underwrite its trustees in order to pay claimants’ damages and costs in cases where there is evidence that the trustees were not acting independently of the charity. The trust would not be solely responsible, but would make up the deficit once the trustee’s assets had been recovered.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

The Land of Coup d’Etat

3349107683CSP, By Manda Zand Ervin:

Iraq is not a country that was made through history or by the unification of a group of peoples.

The facts are that the Middle East of today was mapped out and subdivided by the British intelligence office after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The subdivision was made on behalf of the Arabs who had proven loyal to the British Empire. Iraq was made of bits and pieces of the lands that the British could cut away to make a country for the Sunni Hashemite tribal leader Ibn Ghazi who became the first king of Iraq.

Kurdistan was a piece of Iran, as the Kurds, the ancient Medes of Iranian origin, had for thousands of years been occupied by the Ottoman Turks. The Sunni part was a section of ancient Syria and the eastern part was taken from embattled Iran as Iran’s western border was the Tigris River. All this subdivision was done for the benefit of the British Empire, disregarding the interests of the people that they threw into one border.

Iraq was created in November of 1920. It was under  British control until 1932, but as soon as it became independent the government of King Ghazi suffered an attempted coup d’ etat by one of his own military officers in 1933. The instability of the country brought about the reoccupation of Iraq by the British government in 1941 to secure their interests in the oil fields. The British ended the occupation at the request of the new king in 1947.

In 1958, another Sunni general, Abd Al Ghasem, carried out a bloody coup against the young King Faisal and took over as the president of the new Republic of Iraq but lost his life in a third coup carried out by the Baathist Hassan Al Bakr in 1968, who in turn lost his presidency and his head in 1979 to Saddam Hussein, a younger and more ruthless leader of the brutal sect of the Baath party.

Knowing the history of Iraq’s Sunnis and the coups after coups against their own during the 83 years of their rule, how can anyone, let alone Maliki, be blamed for purging the military of Sunnis and the influence of the Baath Party that continues to be a threat?

The Sunnis have been in charge of Iraq from its inception, with a wealth of oil and gas and a small population that should have had the best of everything. But they have been corrupt plunderers of the wealth in absolute dictatorships who have not even gotten along with each other, let alone with the Shias, Kurds, and or the United States.

The Baath Party founders were Pan Arabists seeking unification of Syria and Iraq. The goal is to establish the Arab Empire or Khalifat of Shaam — their name in Arabic, the Islamic government of Iraq and Shaam, the name of the region after the Islamic military took over the lands in the seventh century.

Iraqis are a mismatched nation and do not have the patriotism that a nation should have. The Kurds have been Kurds for thousands of years but Iraq has existed for only nine decades.

The Sunnis have more loyalty to their, tribes, religion, and Arabism than to a country that was created recently by the imperialists who forced them to live with people they don’t like. Unless they are the ruling power, they will refuse to cooperate.

The Shi’ites have the city of Najaf, the center of Shiaism and are connected to the Iranian Shia power. They will only die for their corner of the country and only when the Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who is Iranian, not Arab, issues the fatwa. The backing of the Iranian ruling clerics gives them enough confidence to stand on their own.

For centuries, the hierarchy of the Islamic world has been telling the people that Islam is where their loyalty should lie. Patriotism for the homeland among the Moslems, especially Arabs, is a sin. In the countries that the British intelligence created, there is no love of the homeland and therefore it is no surprise that the Iraqi soldiers fled from the scene.

It is unfortunate that the American foreign policy makers and media analysts have no knowledge of the history and culture of non-Western countries. Secretary Kerry should know the history of the land of the coup d’etat. He should know that there is no possibility of democratic coexistence in Iraq.

The responsibility for what is going on in Iraq can be traced directly back to the British government, not the United States.

Originally published at American Thinker

UK: “Culture of Fear” in Birmingham Schools

Oldknow Academy in Birmingham, England. (Image source: BBC video screenshot)

Oldknow Academy in Birmingham, England. (Image source: BBC video screenshot)

by Soeren Kern:

Sky News reported on June 3 that senior leaders at three schools in Birmingham alerted the government more than two decades ago about the rising influence of Muslim extremists in the school system, but that their concerns were dismissed because of political correctness.

Separately, the BBC reported on May 28 and June 2 that [there were similar warnings] in 2010 and 2008. But no action was taken in either case.

“Some staff told Her Majesty’s Inspectors that thy feel afraid to speak out against recent changes in the academy for fear of losing their jobs.” — Inspection report, Oldknow Academy.

British regulators have placed five Muslim-dominated public schools in the city of Birmingham under “special measures” after inspectors found that pupils there were being systematically exposed to radical Islamic propaganda.

Ofsted, the agency that regulates British schools, carried out emergency inspections of 21 primary and secondary public schools in Birmingham after a document surfaced in March 2014 that purported to outline a plot—dubbed Operation Trojan Horse—by Muslim fundamentalists to Islamize public schools in England and Wales.

The inspection reports, which Ofsted made public on June 9, show that Muslim hardliners are indeed seeking to run at least five public schools in Birmingham according to a “conservative Islamic perspective.” But the report does not cite evidence of an organized plot by extremists.

Ofsted inspectors found that one school was playing the Muslim call to prayer over loudspeakers in the playground, while another was found with books promoting stoning, lashing and execution. Yet another school had invited a Muslim hate preacher known for his support of militant Islam to speak to students.

In some schools, girls are actively being dissuaded from speaking to boys and from taking part in extra-curricular visits and activities. Boys and girls are also taught separately in religious education and personal development lessons.

The inspection report for the Nansen Primary School reveals that when teachers wanted pupils to take part in a nativity play, Muslim administrators “insisted on vetting a copy of the script for its suitability and told staff they must not use a doll as the baby Jesus.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

**********

Education Secretary Michael Gove says schoold should promote English values:

Published June 9, 2014 by Current news 01

 

Michael Coren on the Birmingham schools Islamic trojan horse plot:

Published June 10, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

How to Destroy a Country – Part Three

a rippled union flag background representing the united kingdomLiberty GB, June 10, 2014, by Paul Weston:

The following article is the final part of a three-part series outlining the background of the leftist assault on Britain and Western Civilisation. Part One can be viewed here, Part Two here.

Segregate the Generations

In the course of a political argument, an ancient lady was told by her grandson that she came from a different generation, to which she replied: “No, I come from a different civilisation.”

Quite so. There is little point in controlling the medium of Socialist education if the wisdom of the older ‘reactionary’ generations can still be passed down to the younger. In Africa, the tribal elders are respected and listened to, but in Britain those over a certain age are mocked at worst, or sidelined at best, because they come from a pre-revolutionary era. Those born after 1970 come from the post-revolutionary era, and never the twain shall meet. The educational and media establishments are run in the main by the young or the very young, all soaked in Marxist ideology, and their output is principally aimed only at the young. This is deliberately done in order to ensure the segregation of those who could present an alternative voice to their incessant and twisted Socialist propaganda.

Promote Conformity in the Guise of Individualism

Has there ever been such conformity amongst the youth of a democratic nation before? Most young people are politically correct. They have been reared to believe in themselves as individuals, and to hold their own self-esteem (their very high and often unearned self-esteem) as an intrinsic part of said individuality. But in reality they have been socially engineered into individuals who all believe the same thing. This is because the conformist herd is so much easier to control than the non-conformist individual, particularly so when the herd mentality just happens to be the ideology of the Socialist state. The heavily propagandised ideology shared by the vast majority of the young is not quite as compassionate as they think, however, because the stark reality of it guarantees their immediate cultural destruction, and their eventual racial destruction.

Create an Anarchic Youth

Remove the various traditions and taboos that bound previous societies together; deem discipline in schools to be an archaic bourgeois form of child abuse; promote the ideology of self before group and pleasure before duty; promote licentiousness through early-age sex education coupled with pornographic music videos à la MTV; downplay heterosexual marriage as one of many equally valid lifestyle choices; remove the taboo of illegitimacy and reward it through welfare payments; offer abortions to teenage girls without their parents’ knowledge; promote an ideology of “Me, me, me! Now, now, now!” above outmoded ideas such as sacrifice, thrift, duty, honour, morality, truth, decency and patriotism.

Destroy Competitiveness

This is dressed up with words like egalitarianism and equality, but what it really means is dragging everything down to the lowest common denominator, which is far easier than dragging people upwards. Grammar schools were ‘elitist’, and therefore had to be destroyed, even though the main beneficiaries were working class children. Competitive sport meant that for every winner there were several losers, so that too had to be sidelined in some state schools. But the rest of the world does not play by the same suicidal rules. China is already an economic superpower; how can we hope to compete when they worship elitism and strive for success, whilst we worship the lowest-common-denominator ideology of egalitarianism, and reward failure?

Destroy Self-Reliance

Building a dependent class is of great importance to left liberals. Firstly, the dependents will vote for the hand that feeds them the most, and secondly it enables the ruling elite to exercise control they could never dream of exercising over a non-dependent class. This explains why Britain’s public sector is favoured above the private sector by left liberals, and why the deliberate formation of a permanent state-dependent underclass seems to worry them so little. In 2008-9 the welfare payment bill was actually higher than the total P.A.Y.E. tax-receipts, however. And, quite astonishingly, there are more people registered as disabled (and claiming benefits) than were registered disabled immediately after World War One! This is obviously unsustainable, and confirms Alexander Tytler‘s view that democracies collapse when the money provided by the rulers in return for their vote eventually runs out, after which dictatorship inevitably follows. Tytler’s famous quote is as follows:

From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.

 

Destroy Democracy

Britain is no longer a truly democratic country. 80% of our new legislation is now enacted in Brussels at the behest of twenty-eight Commissioners whom we never elected and can never democratically remove from office. The British government is essentially just a puppet council, allowed to remain in place to reassure the gullible public that we still run our own affairs – which we don’t. In addition, the flooding of Britain by Third World immigrants was an undemocratic act. The electorate was never asked if we wished to transform Britain into a multi-ethnic, multicultural country. If we had been asked, we would have said “No!” And, just to rub salt into the wound, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for left liberal politicians – which, of course, is partially why they were imported in the first place.

The Labour Party’s introduction of postal voting also means our elections are now influenced by fraudulently obtained ballot papers not only in Britain’s large Muslim enclaves, but also – and this is completely surreal – via proxy votes in Pakistan and Bangladesh! In the 2010 British elections the Conservatives failed to win a majority by a very slim margin, leading Lady Warsi, a Conservative Muslim, to lay the blame squarely on Muslim electoral fraud. When British elections (such as they are, now the EU is the real power) are illegally influenced by Pakistanis in Mirpur, I think we can safely say our democracy is dead.

Introduce Mass Immigration

The white working class betrayed the hard Left when they failed to rise up in the much longed-for proletarian revolution, and they failed to rise up because they had become too affluent. The Marxist solution was to introduce a new, foreign-born ‘oppressed proletariat’ as a means to Socialism’s ongoing march toward total power. The number of Third World immigrants runs into the millions. This deliberate dilution of an indigenous people has never before happened on such a scale. If UN guidelines on genocide are taken quite literally, it amounts to the ethnic cleansing of the English.

White children are now a minority in London schools and in many schools within other British cities. Demographers predict the indigenous population will become a minority by around 2060, with the young suffering that fate even earlier. Feminist ideology has dramatically decreased the indigenous demographic whilst the Islamic population is doubling every decade through continued immigration and high birth rates. Islam is already a huge problem in Britain, yet, as their numbers grow, so will their demands on traditional Britain, which lives its life in a manner markedly different to life under sharia law – which surveys suggestsome 40% of British Muslims wish to see enacted.

Why do left liberals act as apologists for Islam? Hugh Fitzgerald puts it thus:

Nothing shows better the extreme hatred liberals have for Western Civilisation than their unashamed alliance with a movement (Islam) which is mortally opposed to liberalism’s sacred calves – women’s rights, gay rights, abortion and multiple cultures. Yet Islam and the liberal/ left are in harmony on the major issues. They are anti-Christian and anti-Jew, they are anti-democracy and anti-individual rights, they are anti-capitalist and they regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective. Consequently, they have the same common enemy – Western Civilisation.

 

Promote Racial Division

The successful integration of happy foreigners with a happy indigenous population is hardly going to foment revolution, hence the ideology of multiculturalism which intentionally divides races and cultures. Multiculturalism was designed to destroy any sense of national pride and patriotism amongst the indigenous population, whilst actively encouraging the same amongst the incoming races and cultures. It also encourages ethnic minorities to believe their lack of success is due to (or if they are successful, in spite of) historical white imperialist oppression and current white Western institutional racism. This makes them united, vengeful, angry and strong. Multiculturalism actively instils guilt in the indigenous white population for our past oppression and current racism, which makes us apologetic, disunited and weak. We can only, it seems, be forgiven our historical racial sins once the ethnic minorities have matched or surpassed the demographic and political power of the indigenous people.

Destroy Native Resistance

New laws have been passed to criminalise those who dare to speak out against their territorial, racial and cultural dispossession. Children are brainwashed into ‘celebrating’ their dispossession with such Orwellian intent that thousands as young as three have been officially noted as possessing ‘racist’ tendencies –a situation we can only expect to worsen as the demographic gap between white and non-white inexorably narrows. Race is the biggest weapon the left liberals use in their war against traditional Britain, so resistance to that weapon is both criminalised and subsequently labelled the evil of all evils – RACISM – in order to strip us of our only peaceful defence mechanism. Of course there are some racist whites, but they are a statistical minority compared to the ethnic minorities who physically attack whites at a far greater ratio than vice-versa. The only true racists in Britain are the treasonous anti-white politicians, policemen and journalists who seek to cover up the real statistics about racial crime and racial hate.

Use Selective History to Counter Native Resistance

British education ignores the crimes of Communism and concentrates only on the crimes of Hitler, portraying him principally as a racist. The evils of Nazism can then be used as an attack against indigenous peoples who protest their cultural and territorial dispossession, by simply labelling the protestors as Nazi racists and therefore no better than Hitler himself. In reality the left liberals are as obsessed with race – in its diverse form – as Hitler and the Nazis were with race in its pure form. And they are using race with the express intention of achieving what Hitler failed to do – the absolute conquest of Britain, Europe and the West, at the expense of its indigenous peoples.

Distract the Population

This is a tried and tested principle dating back to the Roman times of bread and circuses. Just look at the output of the mainstream media, which deals in fantasy and trivia rather than reality and substance. This sadly works just as intended. The majority of Brits have been gradually sucked down into an infantile world of vapid celebrity worship, football, X Factor and gutter sensationalism, all promoted 24/7 by the media establishment. As a direct consequence, they have little interest in matters that really matter.

No doubt the left liberals will denounce this series of articles as the ranting of a right-wing conspiracy theorist. But facts are facts; the Communists did set out to subvert the capitalist West; the anti-Western ‘Critical Theory‘ of the Frankfurt school is now the ideology of the educational and media establishments; the left liberal politicians did set out to transform Britain via mass Third World immigration; our industry was destroyed, as have been our educational establishments etc. etc., and the people behind this destruction were and are Marxists, leftists or useful idiot liberals.

Every single one of the deliberately destructive policies I have outlined above could destroy a country over a lengthy period of time, even without the Third World invasion. When they are combined, however, and mass immigration is added to the mix, our destruction is not only assured, it is assured over a relatively small time-span.

Consequently, the speed of Britain’s destruction has been astonishingly fast. Anyone over the age of 40 or 50 will tell you that Britain today is not the Britain they were born into, and that Britain is simply not sustainable in its present condition. But the left liberals have made a terrible mistake. The future will not be one of Marxist revolution and permanent leftist control. Whilst mass Third World immigration may have been their main weapon of choice to destabilise the country, they simply did not reckon with such a rapidly expanding, cohesive and militant Islam.

The future of Britain can logically be one of only two options. A country dominated by Islam, or a country dominated by the right wing, which is rapidly growing as a wholly natural response to the combined threat of Islam and the Left. No one knows which side will emerge triumphant in the battle between Islam and the emerging right, but whichever it is, one thing is very strongly assured: they will hold no great regard for the left liberals – to put it very mildly indeed.

At the beginning of this series, I asked whether the appalling destruction carried out in the name of left-wing ideology was well-intentioned liberal stupidity, or brilliantly-planned leftist malevolence. Perhaps it really was done to realise György Lukács’s dream: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

Or perhaps it wasn’t. It is quite possible it was caused by liberal stupidity of criminal proportions, but all that really matters now is that the damage wreaked by the left liberals be redressed – and we have little time remaining in which to do so.

British Report Finds Islamist Intimidation in Birmingham Schools

Trojan-Horse-stockIPT, by John Rossomando:

British Prime Minister David Cameron promises a “robust response” to the “culture of fear and intimidation” that British investigators found at five state schools in Birmingham, England, where Islamic extremists allegedly plotted to subvert and run them according to rigid Islamic norms.

A report released Monday by the U.K.’s Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) found evidence that certain governors of the affected schools had tried to “impose a narrow faith-based ideology.”

In some cases, staff and headteachers said that they had felt “intimidated,” “undermined” or bullied by the governors into making changes they opposed. Some headteachers, including those with records of improving standards were either marginalized or forced out of their jobs.

“Some teachers reported that they were treated unfairly because of their gender or religious beliefs,” said Ofsted director Sir Michael Wilshaw.

One primary school’s governors opposed mixed-gender swimming lessons despite the headteacher’s commitment to having them. Wilshaw also noted that the governors excessively micromanaged the schools’ day-to-day operations.

One school hosted a guest speaker who previously prayed for victory for Muslims in Afghanistan, in addition to “victory to all the Mujahideen all over the world. Oh Allah, prepare us for the jihad.”

The report was prompted by an alleged plot for Islamists to take control of public schools that surfaced in March. The five-step “Operation Trojan Horse” plot was detailed in a letter suspected by some of being a hoax. It focused on schools with large Muslim populations to have “hardline” parents turn against the teachers and school leadership. Those staffers would be replaced with people who would then run the schools according to a radical interpretation of Islam.

News of the letter sparked cries of “Islamophobia” and “fabrication” from Tahir Alam,director of the Park View Educational Trust that runs the schools, who had been implicated as a plotter.

A report by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) – the agency that oversees academies in the U.K. – found that the schools hastily replaced a literacy lesson at one school with a lesson about Christianity when they knew inspectors were coming.

EFA also found that Park View School, Golden Hillock School and the Nansen Primary School were teaching curriculum from a “conservative Islamic perspective” in violation of British law, which requires non-faith schools to be nonsectarian.

Consequently, Ofsted informed Cameron that it will conduct unannounced random inspections, and provide him and the U.K.’s education minister with reports on the situation in Birmingham until the situation has been fully resolved.

David Hughes, a governor with the Park View Educational Trust, dismissed the Ofsted report, saying that his schools had been “grossly misrepresented” as having been “infiltrated by extremists.”

The Trojan Horse plot was an unfounded smear, Hughes said, and that the investigations were are the result of an anti-Islamic agenda.

London’s Drive to Become the Sharia Finance Capitol of the World

shariah-uk-APBy Katie Gorka:

London is pushing to become the Western capitol for sharia finance in spite of the many potential ​dangers​.

This past November, London hosted the 2013 World Islamic Economic Forum. Speaking at that event, Prime Minister David Cameron said: “I want London to stand alongside Dubai and Kuala Lumpur as one of the great capitals of Islamic finance anywhere in the world.” In February, London hosted the Euromoney Islamic Finance Forum, where then-Financial Secretary to the Treasury Sajid Javid MP ​said​: “…almost every international Islamic contract will touch London – or a London-based firm – in some way.”

Now, London is preparing to become the first Western nation to issue an Islamic bond, or sukuk. The business potential is vast, with the shariah-complaint banking sector at an estimated $1.3 trillion and growing, according to the Global Islamic Financial Review. But the potential ​risks​ are manifold, and London should be asking itself whether the​ d​angers outweigh the profits​.

The principle behind sharia-compliant finance is that certain types of transactions are considered un-Islamic. Notably, interest is not allowed, and funds cannot be spent on certain industries or products such as pork, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and pornography. Islamic financial tools therefore “purify” individual Muslims by helping them adhere to a more orthodox version of Islam. But it does more: like the wearing of the veil for women, it strengthens their identity as Muslims and weakens their ties to the non-Muslim community. Islamic finance thereby serves to create a parallel society, with a distinct ​cultural​ and religious identity, rather than expanding and enriching the existing society.

For the United Kingdom, which is already struggling with no-go zones, numerous counts of domestic Islamist terrorism, and growing tension between its Muslim and non-Muslim populations, one has to ask whether strengthening Muslim identity as something apart from British identity is not a recipe for disaster.

A second concern with sharia finance is that it has been a proven source of direct financial assistance to those fighting for Islam. In order to be deemed sharia compliant, a financial institution must pay zakat (tithing): they must contribute an amount that is typically cited as 2.5% of gross​, although it can also be more. According to the Qu’ran (9:60), recipients of zakat include the poor, the needy, those who serve the needy, and to free the slaves, but recipients also include “those who fight in the way of Allah”; “people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army, or volunteers for jihad without remuneration.” (Reliance of the Traveler, The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law).

Within one year after the attacks of 9/11, the U.S. government blacklisted almost 180 Islamic banks, associations, and charities as financiers of terrorism. Moreover, recent studies have shown that the largest single source of funds for Islamic terrorism is zakat, which typically goes through the Islamic banking system. According to a 2002 report by Jean-Charles Brisard for the UN Security Council: “Al-Qaeda was able to receive between $300 million and $500 million” over a decade “through a web of charities and companies acting as fronts, with the notable use of Islamic banking institutions.”

Read more at Breitbart

Katie Gorka ​is the President of the Council for Global Security.​

The Muslim Brotherhood’s “Peaceful Conquest”

by Valentina Colombo:

“Political and religious terrorism began with the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood…” — Farag Foda, Egyptian intellectual murdered by Islamists in 1992, in Terrorism [al-Irhab]

Islamist movements have different tactics… but their goal is always the same: Get in and impose sharia law to establish an Islamic state.

The problem is not so much the Muslim Brotherhood as the schizophrenia of governments that one day condemn them and the next day work with them.

“What I think is important about the Muslim Brotherhood,” British Prime Minister David Cameron said on April 1, while announcing a long-overdue investigation of the activities of Muslim Brotherhood in the UK and its involvement in February’s terror attack at the Egyptian resort of Taba, “is that we understand what this organisation is, what it stands for, what its beliefs are in terms of the path of extremism and violent extremism, what its connections are with other groups, what its presence is here in the United Kingdom. Our policies should be informed by a complete picture of that knowledge. It is an important piece of work because we will only get our policy right if we fully understand the true nature of the organisation that we are dealing with.”

 

“The objective, then, is to strike terror into the hearts of God’s enemies, who are also the enemies of the advocates of Islam…” — Sayyid Qutb, chief ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Egyptian Brotherhood’s reaction, published on its English website, was immediate:

The Muslim Brotherhood has always had a perfectly reputable and verifiable history record and a correct understanding of religion ever since it was founded, more than 86 years ago. The group is ready and willing to cooperate with all efforts to understand its beliefs, policies and positions. It also denounces all media campaigns that try to demonize the group and link it to violent incidents which it condemned in no ambiguous terms at the time, the most recent of which was the attack on a tourist bus in Taba (in Egypt’s Sinai peninsula) in February 2014.[...]

The Brotherhood’s press release also pointed out the long-standing relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the UK:

First: The Brotherhood was surprised at the latest remarks, since all successive British governments had always been the most expertly informed about the group’s positions and peaceful approach. The group has not and will not change its principles or approach no matter how big or small it becomes, notwithstanding all the injustice it suffers, the cold-blooded murders and arbitrary arrests of its members.

Second: The group’s principles and ideology, which it has been teaching its members for more than eighty years in all parts of the world, from East to West, have been announced, published and thoroughly researched and studied by many Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, researchers and research centers all over the world – all of which affirmed, time and time again, that the group’s approach is perfectly peaceful and that all its methods are non-violent.

Third: The behavior and actions of all those who subscribe to the group’s principles and teachings, all those who belong to the Brotherhood, are evidently exemplary in compliance with the laws and regulations of the countries where they reside, and even in serving the countries where they are raised [...]

The Muslim Brotherhood has indeed had a long history of relations with Britain. In 2010, Mark Curtis publishedSecret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, a well documented essay that could save David Cameron a lot of research work. Curtis writes,

By 1942 Britain had definitely begun to finance the Brotherhood. On 18 May British embassy officials held a meeting with Egyptian Prime Minister Amin Osman Pacha, in which relations with the Muslim Brotherhood were discussed and a number of points were agreed. One was that ‘subsidies from the Wafd [Party] to the Ikhwani el Muslimin [Muslim Brotherhood] would be discreetly paid by the [Egyptian] government and they would require some financial assistance in this matter from the [British] Embassy.

A British embassy report from Cairo in late 1951 stated that the Brotherhood ‘possess[es] a terrorist organisation of long-standing which has never been broken by police action’, despite the recent arrests. However, the report otherwise downplayed the Brothers’ intentions towards the British, stating that they were ‘planning to send terrorists into the Canal Zone’ but ‘they do not intend to put their organisation as such into action against His Majesty’s forces’. Another report noted that although the Brotherhood had been responsible for some attacks against the British, this was probably due to ‘indiscipline’, and it ‘appears to conflict with the policy of the leaders’. (emphasis added)

Curtis’s analysis therefore emphasizes the cooperation and, more importantly, the relativistic approach of the British government to movement founded by Hasan al-Banna.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

The Brotherhood in London

 BY OLIVIER GUITTA:

London
British prime minister David Cameron’s announcement on March 31 that his government would be looking into the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the United Kingdom and potential links to terrorism was reported around the world. Cameron has charged John Jenkins, his knowledgeable ambassador to Saudi Arabia, with heading a review of the MB’s philosophy and activities, while MI5 and MI6, the intelligence services, will look into the MB’s potential links to terrorism. While a case can be made that the government is responding to pressure from countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, one should not discount the domestic aspect—the Muslim Brotherhood’s growing presence in the United Kingdom.

SUPPORTERS OF FORMER EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT MORSI PROTEST IN LONDON, JULY 2013. NEWSCOM

SUPPORTERS OF FORMER EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT MORSI PROTEST IN LONDON, JULY 2013. NEWSCOM

Europe has been very much the second home of the movement since the 1960s—initially as a base for exiled members of the group, and later as a theater of operations in its own right. Concerns regarding the Brotherhood’s activities—ranging from its impact on the ability of Muslims to integrate into European societies to its links with violent extremist movements—have been raised in numerous countries. Following a brief period of electoral success in the Middle East after the Arab Spring, the MB is now under attack on almost all fronts. A combination of public protests, internal repression, and wider geopolitical pressures has arguably left the MB more imperiled in the Arab world than it has been in decades. To compensate for these setbacks, the MB now seems to be seeking to expand its exploitation of Europe as a safe haven for its leaders, a financial center, recruiting ground, and forum in which to exercise political and social influence.

And London is the center. This has been all the truer since the ouster of Egypt’s elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, in July 2013. Several top MB officials from Egypt now call London home, among them MB spiritual leader Gomaa Amin and Salim Al-Awa, chief of Morsi’s defense committee and president of the MB parallel government in London.

Also in November 2013, a who’s who of international MB members gathered in London to discuss strategy. Mahmoud Ezzat, the deputy supreme guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, viewed by many as the group’s “iron man,” was present. The MB moved its media headquarters to London, where the English-language website Ikhwanweb.com was already based. And on March 30, 2014, a London-based, Qatari-financed newspaper, Al-Arabi al-Jadeed, was launched. Given all this, the urgency of determining the true nature of the MB’s presence in Europe has never been greater.

Publicly, Europe’s MB affiliates have sought to define themselves as enemies of extremism. Key leaders, however, have been consistently dogged by allegations that they provide ideological and financial support for violent movements outside Europe. The MB itself may not actively encourage violence against European targets, but it does divert those it influences away from any path but Islamism. It is therefore inevitable that some who adopt the outlook of the MB will gravitate toward direct action. In light of this, the British government’s need to educate itself about the MB is obvious.

Read more at The Weekly Standard

Decapitation, Morality Squads and “Five-Star Jihad”

by Soeren Kern:

The number of so-called taxi-rapes has snowballed to such an extent that a British judge recently issued a warning that no woman can expect to be safe while travelling in a cab.

Ibrahim Munir, an exiled senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood now living in Britain, when asked if violence would be an option, replied, “Any possibility.”

“Do I have to change my religion to get the best [banking] deal?” — Lloyds Bank customer, quoted in The Daily Telegraph.

Islam and Islam-related issues were omnipresent in Britain during the month of April 2014, and can be categorized into three broad themes: 1) The British government’s growing concern over Islamic extremism and the domestic security implications of British jihadists in Syria; 2) The continuing spread of Islamic Sharia law in all aspects of British daily life; and 3) Ongoing questions of Muslim integration into British society.

1. ISLAMIC EXTREMISM AND SYRIA-RELATED THREATS

British Prime Minister David Cameron announced a “thorough probe” of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in Britain. At a press conference, he said:

“We want to challenge the extremist narrative that some Islamist organisations have put out. What I think is important about the Muslim Brotherhood is that we understand what this organization is, what it stands for, what its beliefs are in terms of the path of extremism and violent extremism, what its connections are with other groups, what its presence is here in the UK.”

The review will be headed by Sir John Jenkins, the British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. This has led some analysts to surmise that the oil-rich nation—which sees the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat to its own stability—is pressuring Cameron to ban the group from British soil. (Cameron’s announcement also came just weeks after Britain finalized a deal for the sale of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon strike jets to Saudi Arabia.) Jenkins has been asked to compile a report on the movement’s “philosophy and values and alleged connections with extremism and violence.”

The Muslim Brotherhood was banned from Egypt and many members expelled following the coup d’état there in July 2013. The group recently opened a new headquarters above an unused kebab shop in Cricklewood, northwest London.

The most senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood living in exile in Britain, Ibrahim Munir, denied claims that the group was moving its British operations from London to the Austrian city of Graz. The Daily Mail, a British newspaper, reported on April 12 that the Muslim Brotherhood was preparing to move its headquarters to Austria in an “apparent attempt to avoid an inquiry into its activities set up by the Prime Minister.”

Munir appeared to be issuing a threat when he said that banning the Muslim Brotherhood would increase the risk of terrorist attacks in Britain. “If this [ban] happened, this would make a lot of people in Muslim communities think that [peaceful] Muslim Brotherhood values … didn’t work and now they are designated a terrorist group, which would make the doors open for all options,” Munir said in an April 5 interview with The Times.

When asked if he meant an option would be violence, Munir replied: “Any possibility…. If the UK makes this option, you can’t predict [what would happen] with Muslims around the globe, especially the big Muslim organizations close to the Muslim Brotherhood and sharing its ideology.”

In a related matter, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair on April 23 urged the West to put aside its differences with Russia over Ukraine in order to face down what he (and many others) believes is the single biggest threat to global security: Islamic extremism. He said:

“The threat of radical Islam is not abating. It is growing. It is spreading across the world. It is de-stabilizing communities and even nations. It is undermining the possibility of peaceful co-existence in an era of globalization. And in the face of this threat we seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge it and powerless to counter it effectively … whatever our other differences, we should be prepared to reach out and cooperate with the East, and in particular, Russia and China.”

But in what appears to be a classic case of the “right message” being delivered by the “wrong messenger,” Blair was accused of hypocrisy after the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch reported that his high-profile multi-faith charity, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, has two senior advisors with close links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

On April 9, Home Secretary Theresa May published her annual report on the government’s strategy for countering terrorism. Battle-hardened British jihadists returning from the war in Syria now pose the most serious threat to British security, according to the report. “The most significant development in connection with terrorism during 2013 has been the growing threat from terrorist groups in Syria,” May said in a statement to the British Parliament.

An assessment by the official Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) concurs: “The nature of the conflict in Syria and the emergence of the al-Nusrah Front, which has declared its allegiance to al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, is leading to the country becoming an increasingly significant potential source of future threats to the UK and UK interests overseas.”

Adding to the sense of foreboding, William Shawcross, the chairman of the Charity Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales, said Islamic extremism is the “most deadly” problem faced by British charities.

In an interview with the Sunday Times on April 20, Shawcross said: “The problem of Islamist extremism and charities … is not the most widespread problem we face in terms of abuse of charities, but is potentially the most deadly. And it is, alas, growing. I’m sure that in places like Syria and Somalia it is very, very difficult for agencies always to know what the end use of their aid is, but they’ve got to be particularly vigilant.”

Shawcross said that the commission was “taking tough measures” against any charity that was “sending cash to extremist groups in Syria” or “dispatching young Britons for training in Syria by al-Qaida or other extremist groups.”

He also said it was “ludicrous” that people with convictions for terrorism or money laundering were not automatically disqualified from setting up charities or becoming trustees, and that he has asked the prime minister to make changes to the law.

On April 24, British counter-terrorism officials launched a nationwide campaign aimed at encouraging Muslim women to contact the police if they were concerned that their family members or close friends might be preparing to travel to Syria to fight.

The UK’s counter-terrorism chief, Helen Ball, warned that Britons who fight in Syria are crossing a “red line” and will be investigated by police. She said she was “very concerned” about the growing numbers of British nationals travelling to fight in Syria and warned that would-be fighters are at risk of being “preyed upon” and radicalized by extremist terrorist groups, as well as killed on the battlefield. Ball also said that 40 Syria-related arrests were made in the first three months of 2014, up from 25 in all of last year.

On April 18, it emerged that Abdullah Deghayes, an 18-year-old from the southern English coastal town of Brighton, died while fighting in Syria. One of Abdullah’s brothers, Amer, 20, suffered a bullet wound to the stomach in the battle, while another brother, Jafar (at 16, he is believed to be the youngest British jihadist fighting in Syria), was unhurt. Abdullah’s father, Abubaker, said his son “died a martyr.”

The total number of British jihadists in Syria is estimated to be in the hundreds; as many as 20 are thought to have died in the fighting.

On April 20, a British citizen who is fighting with the rebels in Syria released a video tour of the home he shares with fellow fighters. The man—known by the nom de guerre Abu Abdullah and believed to be a member of the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIS]—has appeared in a number of similar videos, in which he calls for British Muslims to join him in Syria.

In the video, entitled “Five-Star Jihad,” Abdullah seeks to present a realistic portrayal of the life of a rebel fighter, in contrast to many who have tried to glamorize the jihad in Syria. “Today we wanted to show you the basic living of the brothers in this base,” says Abdullah. “There has been a lot of talk of this so-called five-star jihad—and the way the mujahedeen have been living in these villas and these mansions and cupboards full of sweets. But it is far from that.”

2. SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN

On April 3, the British government launched a public consultation on whether or not to introduce student loans that are compliant with Islamic Sharia law, which forbids loans that involve the payment of interest.

The move seeking input from the general public comes amid rising complaints from Muslim students, who argue that the existing interest-based student loan system is unfairly forcing them to choose between getting a university degree and staying true to their religious beliefs.

The government says the establishment of a scheme that would enable Muslim students to finance their degrees in a way that complies with Islamic principles would “ensure that anyone with the ability and desire can go to university.”

Critics counter that the dispute over interest-bearing student loans follows stepped-up demands for Sharia-compliant banking and insurance as well as credit cards, mortgages and pension funds, which—taken together—are contributing to the establishment of parallel Islamic financial and legal systems in Britain.

Separately, Lloyds Bank was accused of religious discrimination after dropping overdraft fees for Muslims. The bank sent customers a booklet in April explaining the new policy. While non-Muslims will have to pay up to £80 (€97, $135) a month for an overdraft, Muslims were told they would escape the charges. The document (p.26) says: “We are removing the monthly overdraft management fee of £6 from our Islamic Account, Islamic Student Account and Islamic Graduate Account. So, if you use an unplanned overdraft on these accounts, there won’t be any charges.”

On its website Lloyds says: “Following the guidance of Islam is an important part of everyday life, so we’ve made it an important part of everyday banking. Our Sharia committee of two independent scholars has guided us to create an account that’s right for you.”

The Daily Telegraph quoted one Lloyd’s customer as saying: “I can’t believe that they’re thinking of offering one account for Muslims and making everyone else pay for the same service. Do I have to change my religion to get the best deal?”

 

Lloyds Bank, one of the UK’s largest, was accused of religious discrimination after dropping overdraft fees for Muslims. Non-Muslims will have to pay up to £80 a month for an overdraft. (Image source: Kake)

Also, apparently in an attempt to please its Muslim customers, the fast food giant Subway removed ham and bacon from almost 200 outlets in Britain and switched to halal (Arabic for “permitted” or “lawful”) meat alternatives.

On April 24, a group of British lawyers launched a new organization called “Sharia Watch UK” to “highlight and expose those movements in Britain which advocate and support the advancement of Islamic law in British society.” The group says it seeks to “explain and describe Sharia law—what the organization calls “Britain’s Blind Spot”—in relation to specific issues, primarily the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

From Jail to Jihad ? BBC Panorama 2014 BBC full Documentary

BBCHDDocumentary7· Published on May 13, 2014

The Muslim prison population in England and Wales has doubled in the past ten years to nearly one in seven inmates. This rise is five times faster than the increase in the overall jail population.
Evidence shows most Muslims are not radicalised, but the prison system is also home to the UK’s greatest concentration of Islamic terrorists and extremists. Many more are converted or radicalised behind bars.
Reporter Raphael Rowe follows one radical convert as he leaves prison, interviews some convicted terrorists and extremists about their experiences inside and asks if the authorities are doing enough to prevent the increasing threat of radical Islam inside prison.

Blueprint’s Discovery Fuels UK “Trojan Horse” Concerns

Paul Weston arrested for quoting Winston Churchill

Gates of Vienna:

Paul Weston, the chairman of LibertyGB, was arrested today in Winchester for publicly quoting Winston Churchill’s famous description of Mohammedanism.

Below is Enza Ferreri’s report on the incident.

 Winchester: Churchill Quotation Gets Liberty GB Leader Paul Weston Arrested

by Enza Ferreri

Today Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB and candidate in the 22 May European Elections in the South East, has been arrested in Winchester.

At around 2pm Mr Weston was standing on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, addressing the passers-by in the street with a megaphone. He quoted the following excerpt about Islam from the book The River War by Winston Churchill:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

Reportedly a woman came out of the Guildhall and asked Mr Weston if he had the authorisation to make this speech. When he answered that he didn’t, she told him “It’s disgusting!” and then called the police.

Six or seven officers arrived. They talked with the people standing nearby, asking questions about what had happened. The police had a long discussion with Mr Weston, lasting about 40 minutes.

At about 3pm he was arrested. They searched him, put him in a police van and took him away.

Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born London writer and the Press Officer for Liberty GB. She blogs at www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk. For her previous articles and translations, see the Enza Ferreri Archives.

For links to Paul Weston’s essays, see the Paul Weston Archives.

**************

VIDEO: PAUL WESTON COULD FACE 2 YEARS IN JAIL FOR QUOTING CHURCHILL

The Blair Doctrine

ipeI-450x313by Daniel Greenfield:

Tony Blair’s latest speech on Islam is significant as much for what it doesn’t mention as for what it does. Not long ago, a speech of this sort would have been rich with contrasts between dictatorship and democracy. Democracy, the audience would have been told solemnly, equals freedom and modernity.

Instead Blair mentions the word ‘democracy’ only three times.

The first time he’s referring to Israel and the second time he disavows the entire program of dropping elections on Muslim countries and expecting their populations to make the right choices. Instead he argues,

“Democracy cannot function except as a way of thinking as well as voting. You put your view; you may lose; you try to win next time; or you win but you accept that you may lose next time. That is not the way that the Islamist ideology works.”

This is very much a post-Arab Spring speech and though he offers obligatory praise of that over-hyped phenomenon, the lessons he has drawn from its failure make for a changed perspective.

How changed? Blair endorses the Egyptian popular overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood and urges support for the new government within the larger context of “supporting and assisting” those who take on “Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood”.

That’s an impossible position in Washington D.C., but it emerges naturally out of an understanding that democracy isn’t enough and that an Islamist political victory inherently dismantles democracy.

“Islamist ideology”, Blair says, has an “exclusivist” ultimate goal, which is “not a society which someone else can change after winning an election”. The Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist groups, he says, are both part of an “overall ideology” in which “such extremism can take root”. They are all totalitarian group that differ on “how to achieve the goals of Islamism” rather than on “what those goals are.”

Democracy is downright destructive in a political landscape in which Islamic political forces compete. Instead Blair’s new doctrine replaces democracy with religious freedom.

The former British Prime Minister calls for supporting “the principles of religious freedom and open, rule based economies.  It means helping those countries whose people wish to embrace those principles to achieve them. Where there has been revolution, we should be on the side of those who support those principles and opposed to those who would thwart them.”

That position, Blair continues, leads him to support the Egyptian uprising against the Muslim Brotherhood and even interim Assad rule until a final agreement is concluded.

While that may not seem like much, imagine the last 15 years if the obsession with using democracy to replace dictatorships had instead been turned to promoting religious freedom at the expense of Islamic rule. Imagine if we made tolerance for Christians and other religious minorities into the defining line instead of the meaningless one of holding majority rule Muslim elections.

The Blair Doctrine surgically replaces democracy with religious freedom while leaving the larger worldview so common in European and American political circles untouched so that it does not seem like a shift, but a natural adaptation to the failures of the Arab Spring.

Blair cannot and will not say that the problem with democracy in countries with an Islamic majority is the tyranny of the majority, nor does he ever use the word ‘secularism’, and his rhetoric is largely dependent on assumptions made in the aftermath of the Cold War by a comfortable West.

He speaks positively of globalization, without conceding that the UK has a terrorism crisis largely because of it. He briefly mentions the export of ‘radicalism’ from the Middle East, but aside from the Muslim Brotherhood’s growing power in Europe, he doesn’t elaborate.

To a multicultural left that already embraces Burkas and FGM, his speech is rage fodder. But while Blair may have helped turn Islam into a problem in the UK, it’s his foes on the left who have championed its worst aspects.

Tony Blair is no Geert Wilders and the UK’s problem with Islam is in no small part of his making due to his government’s immigration policies, but revolutionary ideas are more likely to be accepted from thoroughly establishment sources.

In his speech, Blair argues that reactionary Islamic rule is the problem, rather than mere tyranny. It’s a shift that invalidates the entire political Islam movement behind the Arab Spring. And for all the many ways that he covers his tracks, subdividing Islam from Islamism, he does hold a nearly firm line on Islamic rule. That is a rarity in a world order which had come to embrace political Islam as the future.

Read more at Front Page

Also see: