Britain’s Jihadists Within

70976852_019514832-2-450x325by :

Some of the “freedom fighters” who are at war against the evil tyrant Assad in Syria, the “rebels” whom both U.S. President Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron wanted to help, have now been re-classified as “the biggest threat to Britain’s security” and a “greater threat than al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” The British Home Office identifies Syria as “the most significant development in global terrorism.”

More than half of anti-terror investigations by the UK security service MI5 involve “Britons” who went to fight in Syria. Charles Farr, the Home Office’s counter-terrorism chief, and others warned that the Syrian war is stoking the biggest terror threat to the West since September 11, and this problem is predicted to persist for as long as the hostilities will continue.

Syria is much closer to Europe than Afghanistan and Pakistan, making it a particularly easy and dangerous destination for UK Muslims who come back well trained, armed and ready for business: terrorism. And because the security services monitor about half of them, the risk is very high.

Robert Spencer asks some pertinent questions:

Why aren’t they monitoring the rest? And why were these men let back into the country in the first place? Simply because they’re citizens? (Are they even all citizens?)

In the past three years, from the beginning of the conflict, no fewer than 500 Britons have travelled to Syria to fight, many more than the corresponding number for Iraq. According to French President Francois Hollande, they are actually up to 700.

Between 250 and 400 of them are believed to be back with us, although the number may be higher. Apparently, they found life there “too hard,” so they say. But they may have been encouraged to return “home” in order to carry out attacks in the UK.

Hundreds more are still in Syria, and one of them has posted an Internet video urging his coreligionists in Britain to join them and help their Syrian brothers and sisters, saying: “The doors of jihad are still open.” He is a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a group which wants Syria to become an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law and which is considered too extreme even by Al-Qaeda, that officially disowned it. The first jihadists returning provincial capital to be occupied by ISIS was the city of Raqqa, on whose Christian community it has imposed payment of the jizya and other rules associated with dhimmi status.

These are people who know their Islam, no doubt. They’ve forced even the BBC reporters to become familiar with the triple choice: convert, submit, die.

Read more at Front Page

Banned in the British Library

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
April 8, 2014

Prominent counter-jihadis like Geert Wilders, Michael Savage, and Robert Spencer have the distinction of being banned from entry into the United Kingdom – and, now, Her Majesty’s Government, in its wisdom, has also banned two websites connected to me. It’s not quite the same, admittedly, and I am working to get this ban removed, but I also wear it as a perverse badge of honor given that government’s shameful record vis-à-vis Islamism.

Say you’re in the British Library, the national depository library and a government institution, roughly equivalent to the Library of Congress in the United States or the Bibliothèque nationale in France. Say you want to read what David Brog writes about declining Evangelical support for Israel in the latest Middle East Quarterly. You type in MEForum.org and get the following result:

Or perhaps you wish to learn why I distinguish between Islam and Islamism, or why I worry about Islamist aggression in Britain, so you type in DanielPipes.org only to find this:

The distinction between the two sites particularly charms me. The British Library categorizes MEForum.org as “Religion, Intolerance” and DanielPipes.org as “Religion, Adult Sites, Intolerance, Blogs.” (It’s probably titles like “Arabian Sex Tourism” that won me the X-rating.) Oddly, both sites are blocked for the same reason: “Intolerance.”

Should you, however, be in the British Library and wish to develop hatred toward Jews, no problem! Here are some antisemitic sites, all accessed in the past few days:

  • Exposing the Holocaust Hoax Archive: the name tells it all
  • Gilad Atzmon: the personal website of a toxically antisemitic Jew
  • Jew Knowledge: contains learned inquiries into Jewish control of Hollywood, Jewish connections to 9/11, and the like
  • Muslim Public Affairs Committee, UK: an antisemitic jihadi group
  • The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: the “warrant for genocide” is available in multiple versions

Then, if you need firing up to go murder people on jihad, the British Library makes rich pickings available to you:

  • Al Muntada: runs some of the worst hate preachers in Europe and stands accused in Nigeria of funding Boko Haram
  • Anjem Choudary: possibly the most extreme of British Islamists, he praised the perpetrators of the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks
  • FiSyria: promotes the Sunni jihad against the Assad regime in Syria
  • Friends of Al-Aqsa: a pro-Hamas British group
  • Hizb ut-Tahrir: an international movement seeking to replace existing countries with a global caliphate
  • Islamic Education and Research Academy: a Qatari-funded Salafi group that includes a number of openly pro-terror operatives. Its trustees openly incite hatred against Jews, women, et al.
  • Muslimah’s Renaissance: an anti-Semitic, anti-Shia group
  • Al-Qassam: the military wing of Hamas, widely categorized as a terrorist organization
  • Palestinian Forum of Britain: a Hamas front
  • Palestine Return Centre: another Hamas front
  • Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: deemed a terrorist group by both the European Union and the U.S. government

And then, perhaps the worst of all:

  • Tawhed: al-Qaeda’s Arabic-language ideological website which promotes writings by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman az-Zawahiri

There could be a technical explanation for this bizarre situation. The British Library issued a press release in December 2013, “Web filtering on the British Library’s WiFi service,” explaining that

in our public areas where there are regular visits by school children, we filter certain online content, such as pornography and gambling websites. We have recently introduced a new WiFi service. It’s early days in the implementation of this service and we are aware that the new filter has been blocking certain sites erroneously. We are actively working to resolve this issue.

Might this be the problem? I have written the library and requested that it unblock the sites. Now, let’s see if the censorship was “erroneous” or intentional.

(In contrast, the British Library has not yet excluded me from the UK union catalog of books; so, the same organization that bans my website permits my books. That makes as much sense as the rest of the British government’s policies.)

Apr. 9, 2014 update: For updates, see “No Longer Banned in the British Library!

UK Mulls Ban on Brotherhood, Violent Response Threatened

david cameron

The UK gov’t will not focus only on “violent extremism,” but the ideologies driving it. That is a sharp difference from the U.S.

By Ryan Mauro:

The British government is signaling that it may join the Arab coalition against the Muslim Brotherhood by announcing an investigation of the group spearheaded by the ambassador to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis joined Egypt in banning the Brotherhood as a terrorist group last month.

Prime Minister David Cameron said, “We want to challenge the extremist narrative that some Islamist organizations have put out.”

He explained that the British government would not focus only on “violent extremism,” but the ideologies driving it. That is a sharp difference from the U.S. government, which will not even say the word “Islamist” and has a narrow focus on violence.

A government spokesman frankly admitted that the British government believes its intelligence on the Brotherhood is lacking. He said, “The Muslim Brotherhood has risen in prominence in recent years but our understanding of the organization—its philosophy and values—has not kept pace with this.”

The MI5 domestic intelligence service will review Brotherhood activity in the U.K., where it has active offices. To date, British policy allows the Brotherhood to operate in the country without restriction, harboring leaders that fled Egypt.

The MI6 foreign intelligences service will review Brotherhood activity abroad, including whether it was involved in a bombing of a tourist bus in Egypt in February that killed three South Koreans. Ansar Jerusalem, a Salafist group even more radical than the Brotherhood,claimed responsibility.

The Brotherhood claims it is opposed to violence inside Egypt and is not involved in such acts, but Salafist supporters of the Brotherhood often are. Raymond Ibrahim has documented this Brotherhood game and translated transcripts of alleged phone calls between then-President Mohammed Morsi and the brother of Ayman al-Zawahiri regarding secret collaboration.

Meanwhile, the Brotherhood issued a thinly veiled threat that the response to a government probe might be terrorist attacks.

Read more at Clarion Project

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

GMBDW has more on the MB leader making the threat:

Muslim Brotherhood Leader In Exile Warns UK Not To Ban Brotherhood; Says Increased Risk Of Terrorism Would Result 

UK media is reporting on a statement by a Muslim Brotherhood leader living in exile in the UK warning that banning the Brotherhood in the UK would lead to an increased risk of terrorism. According to a report in The Times:

Ibrahim MunirBanning the Muslim Brotherhood will leave Britain at greater risk of terrorist attacks, the group’s most senior leader in the UK said yesterday.

Speaking for the first time since David Cameron announced an investigation into the organisation’s alleged links to violent extremism, Ibrahim Mounir said that it risked alienating moderate Muslims.

“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,” he said. Asked if he meant open to violence, he replied: “Any possibility.”

Mr Mounir, 77, added: “This would make more problems than we ever expect, not just for Britain, for all Islamic organisations round the world holding peaceful ideologies. If the UK makes this option, you can’t predict [what would happen] with Muslims around the globe, especially the big Muslim organisations close to the Muslim Brotherhood and sharing its ideology.”

Read the rest here (pay site)

Ibrahim Munir Mustafa (aka Ibrahim Munir, Ibrahim Mounir) was referred to in the past by the Egyptian Brotherhood as an Executive Bureau member of the Brotherhood’s International Organization while an Egyptian news report identifies him as the Secretary-General of the International Organization and one of its founders in 1982 as well as a spokesman for the Brotherhood in London. The latter Arabic language news report also provides some biographical detail on Mr. Munir who it says was sentenced to life imprisonment in Egypt in the 1950′s in connection with the events following the attempted assassination of then Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Following his early release in 1975, the report says Mr. Munir traveled and worked in the Gulf States on behalf of the Brotherhood following which he applied for and was granted political asylum in the UK. Mr. Munir is also known to be the general supervisor of the London-based Muslim Brotherhood publication known as the ‘Risalat Al-Ikhwan’ (Muslim Brotherhood Message). Mr. Munir drew international attention in 2010 when he was one of five members charged by Egyptian prosecutors with money laundering and raising funds abroad. In 2013, an Egyptian newspaper report, no longer available online, provided some detail regarding Mr. Munir’s alleged role in the scheme.

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

To understand the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda read this:

Muslim Brotherhood Founder’s Grandson on UK Government Religious Taskforce

ramadanby :

The British government last week unveiled its new Foreign Office Advisory Group on freedom of religion and belief, featuring – amongst others – Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather founded the Muslim Brotherhood.

The inaugural meeting was convened by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who has herself been linked to individuals who admitted involvement in the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Critics have blasted the appointment of Tariq Ramadan, whose mother’s father was Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna.

Writing in the Spectator, Douglas Murray, Associate Director of the foreign policy think tank the Henry Jackson Society wrote:

 

“I think we can probably all guess where this ‘Advisory group’ will be heading. And it won’t be dealing with the Christians being slaughtered by Islamists across the Middle East and North Africa.  Or Jews being targeted by Palestinian terrorists who still receive salaries for their crimes from the UK taxpayer.

“But who does it consist of – apart from the inevitable Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty and Kate Allen of Amnesty? Why none other than that dauphin, that exemplar of Muslim Brotherhood royalty, Tariq Ramadan.

It was Ramadan’s grandfather who founded the fascist movement now under investigation and his parents’ generation which continued the tradition. If Her Majesty’s government wants to learn about the Muslim Brotherhood, I am certain it could make no better start than by asking for the co-operation of its new advisor on ‘Freedom of Religion or Belief.’

 

Ramadan’s father was also a Muslim Brotherhood operative, and was reportedly exiled by Gamal Adbel Nasser when he was President of Egypt.

Critics have slammed him for “doublespeak”. Author Caroline Fourest said “Ramadan is a war leader” and the “political heir of his grandfather”, while even the Socialist head of France’s SOS Racisme group called Ramadan a “fascist”.

Ramadan was denied a visa to take up a teaching position in the United States, although the Obama administration overturned this move in 2010.

Also see:

Islamizing Britain’s Schools

Panorama-British-Schools-Islamic-Rules.WnA_.avi_000083800-450x322by :

“Give me the child until he is seven, and I will show you the man.“

– Jesuit aphorism

Real Muslims understand the critical importance of teaching the young. The critical importance, that is, of teaching them the “right” things and not teaching them the “wrong” things. The most important single element of stealth Islamization is the effort to convert Western schools from centers of secular education into hubs of Islamic indoctrination. Fortunately, there are plenty of dhimmi teachers and school administrators eager to help out, convinced that they’re serving the interests of multicultural peace and harmony. These days, for some reason, this form of dhimmitude seems to be most prevalent – and to take its acutest form – in England.

Take, for example, Lynn Small, headmistress of a state elementary school in Huntington, England, who last November wrote a letter to parents of fourth- and sixth-grade students warning that if they didn’t let their children attend an “Explore Islam” workshop at Staffordshire University, a “Racial Discrimination” note would be placed in the kids’ permanent records. Fortunately, parents kicked up a fuss, and the media took notice, and Small backtracked – kind of – while still insisting that since some of the school’s “pupils and teachers…belong to the Islam faith,” it was only “right for the children to understand and appreciate their faith as well as their own.”

Obviously, Small realized she’d miscalculated. Slightly. Apparently there were no repercussions for her. She still has her job, and there’s no indication that school authorities even put a note in her permanent record chiding her for making Stalinist-type threats against parents. No, her heart was plainly in the right place, as far as the British educational establishment is concerned – she just went about things the wrong way, confronting parents directly instead of taking a more crafty approach.

In any event, Small, it turns out, is decidedly small-time. In the last couple of weeks, investigations by the Telegraph and Daily Mail have uncovered something far more serious than Small’s little workshop: namely, a long-term, broad-based conspiracy to Islamize schools in the city of Birmingham. The conspiracy is so widespread, and involves so many high-level people in the school system and the Muslim community, that – well, put it this way: if you were to suggest to a typical European multiculturalist that any such plot were brewing anywhere in the Western world, you’d be mocked and reviled, accused of racism, paranoia, and sheer unadulterated foolishness.

Yet the facts are there. As revealed in a series of articles, there’s “an organised group of Muslim teachers, education consultants, school governors and activists” who are involved in what they themselves call a “Trojan Horse” campaign to further an “Islamising agenda” by “remov[ing] secular head teachers and install[ing] Islamic practices in Birmingham state schools.” The participants’ ongoing discussions of this campaign have taken place on a private online message board, whose contents have been seen by theTelegraph. Among the conspirators’ short-term objectives is to install Muslim worship in the schools; their explicit long-term goal, as they have made clear in postings on the message board, is the total Islamization of Britain.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

UK Prime Minister Orders MB Investigation

“Civilization Jihad” Comes to Court

shariah-will-dominate-AFPBreitbart, By Frank Gaffney:

Want to know what our Islamist enemies have in mind for America? Look at Europe.

Virtually every country there has found itself under siege from Muslims seeking to impose the supremacist Islamic doctrine they call shariah on everyone else. The preeminent organization promoting this agenda is the Muslim Brotherhood, now banned as a terrorist group in its home country of Egypt but prospering in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in what has been known as the Free World. In fact, as Egyptian courts hand down death sentences to those engaged with the Brotherhood’s violent efforts to overthrow the government there, ours is opening the door to asylum for those who have only engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism.

More insidious than the Muslim Brotherhood’s violence, however, is its stealthy subversion. In a 1991 strategic plan introduced into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a senior member named Mohammed Akram described this form of warfare as “civilization jihad.”

In Akram’s words, the goal of the Brotherhood’s civilization jihadists is “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within… so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” His “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” lays out how this ambitious goal is to be achieved under our noses by penetrating and subverting “from within” the West’s civil society and governing institutions.

The London Telegraph reports that this campaign has just scored a major success in Great Britain. The country’s trade association for lawyers, the Law Society, has declared its members can begin drawing up shariah-compliant wills that will be enforceable in British common law courts.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognized by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Shariah principles, which recognize only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Such inroads are coming on top of the presence of something on the order of 87 shariah courts that operate side-by-side with Britain’s own judiciary. One of the U.K.’s most courageous opponents of such practices, Baroness Caroline Cox, said: “No longer do we have a single legal code in our society. Instead, alongside our own law, there is now effectively a parallel quasi-legal system operating within some Muslim communities.”

Think that cannot happen here? Think again. The Muslim Brotherhood’s largest front group in this country, the Islamic Society of North America, requires each of its chapters to maintain arbitration panels that serve as proto-shariah courts. It is a matter of time before Islamists and their apologists begin demanding that such courts be allowed to adjudicate disputes not just between willing parties but in cases where one party – most likely women and/or children – would prefer to have the protections of our Constitution.

Worse yet, as a study published by the Center for Security Policy in 2011 has documented, there have been at least 27 different instances in which U.S. courts have allowed the use of shariah law to govern – even where doing so has violated constitutional rights of the plaintiffs or defendants. (An updated version of this study now nearing completion indicates that, as of today, there are many more such cases.)

As a corrective to this civilization jihadist incursion into American jurisprudence, seven states have adopted legislation known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). If they wish to avoid the fate now facing British citizens who are likely to be denied their rightful inheritances and, in due course, other privations at the hands of shariah, every state in the country should adopt ALAC.

Of course, our Constitution’s Article VI declares that it is the supreme law of the land. But that will not long be the case if the civilization jihadists have their way. We must ensure that shariah is not allowed to undermine that constitutional precept – to the detriment of women, children, and the rest of us.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan. He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network, and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio. 

Michael Coren – Islamic Sharia law adopted by British legal chiefs

 

Arutz Sheva, Expert: Not All Muslims Happy Over UK’s Sharia Acceptance

In the wake of a decision by Britain to accept the rulings ofIslamic sharia law in matters of inheritance, Arutz Sheva spoke with Ari Soffer, the Managing Editor of Arutz Sheva English and a former resident of London who is familiar with the on-the-ground political situation in the United Kingdom.

According to Soffer, not all British Muslims support the “creeping Islamization” that the UK has been undergoing, in which Islamic law takes its place among the laws of the land. That process is being pushed by Muslim organizations in Britain, but a large number of Muslims in the country would prefer to keep such laws as a private matter between themselves.

UK law already has provisions for the implementation of Sharia law on an individual basis, with decisions handed down by Islamic courts enforced in the country’s courts. Thus, the only purpose for the legislation, he said, was for Islamist radicals to promote their agenda of installing Islamic law in the daily life of Britons.

Soffer added that the British government has only itself to blame for the situation. It was the government that promoted the idea of a “dialog” with what turned out to be a set of radical groups, convinced they were a positive alternative to Al Qaeda. There was a need to create such a dialog in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it was felt.

The groups encouraged the government to see them as an “Islamic alternative” to Al Qaeda, even though theologically they had much in common. “This was the main reason the governments of Europe enhanced the status of these groups, and now their agenda is clear,” he said. However, he added, most Britons were puzzled at what to do about the situation. “They do not to deal with the new reality because they don’t know how to,” he added.

 

Also see

 

UK: Child Sex Slavery, Multiculturalism and Islam

by Soeren Kern:

“[T]he agencies responsible for child-protection have almost entirely failed in their job to protect vulnerable children. From a fear of being called ‘racist,’ police forces across the country have buried the evidence…. Political correctness would be used to make sure that people did not speak about this phenomenon.” — from Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery

“[A] 2010 document by the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board stated that, ‘great care will be taken in drafting…this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity. It is imperative that discussions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.’” — from Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery

British authorities enforcing political correctness have allowed Muslim paedophile gangs to sexually abuse children with impunity for more than two decades, according to a comprehensive new study that examines the harrowing epidemic of child grooming in towns and cities across Britain.

The meticulously documented report, entitled, “Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery,” shows how officials in England and Wales were aware of rampant child grooming—the process by which sexual predators befriend and build trust with children in order to prepare them for abuse—by Muslim gangs since at least 1988.

Rather than taking steps to protect British children, however, police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media deliberately downplayed the severity of the crimes perpetrated by the grooming gangs in order to avoid being accused of “Islamophobia” or racism.

The conspiracy of silence was not broken until November 2010, when it was leaked that police in Derbyshire had carried out an undercover investigation—dubbed Operation Retriever—and arrested 13 members of a Muslim gang for grooming up to 100 underage girls for sex.

 

Seven members of a child sex grooming gang in Oxford who were found guilty in 2013 (clockwise from top left): Kamar Jamil, Akhtar Dogar, Anjum Dogar, Assad Hussain, Mohammed Karrar, Bassam Karrar, and Zeeshan Ahmed.
They were sentenced to a combined 95 years in prison for raping, torturing and trafficking British girls as young as 11.

Shortly thereafter, the Times of London published the results of a groundbreaking investigation into the sexual exploitation and internal trafficking of girls in the Midlands and the north of England. In January 2011, the newspaper reported that in 17 court cases since 1997 in which groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls, 53 of the 56 men found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, and just three were white.

In September 2012, the Times published another exposé that revealed the hidden truth about the sale and extensive use of British children for sex. The article showed that organized groups of Muslim men were able to groom, pimp and traffic girls across the country with virtual impunity. Although offenders were identified to police, they were not prosecuted. A child welfare expert interviewed by the newspaper said the government’s reluctance to tackle such street grooming networks represented “the biggest child protection scandal of our time.”

********

But this is “just the tip of the iceberg,” according to a document published by the House of Commons, which estimates that at least 20,000 British children are at risk of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs.

Meanwhile, prosecutions are few and far between. The report calculates that for every man convicted of such crimes, there are between two to ten other men who were directly implicated, but for whom there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. “If this is true,” the authors write, “it means that with this crime there are very many perpetrators getting away with it.”

Finally, the authors of the report examine the links between Islamic culture and doctrine and the crime of child grooming. They note:

“There is not one case where it was non-Muslim men grooming Muslim girls, and that despite the fact that 95% of the men in Britain are not Muslims…There is no evidence at all that non-Muslim men are grooming Muslim children, but ample evidence that Muslim men are directing their grooming at non-Muslim schoolgirls.”

At the same time, “the notion that Islam could be the basis for this criminality is always ruled out of the question, with no investigation of Islamic theology, the history of Islam, or the rulings of Sharia law.”

The authors then provide a thorough examination of Islamic sacred texts (pp. 222-268) and conclude, among other observations:

1) “The laws in various Islamic states show that they think that Aisha [who was married to Mohammad at the age of six] was under 10 when Mohammed had sex with her. And to Muslims, Mohammed is regarded as the perfect man; it is part of their religion that they should emulate his behavior.”

2) “Muslim men are taught in mosques that women are second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority.”

3) “The Koran makes a distinction between legal wives and slaves, and instructs Muslim men that they can have sex with either their wives or their slaves.”

4) “Not only are Muslim men permitted legally and morally to rape their slaves, but they are also forgiven if they turn a slave girl into a prostitute.”

5) “There are also features of Islam which are supremacist and which look with contempt at non-Muslims.”

6) “The Hadiths also permit Muslims to rape women who are captured after a battle (whereupon they become the property of Muslims, that is, they become slaves).”

At the same time, British judges are increasingly using Islamic Sharia law to justify light sentences for Muslims who rape underage girls:

“As late as May 2013, the media were reporting that a Muslim man in Nottingham who had ‘raped’ an underage girl, was spared a prison term after the judge heard that the naïve 18-year-old attended an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Rashid told psychologists he had no idea that having sex with a willing 13-year-old was against the law; besides, his education had taught him to believe that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground.’”

The report is emphatic in blaming the doctrine of multiculturalism for Britain’s lack of resolve in confronting the grooming gangs:

“Multiculturalism is a fundamentally incoherent doctrine, invented to conceal the serious conflicts which have arisen when peoples from vastly different cultures, with different values, are forced to live together.”

“Political correctness and the doctrine of multiculturalism meant that the professionals whose job it was to help the vulnerable were consciously commanding that these diverse cultural values could not be discussed.”

“Multiculturalism came about in order to deny that there is any significance to cultures having different values and to conceal that there will be conflict when these incompatible values come together. Political correctness is the means by which such denial is enforced.”

“Those who propound and defend multiculturalism say that people from different cultural backgrounds have different values, and that we must all accept these values as being of equal validity. But when it comes to examining what those different values are, multiculturalists suddenly lose interest in the details of these differences and lose interest in the consequences that follow from these different values. Yet we have seen, that even those Muslims who are classified as liberal or moderate have views which would be considered extreme if those views were espoused by a non-Muslim in Britain. Are we really surprised that conflicts and problems arise when communities with different values are living side-by-side? These conflicts are just concealed by the advocates of multiculturalism. Proponents of multiculturalism dare not examine the views of Islamic fundamentalists, that (significant) minority of Muslims in Britain who want Sharia law.”

“Multiculturalists think that Muslims will embrace multiculturalism; yet Islam was established 1,300 years ago to destroy multiculturalism.”

“Islamic society is a totalitarian society, all other values are to be subordinated to Islamic values. But if anyone in Britain dares to criticize Islam, they will be denounced and told they live in a multicultural society, and must accept these totalitarian values.”

The report concludes: “Every decade, the Muslim population of Britain almost doubles in size, so there is every reason to believe that without some massive changes in our society, the activities of these gangs will grow and grow.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

 

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills Photo: ALAMY

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills Photo: ALAMY

By , Religious Affairs Editor:

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.

Some lawyers, however, described the guidance as “astonishing”, while campaigners warned it represented a major step on the road to a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise it with ministers.

“This violates everything that we stand for,” she said. “It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”

The guidance, quietly published this month and distributed to solicitors in England and Wales, details how wills should be drafted to fit Islamic traditions while being valid under British law.

It suggests deleting or amending standard legal terms and even words such as “children” to ensure that those deemed “illegitimate” are denied any claim over the inheritance.

It recommends that some wills include a declaration of faith in Allah which would be drafted at a local mosque, and hands responsibility for drawing up some papers to Sharia courts.

The guidance goes on to suggest that Sharia principles could potentially overrule British practices in some disputes, giving examples of areas that would need to be tested in English courts.

Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws.

However, a network of Sharia courts has grown up in Islamic communities to deal with disputes between Muslim families.

A few are officially recognised tribunals, operating under the Arbitration Act.

They have powers to set contracts between parties, mainly in commercial disputes, but also to deal with issues such as domestic violence, family disputes and inheritance battles.

But many more unofficial Sharia courts are also in operation.

Parliament has been told of a significant network of more informal Sharia tribunals and “councils”, often based in mosques, dealing with religious divorces and even child custody matters in line with religious teaching.

They offer “mediation” rather than adjudication, although some hearings are laid out like courts with religious scholars or legal experts sitting in a manner more akin to judges than counsellors.

One study estimated that there were now around 85 Sharia bodies operating in Britain. But the new Law Society guidance represents the first time that an official legal body has recognised the legitimacy of some Sharia principles.

Read more at The Telegraph

Also see:

  • ISLAMIC RULES TO BE ENSHRINED INTO ENGLISH AND WELSH LAW (breitbart.com) - The Law Society is officially a trade organisation for solicitors but in reality it has a much wider scope. It regulates Lawyers and can ‘strike them off’ its register, making it impossible to practise.

    Lawyers are required to pay a membership fee to the Society, whether they agree with its stance of things like Sharia or not.

    Conservative Lawyers took to facebook to complain to friends about the new rules, but none felt able to comment publicly because of the Law Society’s ability to end their careers.

Younger, Educated and Affluent – The UK’s Terror Sympathizers

Muslim Extremists Allegedly Plotted ‘Jihad’ to Takeover British Schools

Muslim families begging anti-terror police to arrest their sons and prevent them from joining jihadists in Syria

  • London force reveals large rise in arrests of world-be jihadists in 2014
  • Focus on more ‘sensitive’ and ‘less macho’ approach to anti-terrorism
  • Assistant Commissioner reveals better public and police co-operation
Changes: Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick said that anti-terrorist policing was seen a decade ago as 'the macho end of a macho organisation'

Changes: Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick said that anti-terrorist policing was seen a decade ago as ‘the macho end of a macho organisation’

Muslim families in Britain are reporting their sons and brothers to police if they fear they will leave to fight in Syria, it was revealed today.

Scotland Yard has announced a large increase in arrests of world-be jihadists this year as it embarks on a more ‘sensitive’ and ‘less macho’ approach to fighting terrorism.

The London force says families, officers and community leaders are working better together – and this is being partly put down to an all-female leadership in Britain’s anti-terrorist police team.

More Syria-related arrests have happened since the start of 2014 than in all 2013, which police say is down to parents who would rather their sons were arrested in Britain than killed fighting.

Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick told The Times: ‘We’re getting lots of support from families who are ringing up and saying they are worried about their brother, son, sister sometimes, friend or indeed from other sources of information and intelligence.

‘We [have] certainly got a lot more information and a lot more concerned people.

‘We want to increase the proportion of people that would contact us, but we are getting a lot of calls for help.’

Miss Dick – Britain’s most senior woman officer – has two female deputies in Helen Ball, national co-ordinator of anti-terror investigations and Patricia Gallan, head of security and protection.

Read more at Daily Mail

From Radical to Terrorist: The “Conveyor Belt” to Violent Extremism

East London Mosqueby Samuel Westrop:

The individuals attached to the radicalization of the Woolwich killers were not unabashed advocates of terrorism, but so-called “soft Islamists” – afforded money and responsibility by the government in the vain hope that “non-violent” extremists would temper the more visible consequences of violent extremists. In truth, “moderate” Islamism seems to act as a “conveyor belt” to violent Islamism.

The greatest obstacle remains the failure of government, media and academia to accept that some “moderate” Islamists are frequently the cause, and Adebowale merely the symptom.

The progression from being a radical to being a terrorist has been referred to as the extremism “conveyor belt.” Although the government has acknowledged the fundamental role of so-called “non-violent” or “soft Islamist” extremists in this progression, taxpayers continue to fund extremist groups.

Michael Adebowale, one of the two British jihadists found guilty of murdering soldier Lee Rigby near London’s Woolwich barracks in May 2013, has recently attributed his radicalization to Islamic preacher Sheikh Khalid Yasin.

According to the Daily Mirror newspaper, Adebowale, who refused to give evidence during his trial, stated that he converted to Islam after listening to cleric Sheikh Khalid Yasin’s lectures, which he said taught him “the purpose of life.”

Yasin, an American-born Islamic preacher, claims Christians and Jews are “kuffar” [infidels] and their beliefs are “filth.” Yasin has called for the killing of homosexuals and claims that “Christian groups” have deliberately infected Africans with the AIDS virus. He further adds that the Koran gives men permission to beat women.

Adebowale is not the first violent extremist to name Yasin as his muse. In 2011, Khalid Yasin was invited by three men, later convicted of inciting terrorism, to address a meeting of young Muslims in Manchester.

While Yasin’s views are rejected by many, he is by no means a pariah figure. In February 2011, the BBC interviewed Yasin for a documentary on Dutch politician Geert Wilders. The program introduced the Sheikh as a “moderate” preacher “engaged in de-radicalising youth.”

It seems to be self-proclaimed “moderate” organizations and mosques that are involved in the radicalization of young Muslim men. In May 2013, The Daily Telegraph reported:

[Adebowale's] mother was advised by a neighbour to take him to the head of the Woolwich mosque for spiritual guidance. He was converted to Islam by the head Imam, and taken for weeks of “further training” at a centre near Cambridge. When he returned, however, he was even more “radicalised” and his mother could no longer “get through to him”.

In 2010, a Freedom of Information request revealed that, since 2007, the local Government had provided the very same Woolwich Mosque, also known as the Greenwich Islamic Centre, with a public grant of £62,500, supposedly to counteract violent extremism.

The media’s curious habit of separating extremist preachers from the very terrorists they appear to have inspired has previously been examined; journalists and politicians, however, seem unable to accept that some Islamist groups might say one thing in public but promote a very different thing behind closed doors.

***********

The process of radicalization seems institutionalized within Britain’s leading “moderate” Islamist groups. Until the government chooses seriously to challenge the extremism promoted by these organizations, withdraws all public funding and puts a stop to the inclusion of “non-violent” extremists in the discussion of public policy, the “conveyor belt” will continue to release more and more radicalized youth onto the streets of British cities.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

An Epidemic of Underage Sex-Slavery in Britain

sex groomingGates of Vienna,  by Baron Bodissey:

On Thursday evening, Gavin Boby of the Law and Freedom Foundation appeared on Michael Coren’s TV program to talk about the epidemic of “grooming and pimping” — or, less euphemistically, the sexual slavery of children — in the UK:

Mr. Boby has launched an initiative called “Never Shall Be Slaves” that aims to help victims of Muslim sex-slavery gangs to sue the authorities for negligence:

The aim is to force Councils and Police Authorities to pay. This will lead negligent Council Officers and Police chiefs to get demoted and sidelined, and investigation of these crimes to be taken seriously. And force them to move from turning a blind eye, to actively investigating for such crimes.

This in turn should lead them to detect more of them, which will put further pressure on them to pursue such cases harder, and so on.

For more on Gavin Boby and the Law and Freedom Foundation, see the Law and Freedom Foundation Archives.