UK TERROR WARNING: ISIS threaten DOOMSDAY ATTACK on major tourist spots in London

ISIS featured the National Gallery and Tower Bridge (left) in a video that also targeted the PM

ISIS featured the National Gallery and Tower Bridge (left) in a video that also targeted the PM

Sunday Express, By KIERAN CORCORAN, Jan. 31, 2016:

Militants from the terror group, also known as Daesh, identified Britain as its number one terror target in the chilling message.

It said that the UK is due the “lion’s share” of ISIS’s wrath – in revenge for the RAF’s bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria.

The jihadis are thought to have their sights set on central London, after a recent video highlighted a string of potential targets.

The latest ISIS video flashed up Tower Bridge and other London landmarks - potential targets

The latest ISIS video flashed up Tower Bridge and other London landmarks – potential targets

Footage released last week includes frames of high-profile attractions which could be the site of an attack.

They include Buckingham Palace, Trafalgar Square, Tower Bridge and Big Ben.

It marks a change in focus from the Paris massacre, where gunmen shunned national monuments in favour of restaurants, bars and a music venue.

The ISIS message compared the coming strike to scenes of Armageddon in the Koran.

Organised campaign to hobble anti-terror fight

Ifhat Smith talks to Sky News

Ifhat Smith talks to Sky News

Telegraph, By Andrew Gilligan, Jan. 30 2016:

An organised campaign to undermine Britain’s fight against terrorism can be revealed today.

Islamist activists linked to Cage, a group known to sympathise with terrorists, are using coordinated leaks to mainstream news organisations, including the BBC, to spread fear and confusion in Muslim communities about the Government’s anti-terror policy, Prevent.

Investigations by the Telegraph reveal that several widely reported recent stories about Prevent are false or exaggerated – and many of the supposedly “ordinary Muslim” victims are in fact activists in the campaign, known as Prevent Watch. The stories include a claim which became a cause célèbre for Prevent’s opponents – that a Muslim schoolboy from London was “interrogated like a criminal” for using the phrase “ecoterrorism” in class.

The boy’s mother, Ifhat Smith, who took the story to the media, presented herself as a traumatised ordinary Londoner. She is in fact an activist in the Prevent Watch campaign and a key figure in the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, which believes in replacing secular democratic government with Islamic government.

In a “scathing” court judgment to be published shortly, Mrs Smith’s legal claim against her son’s school and the Government has been dismissed as baseless and she has been ordered to pay £1,000 for wasting court time.

Jahangir Mohammed, a Cage activist

Jahangir Mohammed, a Cage activist

In November, the BBC reported that the east London council of Waltham Forest had mistakenly released the first names of some primary school pupils thought at risk of radicalisation.

The release came as the result of a parent’s Freedom of Information Act request for correspondence about Prevent. The parent concerned, Haras Ahmed, described Prevent as “a disaster from start to finish”, and said he was “appalled [that] children’s data, such sensitive data, are released.”

However, a council spokesman said that the names had been blocked out in the release sent to Mr Ahmed but that the information sent had been “manipulated by a third party to reveal the blocked-out names.”

In the coverage, Mr Ahmed presented himself as merely an ordinary parent. However, he is also an activist in Prevent Watch. An online search would have revealed that he was listed to speak at a meeting with the group only four days after the story aired.

Prevent Watch heavily promoted a BBC story about a Muslim boy in Accrington, Lancashire, whose family was supposedly visited by police under Prevent after he wrote at school that he lived in a “terrorist house,” a misspelling of terraced house.

Police said the visit had nothing to do with Prevent, terrorism, or the spelling mistake and was, in fact, carried out because the child also alleged that he was the victim of a violent assault. Clive Grunshaw, the Lancashire police and crime commissioner, has complained to the BBC about the story.

The corporation and other media outlets have issued corrections but Prevent Watch continues to promote the false story on its website and Twitter feed. “Extremists and terrorist sympathisers are using the media to make it harder for the authorities to fight terrorism,” said Hannah Stuart, research fellow at the counter-extremism think tank the Henry Jackson Society.

“Journalists need to check basic facts and ask simple questions about the identity and motivations of the people making these claims, otherwise Prevent Watch and Cage will be allowed to continue frightening and alienating Muslims with their campaign of lies.”

Prevent Watch’s website includes other cases which have nothing to do with Prevent. They include an account of how a female student, “HH,” felt offended when a lecturer made a joke about her joining Isil, and how a schoolgirl, “SA,” felt offended when her teacher posed questions to the class about democracy and British institutions. It also claims as “victimisation” a number of cases where a Prevent referral was clearly warranted, including that of a law student, “DF,” who was later convicted of terrorism offences.

Prevent Watch is linked to Cage, which notoriously defended “Jihadi John”, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant killer, and is described as an “apologist for terrorism” by Boris Johnson. Prevent Watch has links to Mend, an extremist front group which wants to let Muslims fight in Syria.

At a rally in Waltham Forest later this week, Mrs Smith and Mr Ahmed will share a platform with Jahangir Mohammed, a Cage activist, regular speaker at its events and co-author of at least three reports for Cage, one of which described Prevent as a “cradle-to-grave police state.”

Mr Mohammed wrote an article in the Socialist Worker for Cage, blaming the security services for the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby and saying that “if anyone radicalised [the killer Michael Adebolajo], it was them.” There is no suggestion that Mrs Smith or Mr Ahmed are supporters of terrorism.

Another speaker at Wednesday’s rally will be Weyman Bennett, a hard-Left activist who has falsely claimed that Prevent criminalises any opponent of the Government, stating that “if you question Cameron, you are a non-violent extremist.” Alex Kenny, an senior member of the National Union of Teachers (NUT), will also speak.

As The Telegraph revealed last week, Mr Kenny and other NUT leaders and activists in east London are working with Cage and Mend to undermine Prevent, even though teachers have a legal duty to safeguard pupils from extremism. Rob Ferguson, an NUT activist, orchestrated a statement which falsely claimed that Prevent has caused attempts to ban school prayers and targeted young people “for the views they hold on issues such as government foreign policy.” The NUT has refused to take action against him.

Kevin Courtney, deputy general secretary of the NUT, said: “It is quite correct to raise any legitimate concerns about the Prevent strategy that could result in unintended negative consequences. To inoculate children against radicalisation, teachers need to encourage free-flowing debate inside schools, but one concern is that children will be reported over things they say which are not of an extremist nature.”

Prevent Watch’s website and Twitter feed quote many false and inflammatory statements about Prevent, including a claim that “a child simply praying has now become an act that requires state surveillance and intervention.” The group describes as “excellent” a guide by the National Union of Students which claims that even feeling “anxious or reserved in class,” having “a desire for political or moral change,” or “questioning western media reporting” makes students “liable to court-sanctioned accusations of radicalisation”.

None of these are grounds for intervention and few real Prevent interventions are directly police led. As with the child in the “eco-terrorist” incident, most incidents are resolved quickly and informally at school level. Others may involve a referral to Channel, a mentoring programme run by Muslim civilians in which participation is voluntary.

Prevent Watch claims that Prevent “singles out” Muslims because it is “racist”. Almost all terrorist plots and attacks in Great Britain over the last ten years have involved Muslims, and all those who have joined Isil are Muslim. However, only 56 per cent of those referred for Channel interventions are Muslim.

Trump: Banned in Britain?

re

Frontpage, by Deborah Weiss, Jan. 28, 2016:

Shortly after Britain celebrated the 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta, which laid the foundation for human rights including free expression, the UK Parliament debated whether or not to ban U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump for “hateful comments.”

On January 18, 2016, Martin Luther King Day, the British Parliament took up a three hour debate, at taxpayer expense, discussing the merits of banning an American who may  potentially be the leader of the Free World come the next Inauguration day.

The debate was sparked by a petition to ban Trump, signed by approximately 575,000 Brits, likely comprised primarily of Muslims and liberals.

Attacking Trump as a bigoted Islamophobe, a racist, a fool, a buffoon and wazzok, Members of Parliament argued over whether or not it was a good idea to ban from entry, an American citizen, who was speaking to an American audience, using speech legally protected in America.

Members of the Labour Party and those representing the Scottish National Party were particularly harsh, claiming that Trump’s comments weren’t just “wrong” but “dangerous,” and don’t just “harm our values” but promote Daesh’s “twisted narrative” that “pits the West against the Muslim faith.”

Sparking the controversy was Trump’s announcement of support for a ban on Muslim immigration into America until “our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Steve Double, a conservative MP, noted the irony of a Parliament that seeks to ban Trump for his ideas, in reaction to Trump’s position seeking to ban people based on their ideas.

Yet others argued that Trump’s comments crossed the line from “hate speech” to “discrimination” or “incitement,” despite the fact Trump has said nothing to encourage others to be violent.  It is this conflation of language and the disintegration of values, including personal responsibility, which is at the root of political correctness that truly poses a danger to Western civilization.

Censorship is clearly on the rise throughout the West including Europe, Canada and even in America.  It takes place in many forms including, but not limited to, societal self-censorship, government condemnation of speech, and so-called “hate speech laws.”

Still, it is only “hate speech” against Muslims that appears to concern the British MP’s, who are pandering to their increasing Muslim constituency.  Muslims in the UK who preach “Death to the West,” hatred of infidels, and abhorrence of all things British, are not shouldering equal accusations of “hate speech.”

To the contrary, Britain has had a somewhat “hands off” attitude towards Muslims, whether jihadists entering from abroad or Islamists preaching hatred of infidels at home.  It has welcomed war criminals, rapists and “refugees,” sometimes with fake passports, so long as they claim Asylum, legitimately or not.

In 2013, Kuwaiti Sheik Yasser Al-Habib came to Britain specifically for the purpose of riling up ShiaMuslims against Sunnis.  He spent 2 million pounds buying a former church and converting it to a mosque and satellite TV channel, from which he broadcasts his fiery sermons.  Though he was formerly jailed in Kuwait for similar practices, complaints to the British Home Secretary fell on deaf ears.

Another case in point is Behar Kasemi, a Muslim refugee in Britain, who has been arrested for threatening to cut his wife’s heart out because she became “too British.” During his interview with police, he insisted that wives are supposed to obey their husbands.

Additionally, subsequent to the public launch of ISIS sex slave trade, approximately 1400 British girls were raped by Pakistani “British” Muslims.  Still, the government has failed to even initiate an inquiry or investigation.

ISIS has made no secret that it planned to smuggle jihadists into Europe through the refugee program in furtherance of its goal to conquer the West and expand its “Caliphate.” According to at least one ISIS operative, ISIS members have already successfully entered Western countries under the guise of Asylum-seeking.

To make matters worse, a Barnabus report indicates that Prime Minister David Cameron was warned prior to accepting the first wave of the 20,000 refugees scheduled to enter the U.K. that ISIS jihadists were among them. But that didn’t stop him from welcoming them with open arms.

The UK government’s previous standard to ban a person from entry was that such a ban would be “conducive to the public good.” It standard later expanded to “unacceptable behavior.”  Ostensibly, jihadi outrages, tirades and violence against infidels constitute acceptable behavior, while speech criticizing such hatred is simply unacceptable.

The British government is in full denial mode, suffering from Jihad Denial Syndrome.  British police denied that the 7/7 terrorist attacks were religiously motivated.  Imams caught on tape preaching venomous anti-infidel sermons have gone unprosecuted as have those who have desecrated Britain’s war memorials.

Although there has long been an unholy alliance between the far left and Islamists, this diseased mindset is spreading to “conservatives” such as David Cameron in Britain.  Whether due to fear, ignorance, spinelessness or Islamist sympathies, British politicians simply do not want to acknowledge that Islamicsupremacism is underlying motivation for the attacks on British citizens and British values.

It is unfortunate that the U.K., past known for its liberal democracy and a proud tradition of free expression has stooped to the level of this Parliamentary debate.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a 57-UN Member body, has long been on a mission at the head-of-state level, to persuade Western governments to penalize “defamation of Islam” with deterrent punishments, preferably criminal in nature.  Under the guise of “defamation”, “Islamophobia”, “racism”, “hate speech” and “incitement”, the OIC aspires to attain the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West.

The OIC and other Islamist organizations have also been promoting the false idea that “hate speech’causes terrorism.  As a case in point, it cites the riots subsequent to publication of the infamous Danish cartoons. The assumption is that these riots were inevitable, and their fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the cartoonists rather than those who committed violence.

Having bought into the notion that speech causes terrorism, politically correct politicians espouse the idea that the way to quell terrorism is to stifle speech.  Thus, the rising of speech restrictions regarding Islam are on the rise all across the West, not coincidentally concurrent with the rise of ISIS-inspired attacks and the influx of Muslim refugees.

Many Western politicians parrot stealth Islamist groups, insisting that we must de-link our association of Islam from Islamic terrorism “because that’s what groups like ISIL want.”  Yet, what ISIS does or does not want should not control us.  The Enemy Threat Doctrine mandates that if jihadists say they are religiously motivated, we should acknowledge this fact.  We must know our enemy and be able to name it by name in order to produce an effective strategy of defeat.

Denial of a problem does not make the problem disappear.  To the contrary, the first step in overcoming a threat is acknowledging both its existence and its nature.  Yet, jihadist ideology is only half the problem.  Political correctness, as exemplified by politicians more concerned about “offensive language” than the proliferation of jihadist ideology, constitutes a threat from within.

The U.K. parliamentary proceeding was largely for show. It ended without a vote, as only the Home Secretary has the authority to implement a ban.

Nevertheless, the debate was symbolic of the loss of the Judeo-Christian values of freedom of expression, human rights and personal responsibility, once cherished in the UK.

Donald Trump was merely stating a political position which acknowledged that the US government cannot decipher who is or is not adhering to an enemy ideology and that officials don’t yet have sufficient knowledge to make proper judgments regarding entry.  Apparently, this is an unpopular viewpoint among British MP’s.  And, the UK is increasingly using a ban from entry as a form of tyrannical censorship for those who merely express a dissenting political view or an unpalatable truth, so long as it doesn’t come from Muslims.

Demonstrating the height of British dhimmitude and hypocrisy regarding what is or is not “acceptable behavior,” is the UK’s past bans of Dutch MP Geert Wilders, talk radio show host Michael Savage, and Islamic scholar and author Robert Spencer.  None of them have ever encouraged violence or illegality.  To the contrary, each are on the front-lines in the fight for freedom, including freedom of speech.  If indeed, Donald Trump is banned from the UK, at least he will be in good company.

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to Frontpage Magazine.  She is also a contributing author to the book, “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network”, the main researcher and writer for “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” and the author of “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech.”  Her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org.

More than 400 children under 10 referred for ‘deradicalisation’

Getty Images

Getty Images

BBC, by Sima Kotecha, Jan. 21, 2016:

A total of 415 children aged 10 and under have been referred to the government’s deradicalisation programme in England and Wales over the last four years, the BBC has learned.

National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) figures obtained by the BBC show 1,424 children aged 11-15 were also referred.

The “Channel” scheme, set up after the 7 July London bombings, aims to steer people away from extremism.

The government says the scheme has successfully deradicalised people.

The BBC obtained NPCC figures, under a Freedom of Information request, which showed that a total of 1,839 children aged 15 and under had been referred over concerns they were at risk of radicalisation between January 2012 and December 2015.

The figures show referrals are rising year on year.

The “Channel” programme, which is part of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, focuses on identifying people who are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism and providing them with support to stop that from happening.

Those at risk of right-wing extremism can also be referred.

Sally Bates, of the National Association of Head Teachers’ (NAHT) says it is important for teachers to be able to safeguard their pupils from extremism and radicalisation.

In some cases, young children had seen beheading videos with their families, she said.

“That does raise a number of concerns and that’s where I can understand that referrals are then made from teachers.”

Under laws brought in last summer, schools, prisons, the NHS, and local authorities have a legal obligation, known as the “Prevent Duty”, to spot individuals who might be vulnerable to extremism and radicalisation.

Figures show most of the referrals in both age groups were made in November last year – after the new law came into force – suggesting it could partly be a reason for the increase in the number of referrals.

‘Stigmatising Muslims’

One parent, Ifhat Shaheen, told the BBC her 14-year-old son was interrogated by people working on the government’s counter-terrorism strategy after he mentioned the word “eco-terrorists” in school.

He was taken aside at Central Foundation School in London and asked if he was affiliated to the Islamic State group, she said.

“A teacher’s job is to teach children and not to spy on children,” she said.


What is the ‘Channel’ programme?

“Channel” is the government’s programme designed to stop vulnerable people from being drawn into violent and non-violent extremist or terrorist behaviour.

It is an “early intervention” scheme, designed to work with individuals of any age who are at risk of being exploited by extremist or terrorist ideologues.

The type of support is tailored to the individual, but may focus on a person’s vulnerabilities around health, education, employment or housing, as well as specialist mentoring or faith guidance, or even broader diversionary activities such as sport.

Anyone can make a referral, including education, health, youth offending teams, police, social services, families or the community.

The programme is voluntary and, in the case of children, parental consent is needed.

Source: The Channel Programme


She added: “Schools are meant to be a safe place where you can have open dialogue and discussion.”

“It’s really heart-breaking to hear that young Muslim children are being criminalised in this way for the wrong reasons and an overreaction. It stigmatises Muslims.”

Her son’s school said the safeguarding and wellbeing of its young people was its main concern and it did not comment on individual cases.

Three London schoolgirls, Kadiza Sultana, Amira Abase and Shamima Begum, travelled to Syria last February

Three London schoolgirls, Kadiza Sultana, Amira Abase and Shamima Begum, travelled to Syria last February

At another school – Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School in north London – head teacher Jo Dibb said that no pupils had been referred to “Channel”.

Part of the reason, she says, is that staff encourage conversation and debate about extremism rather than shying away from it.

“Just because a young person makes an off-the-cuff remark – it doesn’t make them a terrorist.

“All young people will say things that they don’t mean and it’s our job as educators to make sure they understand what they’re saying and that they can explore their ideas.” If there was still concern, only then would a referral be made.

‘Growing trust’

The Channel programme is voluntary and of the 4,000 referrals since 2012, only hundreds have agreed to take part.

Former teacher Khalsoom Bashir, from Muslim women’s charity Inspire, says a rise in referrals shows more people have faith in the system.

Schools will have a duty to prevent pupils having access to extremist material online

Schools will have a duty to prevent pupils having access to extremist material online

The government says the “Channel” programme has changed lives – and pulled people away from a dangerous life of extremism.

Security Minister John Hayes said: “This is about safeguarding and it’s working. This is about protection, this is about help, this is about providing all the support you need to make sure your children are safe.”

UK Review of Muslim Brotherhood: Top 13 Quotes

Muslim Brotherhood supporters (© Reuters)

Muslim Brotherhood supporters (© Reuters)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Jan. 7, 2016:

The U.S. government rejected the conclusions of the British government’s 18-month review of its intelligence and policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood, concluding that the Islamist group is linked to terrorism and extremism. The comprehensive study welcomed outside contributors, of which the Clarion Project was one.

The British government rejected the myth that the Brotherhood is “moderate” and the patently false notion that it is “non-violent.” The Brotherhood and its ideology are now rightly seen as adversarial and measures will be taken to counter its threat. While the UK stopped just shy of banning it as a terrorist group, Prime Minister David Cameron said it will “keep under review whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription.”

Here are the top 13 quotes from the British government review and Prime Minister Cameron’s official statement in no particular order:

1. “The Muslim Brotherhood’s foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterizes Western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project.”

2.  “Aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”

3.  “From its foundation the Muslim Brotherhood organized itself into a secretive ‘cell’ structure, with an elaborate induction and education program for new members…This clandestine, centralized and hierarchical structure persists to this day.”

4.  “The Hamas founding charter claims that they are the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood treat them as such. In the past ten years support for Hamas (including in particular funding) has been an important priority for the MB in Egypt and the MB international network.”

5.  “From at least the 1950s the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood also developed an international network, within and beyond the Islamic world. Europe became an important base for the growing Muslim Brotherhood global network.”

6.  “The wider international network of the Muslim Brotherhood now performs a range of functions. It promotes Muslim Brotherhood ideology (including through communications platforms), raises and invests funds, and provides a haven for members of the Brotherhood who have left their country of origin to continue promoting Brotherhood activity.”

7.  “[F]or the most part, the Muslim Brotherhood have preferred non violent incremental change on the grounds of expediency, often on the basis that political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamization is complete. But they are prepared to countenance violence—including, from time to time, terrorism—where gradualism is ineffective.”

8.  “Muslim Brotherhood organizations and associated in the UK have neither openly nor consistently refuted the literature of Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb which is known to have inspired people (including in this country) to engage in terrorism.”

9.  “[The review] concluded that it was not possible to reconcile these [MB] views with the claim made by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in their evidence to the review that ‘the Muslim Brotherhood has consistently adhered to peaceful means of opposition, renouncing all forms of violence throughout its existence.'”

10.  “In the 1990s the Muslim Brotherhood and their associates established public facing and apparently national organizations in the UK to promote their views. None were openly identified with the Muslim Brotherhood and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood remained (and still remains) a secret.”

11.  “[MB fronts] became politically active, notably in connection with Palestine and Iraq, and promoted candidates in national and local elections…sought and obtained a dialogue with Government….were active members in a security dialogue with the police.”

12.  “The Muslim Brotherhood have been publicly committed to political engagement in this country. Engagement with Government has at times been facilitated by what appeared to be a common agenda against al Qaida and (at least in the UK) militant Salafism. But this engagement did not take into account of Muslim Brotherhood support for a proscribed terrorist group and its views about terrorism which, in reality, are quite different from our own.”

13. “Senior Muslim Brotherhood figures and associated have justified attacks against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The U.S. government, without even conducting any kind of review of its own, issued a statement to the Investigative Project on Terrorism rejecting any ban or even any “de-legitimizing” of the Brotherhood at all.

“Political repression of non-violent Islamist groups has historically contributed to the radicalization of the minority of their members who would consider violence…The de-legitimization of non-violent political groups does not promote stability and instead advances the very outcomes that such measures are intended to prevent,” the U.S. government statement claims.

In other words, the U.S. position is this: Be held hostage by the so-called “non-violent Islamist groups.” Sure, the Muslim Brotherhood has a wing named Hamas that the U.S. officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization but it could be worse—at least not all of the group’s members are engaging in violence.

Accept them as “moderates” as they wish, even at the cost of better Muslim alternatives. Don’t confront them. Don’t even “delegitimize” them for their radicalism and ideology because that might push them over the edge.

That’s not a mindset that understands what the threat is and certainly is not one that can defeat it.

SHARIA LAW – BRITAIN’S BLIND SPOT

sw-eye-bannerSharia Watch, Dec. 31, 2015:

Contents

  1. Muslim Council of Britain
  2. Islamic Sharia Council
  3. Muslim Association of Britain
  4. Federation of Student Islamic Societies
  5. The Cordoba Foundation
  6. British Muslim Initiative
  7. Green Lane Mosque
  8. East London Mosque/London Muslim Centre
  9. Islamic Forum of Europe
  10. iEngage
  11. Islam Channel
  12. Islamic Human Rights Commission
  13. London Central Mosque (Regent’s Park Mosque)
  14. Mosques engaged in underage marriage
  15. Approach of the legal profession

Introduction

Sharia Watch UK seeks to highlight and expose those movements in Britain which advocate and support the advancement of sharia law in British society. We seek to explain and describe sharia law in relation to specific issues – primarily the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.

Sharia Watch UK believes in freedom of religion, but we say that its practice must remain within the laws that have been set down by Parliament. To this end, we aim to expose the ways in which sharia law operates in Britain in contravention of the law. We will also highlight the areas in which sharia  advances within the parameters of the law.

We call on the UK government to recognise that the establishment of a sharia state, or campaigning for such, is itself an extremist position. We base this on the fact that a sharia state would involveprofound mistreatment of women and girls (including forced marriage and unequal legal status), theimplementation of barbaric punishments (including stonings and amputations) and the complete destruction of freedom of speech and democracy.

We urge the UK government to immediately cease all funding of groups with such extremist political views, to arrest and charge people where there is evidence of any breach of laws, for example incitement to violence against women or Jews, and to ensure that laws on public order and discrimination are upheld equally across all communities irrespective of religion, cultural beliefs or background.

We urge the UK government to make a clear, unequivocal and public denouncement of sharia law and Islamist ideology, and to ensure all laws which prevent extremism are applied to the groups named in this report.

Sharia Watch UK makes a clear distinction between Muslims as human beings, and Islam as a system of belief. We believe strongly that all Muslims should be afforded equal human and civil rights alongside all other citizens. We believe equally strongly that Muslims must also be burdened with the same responsibilities as all other citizens. However, we assert that Islam is a belief system like any other and as such is liable to scrutiny, criticism, and ridicule and that it is the democratic right of all British citizens to be free to discuss any belief system, and to hold any opinions on that belief system, as they see fit.

We wish to make it clear that the information contained in this report is intended to inform both the British public and our elected representatives of the true beliefs and political philosophy of various “mainstream” Islamic organisations in the UK. We ask that the government recognises the extreme nature of such beliefs and condemns these accordingly.

We would like to stress that all of the information contained in this report can already be found in the public domain.

Muslim Council of Britain

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is perhaps the most prominent of Britain’s “mainstream” Islamic organisations. Founded in London in 1997, the organisation describes itself as “a national representative Muslim umbrella body with over 500 affiliated national, regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools.” The Muslim Council of Britain has received several hundred thousand pounds of taxpayers’ money, despite evidence of its links with extremists and its own extremist beliefs. Cabinet ministers have condemned the MCB for its boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day. In 2009 the British Government cut ties with the Muslim Council of Britain after Daud Abdullah, the Deputy Secretary General, became a signatory to the Istanbul Declaration, which calls for attacks on British troops and Jewish communities.

Representatives of the Muslim Council of Britain feature regularly in the media, particularly at moments of significance involving Islam. For example, following the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, London, senior MCB representative Ibrahim Mogra appeared alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury in a joint message of condemnation and reconciliation. Similarly, Mogra acted as MCB spokesman on the issue of child sex grooming in cities around England. The MCB worked with the police, the NSPCC and other Muslim groups to raise awareness of this problem.

Following the exposure of a number of mosques across Britain which had agreed to marry underage girls, Mogra was again interviewed by numerous media bodies, as representative of the MCB. He told the Daily Mail: “UK law does not allow the marriage of underage girls and that’s all that matters to us here. In this country, it is illegal, it is forbidden and no imam should be allowed to conduct the marriage of an underage child. It should be noted that Mr Mogra’s opposition to child marriage was not based on any moral concern for the child or indeed for women’s rights generally.

Following the London underground terrorist bombings in 2005, a number of Muslim organisations came together to form the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (NIMAB), the aim of which was, according to the new group, to regulate mosques and to ensure that extremism was not being preached. This initiative was reported by the BBC in a highly positive light. The report stated that four of the largest Muslim organisations in Britain, namely the MCB, the Muslim Association of Britain, the British Muslim Forum, and the Al‐Khoei Foundation, shared the government’s concern about radicalisation in mosques.

Furthermore, the MCB was described by Baroness Shirley Williams as “a sensible organisation” on BBC’s Question Time, and representatives of the organisation regularly appear as guests on the BBC, including its Sunday morning discussion programme The Big Questions.

Sharia Watch UK believes that the MCB is itself an extremist organisation. We further believe that the portrayal of this group by the mainstream media as the moderate face of Islam facilitates the cover‐up of this fact and hides from the public mind the true nature of the organisation and the beliefs and motives of its senior representatives. This report aims to provide a more factual analysis of the MCB and its representatives so that the public can have a clearer picture of Islamic extremism in Britain.

Read more

The Islamization of Britain in 2015: Sex Crimes, Jihadimania and “Protection Tax”

uk suicide bombersGatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, December 31, 2015:

  • Hospitals across Britain are dealing with at least 15 new cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) every day. Although FGM has been illegal in Britain since 1984, there has not been a single conviction.
  • At least 1,400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013 in the town of Rotherham, mostly by Muslim gangs, but police and municipal officials failed to tackle the problem because they feared being branded “racist” or “Islamophobic.”
  • Reverend Giles Goddard, vicar of St John’s in Waterloo, central London, allowed a full Muslim prayer service to be held in his church. He also asked his congregation to praise “the God that we love, Allah.”
  • There has been a 60% increase in child sexual abuse reported to the police over the past four years, according to official figures.
  • British intelligence are monitoring more than 3,000 homegrown Islamist extremists willing to carry out attacks in Britain.
  • A Muslim worker at a nuclear power plant in West Kilbride, Scotland, was removed from the premises after he was caught studying bomb-making materials while on the job.
  • “We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist.” – Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic.

The Muslim population of Britain surpassed 3.5 million in 2015 to become around 5.5% of the overall population of 64 million, according to figures extrapolated from a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France, then Germany.

Islam and Islam-related issues were omnipresent in Britain during 2015, and can be categorized into five broad themes: 1) Islamic extremism and the security implications of British jihadists in Syria and Iraq; 2) the continuing spread of Islamic Sharia law in Britain; 3) the sexual exploitation of British children by Muslim gangs; 4) Muslim integration into British society; and 5) the failures of British multiculturalism.

JANUARY 2015

January 7. The British-born Islamic extremist, Anjem Choudary defended the jihadist attacks on the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. In an opinion article published byUSA Today, Choudary wrote:

“Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.

“In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Mohammed are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdoto continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?”

January 9. Muslim cleric Mizanur Rahman of Palmers Green, north London, also defended the attacks in Paris and declared that “Britain is the enemy of Islam.” Speaking to an audience in London — his speech was also streamed online to thousands of his followers — Rahman said the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were guilty of “insulting Islam” and therefore “they can’t expect a different result.” He added: “You know what happens when you insult Mohammed.”

January 14. Zack Davies, 25, attacked a 24-year-old Sikh named Sarandev Bhambra with a machete at a Tesco supermarket in Mold, north Wales. British newspapers initially portrayed the attack as a “racially-motivated attempt” by a right-wing extremist promoting “white power.” It later emerged that Davies is actually a Muslim convert who goes by the name Zack Ali. On the morning of the attack, Davies warned on his Facebook page of his impending assault, posting four verses from the Koran that call for violence against non-Muslims.

January 16. Rahin Aziz, an Islamist from Luton, was pictured in Syria brandishing an AK-47 rifle. In a tweet, Aziz, who also calls himself Abu Abdullah al-Britani, wrote: “Still deciding to what to do with my #british passport, could burn it, flush it down the toilet, I mean realistically its not worth spitting on.”

January 16. Communities Secretary Eric Pickles sent a letter to more than 1,000 imams across Britain asking for their help in fighting extremism and rooting out those who are preaching hatred. Muslim groups responded by accusing the British government of stoking “Islamophobia” and demanding an apology.

January 17. The Telegraph reported that a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist with close links to the jihadist attacks in Paris cannot be deported from Britain because it would breach his human rights. Baghdad Meziane, a 49-year-old British-Algerian, jailed for eleven years in 2003 for running a terror network recruiting jihadists and fundraising for al-Qaeda, was released from prison five years early and allowed to return to his family home in Leicester. Since then, Meziane has successfully thwarted attempts to deport him, despite the government’s repeated insistence that he constitutes “a danger to the United Kingdom.”

According to The Telegraph, a close associate of Meziane, Djamel Beghal, mentored at least two of the suspected gunmen responsible for the killings — Amedy Coulibaly and Chérif Kouachi — while they were together in prison. Beghal’s wife, a French citizen, is living in the UK, courtesy of British taxpayers. Sylvie Beghal lives rent-free in a four-bedroom house in Leicester. She came to Britain with her children in search of a more “Islamic environment,” after deciding that France was too anti-Muslim.

January 20. The former chief of MI6, Sir John Sawers, in what can be seen as a recommendation for self-censorship, warned Britons not to insult Islam if they want to avoid Islamic terrorists from striking inside the country. He said:

“If you show disrespect for others’ core values then you are going to provoke an angry response… There is a requirement for restraint from those of us in the West.”

January 25. Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic, the largest of the BBC’s non-English language news services, said that the term “terrorist” was too “loaded” to describe the actions of the men who killed 12 people in the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

January 26. It emerged that hospitals across Britain are dealing with at least 15 new cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) every day, and that the problem is especially acute in Birmingham. Although FGM has been illegal in Britain since 1984, there has not been a single conviction.

January 29. A Sky News investigation into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, a town in South Yorkshire, found that hundreds of new cases continue to emerge. In August 2014, the so-called Alexis Jay Report revealed that between 1997 and 2013, at least 1,400 children were sexually exploited, mostly by Muslim gangs, and that police and municipal officials failed to tackle the problem because of politically correct concerns over being branded as “racist” or “Islamophobic.”

Read more

Muslim Brotherhood: London is a base for extremists that fight the integration of British Muslims

A recent Muslim Brotherhood rally in CairoReuters

A recent Muslim Brotherhood rally in CairoReuters

IB Times, by Steven G. Merley, Dec. 17, 2015:

For over 14 years I have been engaged in documenting and writing about what I came to call the Global Muslim Brotherhood, which I have defined as a global network developed by Muslim Brothers (Ikhwan) who fled their home countries and settled in Europe and the United States where they went on to found what has become some of the most prominent Islamic organizations in their new home countries.

On more than one occasion, critics have labelled this conspiracy theory thinking and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood once famously called the idea ‘a Hollywood Fiction’. The release of Britain’s Jenkins report on the Muslim Brotherhood on December 17 is, for me at least, a complete vindication in describing how Europe became an important base for the growing Muslim Brotherhood global network.

Beyond that acknowledgment, the UK report also supports what I have also tried for years to document, that the Global Muslim Brotherhood has a highly problematic relationship to violence and is prepared to countenance violence – including, from time to time, terrorism – where gradualism is ineffective.

The reality is actually far worse, as a forthcoming report that I have authored will demonstrate how important Global Muslim Brotherhood leaders from around the world, including the UK, have sat down at the table in an organization that is led by and includes individuals designated by Western governments as terrorist and terrorist financiers. That same organization has made it abundantly clear that it considers “The West” to be the primary enemy of the Islamic world.

Further confirming what I have struggled to get acknowledged is that Muslim Brotherhood groups in the UK are connected to a wider network of Global Muslim Brotherhood organizations. The report identifies the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) as part of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) and concurs with what I wrote in 2008, that FIOE represents the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe.

Even more surprising is the statement in the report that UK charities such as INTERPAL, despitewholly inadequate investigations by the UK Charity Commission, are part of the Hamas and Brotherhood infrastructure in the UK, something I reported in 2009.

Beyond the focus on terrorism, I have also at times tried to move discussion about the Global Muslim Brotherhood beyond terrorism to a focus on how the Brotherhood networks impact the social fabric in the various countries where it is operating.

Once again, the UK report supports what I have long argued which is that the Brotherhood works counter to the successful integration of Muslim immigrants by promoting the view that “Western society is inherently hostile to Muslim faith and interests and that Muslims must respond by maintaining their distance and autonomy.”

However, far more important than the satisfaction I experienced in seeing my long-held views endorsed by a major Western government is the question of what should be done in light of the report findings. While some suggest that a UK ban on the Muslim Brotherhood is in order, it is not altogether clear how such a ban could work given that there is still no “official” definition of who or who is not part of the Muslim Brotherhood or even exactly what constitutes the Global Muslim Brotherhood.

Such a ban would also likely be prone to the phenomenon seen in Germany when various far-right groups are banned only to be re-constituted under a different name and organizational structure. A blanket ban might also raise the risk of allowing the banned organizations to claim that they are being discriminated against, further reinforcing the narrative referred to above that the West is hostile to Muslims.

Far more useful would be a UK governmental blanket policy of denying any imprimatur of legitimacy to UK Muslim Brotherhood groups, something which the very same groups seek at all costs as they strive to be recognised as the sole representatives of the Muslim community. Under such a policy, government would simply refuse to engage with, support, fund, or in another way lend support to any group that it has found to be part of the Global Muslim Brotherhood network.

At the same time, recognition and support should be accorded to any legitimate Muslim organization that is found to be acting without significant ties to the Brotherhood or any other Islamist group. Such recognition of alternative voices would also serve to counter the far-right narrative that Islam itself, rather than Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, is the heart of the problem as well as negating any accusations of “Islamophobia.”

Perhaps most important of all is the report’s finding that the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK, using London as a base, claims to act in support of other Muslim Brotherhood organizations around the world and that this activity is sometimes secretive, if not clandestine.

Yet once again, I have long argued that there is a substantial limit to what we can know about the Global Muslim Brotherhood by using the kind of open source information to which analysts such as myself are limited. To gain further access to the secret workings of these organizations will required dedicated action by national law enforcement and intelligence agencies who can and must take appropriate action when instances of illegal or anti-democratic behaviour is found.

This is only a question of political will and the release of the Jenkins report appears to denote that UK has taken the lead in West in going down that path.

Steven Merley is the editor of the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch which tracks developments in the worldwide networks of the Muslim Brotherhood.

***

From the Vault: The Plan of the Muslim Brotherhood by Dale Hurd

Also see:

Islamic State planning mass attack on Britain, warns head of MI5

Andrew Parker, the director general of MI5 Photo: MI5/PA

Andrew Parker, the director general of MI5 Photo: MI5/PA

Andrew Parker says current level of threat from homegrown jihadis the highest he has seen in a career spanning 32-years

The Telegraph, by Ben Farmer, Oct. 29, 2015:

Islamic State terrorists are planning mass casualty attacks in Britain the head of MI5 has warned.

Andrew Parker, director general of the security agency, said threats from homegrown jihadis who want to fight for the militant movement showed no sign of abating.

He also publicly admitted for the first time that MI5 had to carry out computer hacking attacks against terror networks to crack their communications.

Iisl members parade with flags  Photo: AP

Iisl members parade with flags Photo: AP

He said: “More than 750 extremists from this country have travelled to Syria, and the growth in the threat shows no sign of abating.

“We are seeing plots against the UK directed by terrorists in Syria; enabled through contacts with terrorists in Syria; and inspired online by Isil’s sophisticated exploitation of technology.”

Britons are being rapidly radicalised online and then encouraged to carry out low tech but deadly attacks.

He said: “On top of that, in a range of attacks in Europe and elsewhere, this year we have seen greater ambition for mass casualty attacks.”

While the rise of Isil had dominated the headlines in the past 12 months, he said there was still a threat from al-Qaeda terrorists who are also planning massive attacks in the UK.

He said: “All of this means that the threat we are facing today is on a scale and at a tempo that I have not seen before in my career.”

He went on: “We have thwarted six attempts at terrorist attacks in the UK in the last year, and several plots overseas.

“It may not yet have reached the high water mark, and despite the successes we have had, we can never be confident of stopping everything. The death of 31 British nationals in the Sousse attacks in June was an appalling reminder of the threat.”

The scale of the threat meant MI5 had to update its “toolbox” of methods to fight terrorists, including using computer attacks.

He said: “This includes the ability to conduct operations online and to mount IT attacks (known as equipment interference), under a warrant authorised by the Home Secretary, against terrorist networks, so that we can access their communications.”

Defending the agency’s ability to access communications data, he said: “We use these tools within a framework of strict safeguards and rigorous oversight, but without them we would not be able to keep the country safe.

“As I have said before, we do not, and could not, go browsing at will through the lives of innocent people.”

UK Gov’t to Probe Sharia Councils ‘Parallel’ Legal System

(Photo: © Reuters)

(Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, Oct. 25, 2015:

The UK government has finally agreed to investigate how sharia councils in Britain represent a parallel legal system, one that particularly discriminates against women and fails to protect them from violent husbands.

Baroness Cox, a member of the House of Lords, has been a leading voice over the years speaking out against the dangers of sharia law. Friday, she led a debate in parliament about quasi-legal systems in Britain, such as sharia councils.

The move comes amid the government’s unveiling of its “Counter-Extremism Strategy” released last week. The document states the “overriding principle” of any religious arbitration body is that it must “operate within the rule of law in the UK.”

Evidence has emerged that sharia law is “misused and applied in a way which is incompatible with the law,” the document states. It notes, “There is only one rule of law in our country, which provides rights and security for every citizen. We will never countenance allowing an alternative, informal system of law, informed by religious principles, to operate in competition with it.”

Drawing on research provided by Cox, the government document acknowledges some women were “unaware of their legal rights to leave violent husbands and are being pressurized to attend reconciliation sessions with their husbands despite legal injunctions in place to protect them from violence.”

The government has now committed to commissioning an independent review “to understand the extent to which Shari’a is being misused or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law.”

Cox’s website, equalandfree.org, provides more information on her legislation as well as numerous cases studies of women who have bared the brunt of sharia councils in Britain.

Relax: UK Government to Battle Islamist Violence by Fighting ‘All Forms of Extremism’

Theresa-MayPJ Media, By Robert Spencer On September 2, 2015;

British Home Secretary Theresa May announced last week:

[I]n the not-too-distant future we will be launching an anti-extremism, counter-extremism strategy as a Government. That will be looking across the board at all forms of extremism — yes, Islamist extremism, but also neo-Nazi extremism.

Is Dr. Strangelove patrolling the British countryside in his wheelchair? Has Oswald Mosley mysteriously reappeared and begun ranting on the BBC?

Do the handful of skinheads, convicts, and other idiots with swastikas on their necks sieg-heiling around the fringes of British society really constitute a threat equivalent to that of the international jihad? Hardly. And Theresa May certainly knows it.

She not only knows there is a global threat from Islamic jihadists, she also can’t help but be aware of the fact that there is a very severe and imminent jihad threat within Britain itself. To equate this with a minuscule threat from a handful of neo-Nazi nutjobs (who should of course be combated in any case, however much she exaggerates the threat they pose) shows how deeply May and the entire Conservative government of David Cameron are beholden to Islamic supremacists who will pillory the government as “racist,” “bigoted,” and “Islamophobic” if it speaks too forthrightly and honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

The enlightened and multicultural home secretary is not, of course, speaking just about real neo-Nazis. She also almost certainly is lumping in with neo-Nazis the opponents of jihad terror that she and her government consider to be “right wing.”

In doing this, she has behind her a series of libels from groups such as the far-Left Hope not Hate, and the Marxist, Palestinian jihad-supporting One Law for All to abet this mischaracterization. Both groups, and others like them, have labored for years to brand those who dissent from their far-Left, anti-Israel stances as “right-wing extremists.”

In taking up these tendentious smears and giving them the imprimatur of the British government, May and her cohorts have ruled all honest discussion about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as being unacceptable discourse. In place of that honest discussion, the government has instituted the prevailing fantasies about how Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” and groups such as the Islamic State are not Islamic.

She is, in other words, smearing an honest and realistic response to the jihad threat as “neo-Nazi,” and is enforcing falsehoods about “Islamist extremism” that will hamstring, and ultimately doom to failure, her government’s attempts to combat it.

The same thing is happening in Obama’s America. The administration has published several statements and reports about the threat from “right-wing extremists” while consistently denying the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. He even did so last Wednesday, after a gay, black man murdered two white journalists in a rage over injustices he believed he had suffered. Obama said:

What we know is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism.

Just as with the recent “study” that purported to show that “right-wing extremists” were more of a threat than Islamic jihadists, in saying this Obama is probably leaving out the deaths from 9/11. And if even a fraction of the foiled jihad plots had come to fruition, this would be an even more risible claim than it is.

But this is the opinion of the powerful elites in both America and Britain today, and in both countries, innocent people are going to suffer as a result. Innocents will be unjustly tarred as “right-wing extremists,” and will be susceptible to the incomplete, faulty response to the very real jihad threat that the American and British governments would rather wish away than confront.

Unfortunately, the confrontation cannot and will not be avoided forever. The official denial ensures than when it comes, it will be worse than it could have been had more realistic and effective action been taken sooner. Future generations of free Britons, if there are any, will condemn Theresa May and her boss Cameron as naive fantasists, whose draconian measures against counter-jihadists and blind eye to jihad activity within Britain (except in the most egregious cases) doomed Britain to years of bloodshed and chaos.

In the meantime, British people can sleep easy knowing their government’s good efforts have kept them safe from the neo-Nazi scourge.

Will Britain Pass the Choudary Test?

Gatestone Institute, by Douglas Murray, August 12, 2015:

  • The long-term consequences of allowing Choudary to be free constitute a terrible mistake: the main impact of Choudary on the wider public has been colossally to exacerbate suspicions of Muslims as a whole.
  • Broadcasters have for years introduced him as a “sheikh” or a “cleric,” without often casting doubt on his qualifications to such titles, or noting the comparative paucity of his following.
  • It is perfectly possible that Anjem Choudary will slip between the UK’s terrorism laws once again. Or perhaps now it is he that has slipped up, and the most visible chink in the UK’s counter-extremism policy has finally resolved itself.

If there was a single flaw in the British Prime Minister’s recent speech on countering extremism in the UK, it might be encapsulated in the name “Anjem Choudary.” His speech went into terrific detail on the significance of tacking radicalism through the education system, the Charity Commission, the broadcasting license authority and numerous other means. But it failed the Choudary test.

That test is: What do you do about a British-born man who is qualified to work but appears never to have done so, and who instead spends his time taking his “dole” money and using it to fund a lifestyle devoted solely to preaching against the state?

 

Anjem Choudary (center).

The problem is not quite as straightforward as some commentators make out. The fact that Choudary is British-born and a British citizen makes it legally impossible for Britain to withdraw his citizenship or otherwise render him “stateless.” He has a young family who cannot be allowed to starve on the streets, even if he could. These are admittedly late liberalism problems, but they are problems nonetheless.

On the other hand, what the state has allowed from Choudary in recent years looks more like a late Weimar problem. Choudary is not merely a blowhard pseudo-cleric with perhaps never more than a hundred followers at any one time — although this is certainly the part of his persona that has garnered most attention. Indeed, his attention-seeking is perhaps the only first-rate skill he has. For instance, there was the time he claimed he was planning a “March for Sharia” through the centre of London, culminating at the gates of Buckingham Palace with a demand that the Queen submit to Islam. Having garnered the publicity he desired, Choudary cancelled his march not because there was a fairly measly counter-demo (of which this author was a part) but because his “March for Sharia” would have been unlikely to gather more than a few dozen attendees, and would most likely have descended into a “stroll inviting ridicule,” at best.

The reason Choudary is more than just an attention-seeker is that over many years he has been involved with innumerable people who have shown themselves to be more than blowhards. They have attempted to bring serious sectarian conflict — as well as murder — to the streets of Britain. A number of Choudary’s associates, for instance, were imprisoned a few years back for attempting a Mumbai-style attack on London landmarks, including the London Stock Exchange. Other of his associates have been to prison for incitement and countless terrorist-recruitment offenses; and since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, a number of his followers have gone to Syria and Iraq to join and fight with ISIS.

Choudary himself is a trained lawyer and has a sufficiently adept mind to know on just which side of the law to keep his remarks. The last Labour government’s creation of a new offense of “glorifying terror” ought to have caught Choudary within it, but it appeared not to have done. He has remained a frustratingly free man.

That said, there are other possible explanations for this. One theory — not beyond the realm of possibility — is that Choudary has been, to some extent (knowingly or unknowingly), used as a “fly-trap” by the police or intelligence services. He is well known enough to have anyone seriously interested in the most radical forms of Islamic extremism come to him. And despite the paranoia of his group, thinking that they are being infiltrated (described not least by the former radical Morten Storm in his excellent memoir, “Agent Storm”), it is possible that this is what has been going on all along. It would mean that there was some agreement to allow Choudary to get away with what he does because it is better for such extremism to have an observable and open meeting-point than to be more clandestine.

There are certainly many defences of such a policy — if such a policy there has been. In the short term, it might have stopped several significant attacks. But the long-term consequences of allowing Choudary to be free constitute a terrible mistake: the main impact of Choudary on the wider public has been colossally to exacerbate suspicions of Muslims as a whole. Broadcasters have for years introduced him as a “sheikh” or a “cleric,” without often casting doubt on his qualifications to such titles, or noting the comparative paucity of his following. The police failure to stop one Choudary demonstration in particular (and indeed to protect his followers) also led to the creation of the English Defence League — an extraordinary negative double-whammy for one person to achieve.

But last week Anjem Choudary was arrested, detained and charged with terror offenses relating to attempts to persuade Muslims in Britain to join ISIS; he now finally faces trial. So far, there has been a muted response in the British media. Part of that is the simple and rightful caution due to reporting restrictions of an upcoming trial. But part of it may also be an “I’ll believe it when I see it” cynicism. It is worth recalling that just last year Choudary was arrested and detained for terror offenses, only to walk free before the bunting was even half up. There are unlikely to be any premature celebrations this time. Perhaps reporters and commentators also have in mind the murky dropping of all terrorism charges before the opening of the trial of former Guantanamo inmate Moazzem Begg last autumn.

It is perfectly possible that Anjem Choudary will slip between the UK’s terrorism laws once again. Or perhaps now it is he that has slipped up, and the most visible chink in the UK’s counter-extremism policy has finally resolved itself.

UK PM Cameron Delivers Landmark Speech on Islamism

Islamist-extremism-Dave-HPClarion Project, by Elliot Friedman, July 20, 2015:

UK Prime Minister David Cameron gave a landmark speech yesterday on Islamist extremism, naming, for the first time, the root cause behind international terrorism.

He told the audience at a school in Birmingham, “This is what we face – a radical ideology – that is not just subversive, but can seem exciting; one that has often sucked people in from non-violence to violence; one that is overpowering moderate voices within the debate and one which can gain traction because of issues of identity and failures of integration.”

This is the first time a Western leader has names Islamist extremism specifically as the problem and terrorism merely as a symptom of the ideology.

He said, “No-one becomes a terrorist from a standing start. It starts with a process of radicalization. When you look in detail at the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offenses, it is clear that many of them were first influenced by what some would call non-violent extremists.”

These include groups like the Egypian Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 by Nazi sympathizer Hassan al-Banna, Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Pakistani-based Jamaat e-Islami, all of which peddle a softIslamism which shares the goals of groups like the Islamci State (ISIS) but differ in methodology.

In the USA, Muslim Brotherhood front groups including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) all play the part of non-violent extremist groups.

All of these organizations condemn the Islamic State, but as Cameron noted, so does Al-Qaeda. “We can’t let the bar sink to that level,” he stated. “Condemning a mass-murdering, child-raping organization cannot be enough to prove you’re challenging the extremists.”

He attacked the false narrative that grievances are the root cause of Islamist extremism, correctly noting that “it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.”

Although he acknowledged that British and Western foreign policy isn’t perfect and that poverty in Muslim communities is an issue, he correctly highlighted that “We could deal with all these issues – and some people in our country and elsewhere would still be drawn to Islamist extremism.”

The Prime Minister stated, “We must be clear. The root cause of the threat we face is the extremist ideology itself.”

Cameron also addressed the problem of integration of Muslim in the UK, which fuels Islamist extremism. “We have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds,” he said.

This is particularly acute in some Muslim communities like Tower Hamlets, where disgraced ex-mayor Lutfur Rahman operated, in the Prime Minister’s words, with “political corruption on an epic scale, with voters intimidated and a court adjudicating on accusations of ‘undue spiritual influence’ for the first time since the 19th century.”

But the Prime Minister broadened the scope of the government’s counter-extremism strategy to tackle all the interrelated issues that form a part and parcel of the Islamist ideology. He highlighted the pervasive anti-Semitism which runs through the Islamist ideology and called out people who only partially oppose Islamism.

He spoke about sharia law courts in the UK, the role of non-violent hate preachers like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, female genital mutilation, the Trojan Horse scandal (where Islamists conspired to take over British schools) and the child sex-abuse scandal in Rotherham (in which over 1,600 girls were systematically raped over a 10-year period by Pakistani grooming gangs).

He also called out the recalcitrance of authorities who have been slow to act to curb extremism due to fears of being called racist.

Cameron bluntly said, “This has got to stop.”

Critically, he said, “Simply denying any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists doesn’t work, because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims. The fact is from Woolwich to Tunisia, from Ottawa to Bali, these murderers all spout the same twisted narrative, one that claims to be based on a particular faith. Now it is an exercise in futility to deny that.”

Importantly, he said that Islam is not the issue, rather, this extremist ideology which identifies itself as the only legitimate arbiter of Islam is the issue.

“Our new approach is about isolating the extremists from everyone else, so that all our Muslim communities can be free from the poison of Islamist extremism,” he stated.

Clarion Project has covered all of these issues in the past and long stressed the interconnected nature of the ideology, terrorisim, anti-Semitism, abuse of women and children and the like. We also advocate the same solution proposed by Cameron, who said, “We’re now going to actively encourage the reforming and moderate Muslim voices.”

Clarion has conducted many interviews with Muslim (and non-Muslim) human rights activists who are fighting for reform in Muslim communities.

We have also covered the work of womens rights activists who are fighting for equal rights in Muslim communities worldwide. Our latest film, Honor Diaries, focussed on women’s rights activists from communities where honor violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation are rampant.

We also catalogue progressive Muslim organizations whose work has a positive impact fighting for human rights and against the Islamist ideology.

Indeed, one of these groups, the Quilliam Foundation, was influential in the writing of the Prime Minister’s speech and has been at the forefront of the struggle against Islamism in the UK.

Co-Founder of Quilliam Maajid Nawaz, himself formerly a member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, said of the speech, “The Prime Minister made a giant leap for UK counter-extremism.”

The speech is the precursor to the unveiling of the British government’s Counter-Extremism Policy in the autumn.

The implementation of the policies outlined in the speech can only advance the cause of human rights. Indeed, the speech represents a milestone in the fight against Islamist extremism.

Read the full text of the speech.

Also see:

Radical British Islamist Hid In Plain Sight – On Government Payroll

a81by IPT News  •  Jul 13, 2015

The British government saw “Abdullah al Andalusi” as a trusted adviser, someone qualified to help oversee Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), which supervises UK police counter-terrorism policy and reactions to attacks.

Andalusi may have enjoyed access to classified information in that role. That stopped when someone in the HMIC hierarchy recently saw Andalusi on television, defending extremist ideology offered by the Saudi-financed Muslim Debate Initiative, the Sunday Telegraph‘s Andrew Gilligan reported.

Andalusi’s Islamist activities were done under his real name, Mouloud Farid, while government officials failed to realize he secured government work with a fake name. Farid is close with the radical Hizb ut Tahrir, a global Islamist movement that has been described as a “conveyor belt” for jihadist terror.

Andalusi, speaking under his real name Farid, preached that ISIS terrorists were “no different to Western armies,” and said the British government wanted to destroy Islam.

“He despised Britain, yet worked for the British government,” an unidentified associate told Gilligan. “He would talk about the right of oppressed people to take up arms against the oppressor and yet he was overseeing the police.”

Within the inspectorate, Andalusi was promoted to a management position described as “at the heart of the security establishment.” People in similar positions have “access to highly sensitive and classified police and intelligence information to carry out their inspections,” Gilligan reported.

Andalusi has said Muslims “would be jubilant at the return of the caliphate [Islamic state], which is a vital obligation upon Muslims that has been conspicuously missing for so long.”

Members of Parliament are demanding an investigation into how Andalusi’s dual lives were missed by government officials. “This man’s unsuitability for sensitive work should have been obvious from the start,” said Labour MP Khalid Mahmood.

Read the full Telegraph story here.

Revealed: The Muslim Brotherhood’s British Property Portfolio Bankrolling Global Islamism

muslim_brotherhood_demonstrators (1)Breitbart, by Liam Deacon, July 10, 2015:

A registered charity with an £8.5million property portfolio in the UK, whose leaders have alleged links to al-Qaeda, Hamas and even the terrorists behind 9/11, has been revealed to exist solely to fund international Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. The trust owns 47 student flats in Leeds and the student rents have been unwittingly bankrolling political Islam in Europe for years.

Screen Shot 2015-07-10 at 13.02.13

The Leicestershire-based Europe Trust, which was created in 1996 with the backing of Gulf donors, claims to be “a non-political, non-profit making and independent, charitable organisation” on its website, which seeks to “contribute to a harmonious society where equal opportunity and quality of life are a reality for everyone” by supporting “the advancement of the Islamic religion.”

However, it sends funds to the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe (FIOE), identified as the Brotherhood’s unofficial representative network on the Continent by experts; the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), a member FIOE identified as “the Brotherhood’s representative in the UK” by a government minister in 2010, and a network of Arabic-language religious schools attended by one of Lee Rigby’s murders.

The activities of the trust and the unofficial network of Brotherhood-linked organisations it funds were exposed in an investigation by Andrew Norfolk in The Times.

Former head of the FIOE and MAB, who has therefore been one of the most senior Islamists in Europe, Dr. al-Rawi, is the current President and a former trustee of Europe Trust. The structural engineer, 67, was born in Iraq but came to the UK in 1975. He is a member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), funded by the FIOE which promotes it as the “chief religious authority for Muslims throughout Europe”.

images

ECFR chairman, Yusuf al-Qaradawi (pictured above), regarded as the Brotherhood’s supreme religious authority, has praised Hitler for “put[ing the Jews] in their place” and has issued fatwas condoning suicide bombings, attacks on Israeli children, FGM, wife-beating, and stoning homosexuals to death.

Dr. al-Rawi told The Times he does not accept the word Islamist and denied being a member of the Brotherhood. When they asked if he supported the Brotherhood’s ideology, he said he was “a Muslim.”

The trustees of the registered charity listed by The Times have links to just about all of the most feared and violent terrorist organizations on the planet. They include:

A man who ran Lajnat al-Dawa al-Islamiya (LDI), a Kuwaiti organization banned by the UN because of links with al-Qaeda, whose Pakistan branch was headed up by the brother of the mastermind behind 9/11.

  • Senior figures in “aid agencies” banned in Israel for being part of a wider group “created by Hamas to transfer funds to… terrorist,” according to the American government.
  • The previous head of the Islamic Society of Germany; investigated but not prosecuted by German police for indirectly funding al-Qaeda. He was also sentenced to death last month in Egypt for an alleged plotting with Brotherhood leaders.
  • An imam from Palestine jailed for five months in 2001 because of a secret “circumcision clinic” operating from his mosque Italian for the purposes mutilating young girls.
  • A Syrian businessman and leader of the Brotherhood in Turkey who is said to have ties with the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is a supporter.

The Brotherhood operates as covertly as possible in Europe. It has no official organization, never uses its menacing official logo, and instead represents itself via a network of shady charities, think tanks, educational institutions and Muslim-interest groups.

Steven Merley, an American intelligence specialist with a decade of experience researching the Brotherhood, who assisted The Times with their investigation, said:

“Brotherhood-affiliated organisations in Europe have traditionally been heavily dependent on funding from Gulf sources. The money supply once seemed unlimited, but that’s changing and they needed to find a way to insulate themselves from potential funding problems in the future… To meet Islamic requirements they can’t get involved with interest-bearing assets, but property is seen as an Islamically compliant vehicle for building wealth. Britain is central to the Brotherhood’s European activities and Europe Trust’s role is significant.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s overarching objective is to replace secular democratic government with an Islamic caliphate under sharia law; its motto declares: “the Koran is our constitution, jihad our way and death for the sake of Allah our highest hope.” It is the most influential organization in the 20th century revival of political Islam, whose founding member, Hassan al-Banna, said the “nature of Islam to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

It is not banned in the UK, but is classed as an illegal terrorist organisation in Egypt, Russia and Saudi Arabia. In April 2014, David Cameron launched an investigation into the Brotherhood’s activities here and allegations of extremism.

The Times reports to have sent all the information they gathered regarding the Europe Trust to the Charity Commission. A spokeswoman told them it would be assessed “to establish whether it gives rise to regulatory concern”. No formal investigation has been launched.

(Despite its members supporting Hamas and the killing of Israeli civilians and British and American troops in Iraq, the Brotherhood publicly condemns acts of terrorism in non-Muslim countries and there is no suggestion that Europe Trust is funding terrorism.)