DAVID CAMERON: ISLAMIC STATE ‘GREATER AND DEEPER THREAT’ THAN EVER BEFORE

 

Breitbart, by CHARLIE SPIERING:

On Friday, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron described the grave threat posed by the Islamic State that needed to be rooted out and destroyed.

“What we’re facing in Iraq now, with ISIL, is a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before,” he explained during a press conference.

Cameron announced that the United Kingdom raised the terror threat level to “severe” after conferring with the Joint Terrorism Analysis Center.

Cameron defied the notion that the rise of ISIS was the result of the Iraq war.

“Let’s be clear about the source of the threat that we face,” he said. “The terrorist threat was not created by the Iraq war ten years ago. It existed even before the horrific attacks on 9/11.”

Cameron added that the threat had to be addressed militarily.

“This threat cannot be solved simply by dealing with the perceived grievances over Western foreign policy, nor can it be dealt with by addressing poverty, dictatorship or instability in the region, as important as these things are,” he explained.

Instead, Cameron described the brutal terrorist threat as a direct result of Islamic extremism which needed to be rooted out as soon as possible.

“We cannot appease this ideology,” he stated. “To do this, we need a tough comprehensive approach to defeat the terrorist threat at its source.”

The fight, he explained, would be long, but he dedicated the British government to the task.

“We are in the middle of a generational struggle between a poisonous and extremist ideology that I believe that we’ll be fighting for years, and probably decades,” he said. “We must take whatever action necessary to keep the British people safe here at home.”

 

‘Easy Meat’: Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs — on The Glazov Gang

yh-450x244Front Page:

A horrifying news report in The Telegraph has recently confirmed that 1,400 children were discovered as victims of Muslim rape gangs and prostitution rings in Rotherham, UK, while authorities and child protection services turned a blind eye in order to avoid being called “racist.”

Daniel Greenfield’s blog at The Point deals with this shameful and outrageous story: “UK Police Arrested Parents Trying to Stop Muslims from Raping their Children.”

In response to the surfacing of this story, and to shed light on the dark forces that help make the vicious system of Islamic sex slavery possible in the West, Frontpage is re-running The Glazov Gang’s special 2-part series with Gavin Boby of the Law and Freedom Foundation about the terrifying reality of Muslim rape gangs in the UK and how the Left facilitates their barbaric crimes against helpless young girls. The series crystallizes why the horrible story emerging about the 1,400 child victims in Rotherham was a Muslim crime that the Left allowed to occur.

In Part I, Boby shares his battle against “Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.” and in Part II, he discusses his report on this horrifying phenomenon, “Easy Meat, and takes us “Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs”:

Part I:

 

Part II:

 

Also see:

London Rapper Key Suspect in Beheading of James Foley

By , August 24, 2014:

A senior Western intelligence official has told Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin that 23-year-old London rapper Abdel Majed Abdel Bary is the key suspect believed to be James Foley’s assassin.

To combat ISIL’s growing threat the Obama administration “is actively weighing whether to conduct their strikes inside Syria itself. That’s where ISIL has its bases and command and control of its forces, which has swept across Iraq,” Griffin reports.

According to The Independent, Bary used the pseudonyms “L Jinny” or “Lyricist Jinn” when he was involved in the London rap scene.

Bary’s father, Adel Abdul Bary, was believed to be a close associated of Osama bin Laden and was extradited from the UK to the US in 2012 for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa.

In addition to Foley, ISIL is believed to be holding three other Americans hostage.

Just a Bit More Beheading than We Are Used To

Gatestone Instsutute, by Douglas Murray, August 24, 2014:

There has been a debate in the UK press suggesting we should hope that some of these ISIS killers come back to Britain, realize that jihad was all a phase and then head off to university for the start of the new term.

The beheading of James Foley was terrible, she stressed, “because we don’t know what [his] views were.”

Is there a time when even “combatants” — or anyone else — should be treated in this way? And who is to say who is a combatant and who not?

Who is surprised? That is one question I have most wanted to know since the video was released of the murder of American journalist James Foley. The politicians keep expressing it. And interviewers have kept asking people whether they feel it. But who can honestly say that he was surprised to learn that the murderer of the American journalist turned out to be a “British” man?

American journalist James Foley (left) is shown kneeling beside the British jihadist who murdered him moments later (Image source: Islamic State video)

Did anyone really still think that a British Islamist would not be capable of doing this? Why wouldn’t he, if he is capable of doing it in Syria or Iraq? After all, it was only last year that two other Islamists beheaded one of our own soldiers – Drummer Lee Rigby – in broad daylight in London. And it is only twelve years since another Londoner – Omar Sheikh – arranged the abduction and decapitation of another American journalist, Daniel Pearl.

What is shocking is that expressions of “shock” seem to be regarded as an adequate response. Prime Minister David Cameron has pronounced himself “appalled” by the act, and made clear that he “utterly condemns” it. As though anyone should ever have expected him to think otherwise. But this is to a great extent what government policy is reduced to in Britain, as in the United States. Politicians briefly break off their holidays in order not to do anything much, but to be seen to be doing “something.” And they then make sure to stand in front of the cameras and say how opposed they are to “something.” It is the denigration of people in positions where they actuallycould do something, to the level of the commentariat.

The question, as written here before, is not how sorry any one political leader feels about such savagery, but what they are going to do about it. And here in Britain, we are in something of a bind. We can deal with fringe details. But we are incapable of having the real debate or taking any real action that is needed. In lieu of such action, the political classes are left floundering, desperate to cling to any point, however unimportant, in order to look as they are acting.

So in the wake of the release of the Foley murder video by ISIS, the British Labour party’s Shadow Home Secretary attempted to take political advantage of this affair.[1] The truth is that the Labour party seized on this debate because it was the debate they knew best, and the one they are most comfortable going round and round on. Even the remarks of the former Conservative party Security Minister — Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones — who was reduced, on the BBC’s Today program, to suggesting that the solution to tackling ISIS is to engage more in social media campaigns against the group. Neville-Jones is regarded as somewhat hawkish. But that even people of such stature are reduced to this, reveals something important.

Atrocity after atrocity is perpetrated by Muslims radicalized in the UK, and the debate over what to do about it remains bizarrely circumscribed and ineffectual. Surely somewhere in the conversation and response should be the expression of a desire for a strategy against ISIS which has at its base the utter eradication of the group — wholesale battlefield victory against them, killing their members and leadership in their entirety. Would that not be a desirable objective? I have yet to hear a mainstream politician suggest this or even talk in these terms. Indeed, there has been debate in the UK press suggesting we should hope that some of these ISIS killers come back to Britain, realize that jihad was all a phase and then head off to university for the start of a new term.

And then there are the longer-term objectives. Since writing about it in this place, a number of other media have finally picked up one of the most concerning statistics to show the failure of integration at which we are staring in Britain: that more British Muslims are fighting together with ISIS than with the UK Armed Forces. This is just a tip of the problem. On a BBC show after news of the murder of James Foley, I found myself discussing these matters with young British Muslims. All condemned the act. One – the Ahmadiyya Muslim in the group – was superb in his utter abhorrence of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam and his repeated and sincere expressions of pride in Britain and British achievements in the world. But among the others? Well one of them — a nice and nicely presented young man said that this was totally abhorrent because “a non-combatant should not be treated like this.” “Well sure,” I was forced to say. “But why only non-combatants? Is there a time when even ‘combatants’ — or anyone else — should be treated in this way? And who is to say who is a combatant and who not?”

Even more concerning was a young woman from Nottingham who spent as much time as possible talking about the “alienation” and “rejection” which a lot of young Muslims feel. It was repeatedly pointed out to her that there isn’t a young person of any religion or background who does not feel alienation at some point. The vital question then, is not just whether such a sense of grievance is justified, but whether there are people seeking to manipulate and then play into such grievances and what extremes some individuals might urge vulnerable minds to as a result. A snapshot of my fellow guest’s own thinking was available in her own condemnation of the murder. The beheading of James Foley was terrible, she stressed, because among other things “we don’t know what [his] views were.”

Here again a little peep-hole into a mainstream and radical world view becomes possible. What if James Foley had not been — as he appears to have been — a man with a deep desire to bring out the terrible stories and sufferings of the region, but someone who was ambivalent to them? What if he had been the most pro-intervention bomb-them-all-to-hell right-winger? Or a member of the Republican Party? What if he had been a Zionist? Or a Jew?

There are poisonous attitudes and lies going around unmolested in this country. And they are one of the causes of the repeated international shame that is coming down upon us. These ideas — hatred and suspicion of the actions of Britain, America, Israel and our other liberal, democratic allies — act as the background music to radicalization. This music plays to exactly the sort of people who are going out to fight with ISIS and exactly the sort of people who think that although they might condemn a beheading in this circumstance, it isn’t always a cut-and-dry issue.

The BBC is reporting about the voice of James Foley’s killer: “Some experts think the accent sounds like the man comes from London, as it is a mixture of multicultural speech patterns often heard on the streets of the city.”

It certainly does sound “like the man comes from London.” And as I recall saying after the last decapitation performed by a British man, the unspoken British deal on multiculturalism appears to come to light at such moments. The deal — the acceptance and accommodation — appears to be that mass, uncontrolled immigration has brought us all sorts of benefits, including a greater variety of food and cheap labour. The downside is that we have to put up with, among other things, a bit more beheading than we have been used to. But much of the political class appears to be content with this bargain. I beg to differ. As horrors like those of this week mount, a great many more people might feel that way too.


[1] The Home Secretary said the problem was the government’s watering-down of Control Orders — which had been brought in by the former Labour government. Control Orders give the state the ability to put someone under 24-hour surveillance or house arrest, necessitated by the then Labour government’s unwise signature of the European Convention on Human Rights. True, the coalition government – under pressure from the Liberal Democrats in the coalition — very slightly watered these Orders down to satisfy critics. But this has nothing to do with this case. So far as anyone knows the murderer of James Foley is not somebody who slipped any surveillance measures in the UK. And rather obviously a TPIM or Control Order being slapped on an individual — however British — is no use if that particular individual is at present beheading American journalists inside the no-go-zone of the Islamic State. That this was the best the Labour opposition could come up with is telling.

 

 

The Real European Jew-Hatred Threat: Luton, UK British Muslims March & Invoke Muhammad’s Slaughter of the Khaybar Jews, Again

 

By Andrew Bostom:

According to the You Tube upload date and an independent source, the demonstration captured on the video, above, took place yesterday, Friday, August 22, 2014, in Luton, UK.

For a detailed recent analysis of this overriding threat to European Jewry. i.e., Islam’s “sacralized” Jew-hatred from the creed’s canonical sources, as acted upon in “good faith” by the Muslims of Europe, see my June 6, 2014 essay, “Rampant Islamic Jew-Hatred in Europe and the Brussels Jewish Museum Carnage.”

As an update, French Rabbi Michel Serfaty, during an interview (posted Friday, August 8, 2014) with that bastion of cultural relativist denial, no less, NPR, made this unbowdlerized observation about the reality of actualized Jew-hatred in France: its “source” is overwhelmingly Muslims (denoted as “youths of Arab, African and North African descent”).

Serfaty laughs at the notion of the far right national front party being a possible source of the “new” anti-Semitism. Its voters are angry about the rise of immigration and Islam, he says. Not about well assimilated Jews. Official statistics show that around 95 percent of anti-Semitic acts in France are perpetrated by youths of Arab, African and North African descent.

An example of just one of a depressing myriad of canonical Islamic sources of Jew-hatred frequently invoked by European Muslims is the “Khaybar chant,” based upon Muhammad’s bloody conquest of the Khyabar Jews.

Muhammad prepared for his campaign against Khaybar—a farming oasis and the last Jewish stronghold in northern Arabia, where survivors (most notably, the Banu Nadir) of the Muslims’ earlier attacks on Medinan Jewry had also sought refuge—by two gruesome political assassinations. The brutal, sanguinary assaults by the Muslims that ensued shortly afterward resulted in the complete subjugation of the Jews of Khaybar. The political rationale for Muhammad’s campaign against Khaybar has been discussed by the respected scholars of Islam’s origins, Hartwig Hirschfeld and D. S. Margoliouth. Analyzing the Muslim documentary record, Hirschfeld observed:

The expedition against Khaybar was a distinct breach of faith, as two years previously Muhammad had given the Jews of Khaybar and Maqna a charter of liberty which has fortunately been preserved, and traces of which are also to be found in the works of [Muslim historians] al-Wakidi and al-Baladhuri.

Margoliouth expands upon these arguments, and concludes:

[T]he people of Khaybar, all that distance from Medina, had certainly done him and his followers no wrong: for their leaving unavenged the murder of one of their number by his emissary was no act of aggression. Ali [who became the 4th“Rightly Guided” Caliph, and is revered by Shiite Muslims), when told to lead the forces against them, had to enquire for what he was fighting: and was told that he must compel them to adopt the formulae of Islam. Khaybar was attacked because there was booty to be acquired there, and the plea for attacking it was that its inhabitants were not Muslims.

The Luton Muslims “Khaybar chant” in the embedded video derives, as examples, from two of the canonical hadith collections (words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by his devout, early followers), and the first and most authoritative Muslim biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. These contemporary Luton Muslims are threatening Jews, now, and in general, with the same violence Muhammad and his prototype Muslim jihadist army inflicted upon the Jews of Khaybar.

Sahih Muslim 3328Anas reported: I was sitting behind Abu Talha on the Day of Khaibar and my feet touched the foot of Allah’s Messenger, and we came (to the people of Khaibar) when the sun had risen and they had driven out their cattle, and had themselves come out with their axes, large baskets and hatchets, and they said: (Here come) Muhammad and the army. Allah’s Messenger said: Khaibar is ruined. Verily when we get down in the valley of a people, evil is the morning of the warned ones (al-Qur’an, xxxvii. 177). Allah, the Majestic and the Glorious, defeated them (the inhabitants of Khaibar), and there fell to the lot of Dihya a beautiful girl, and Allah’s Messenger got her in exchange of seven heads, and then entrusted her to Umm Sulaim so that she might embellish her and prepare her (for marriage) with him.

Sahih al-Bukhari 371When Allah’s Messenger invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there (early in the morning) when it was still dark. Allah’s Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode, too, and I was riding behind Abu Talha. Allah’s Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of Allah’s Prophet. Then his thigh was uncovered by the shift of his Izar (waist-sheet), and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of Allah’s Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, “Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.” He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, “Muhammad (has come) along with his army.” We conquered Khaibar, (took the captives), and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, “O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave-girl from the captives.” The Prophet said, “Go and take any slave-girl.” He took Safiyya bint Huyai.

Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 511We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him, and I rode behind Abu Talha with my foot touching the apostle’s foot. We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, “Allah akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.” . . . The apostle seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them. . . . The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.

 

Islamic State: Young British Muslims debate Caliphate

BBC, Aug. 14, 2014: (h/t Cultural Jihad)

When the extremist group widely known as Isis (now renamed Islamic State) declared a Caliphate taking in parts of Syria and Iraq, they reignited a debate over the issue.

The Ottoman Empire was the last widely recognised Caliphate and most of those in the West have only the faintest, if any, idea of what the word means.

But for some Muslims it is what they are waiting for, whether they back Islamic State or not – a state to restore a sense of dignity that many feel has been lost.

BBC Asian Network reporter Catrin Nye gathered young British Muslims from different sects of Islam to hear about their views on the concept of a Caliphate and what it means to them.

Damning New Report on ‘Trojan Horse’ Scandal Released

Tahir Alam, a central figure in the takeover bid

Tahir Alam, a central figure in the takeover bid

Clarion Project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It concluded:

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

Read more at Clarion Project

Also see:

UK Bans Pro-Jihad Islamist Groups

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

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

by Soeren Kern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Also see:

Four Ways to Fight Extremism in Britain

by Samuel Westrop:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Stopping Terror Subsidy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) Removing the Immunity of Charitable Trusts

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Read more at Gatestone Institute

The Land of Coup d’Etat

3349107683CSP, By Manda Zand Ervin:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published at American Thinker

UK: “Culture of Fear” in Birmingham Schools

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

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

by Soeren Kern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Gatestone Institute

**********

Education Secretary Michael Gove says schoold should promote English values:

Published June 9, 2014 by Current news 01

 

Michael Coren on the Birmingham schools Islamic trojan horse plot:

Published June 10, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

How to Destroy a Country – Part Three

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

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

Segregate the Generations

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

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

Promote Conformity in the Guise of Individualism

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

Create an Anarchic Youth

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

Destroy Competitiveness

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

Destroy Self-Reliance

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

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

 

Destroy Democracy

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

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

Introduce Mass Immigration

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

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

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

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

 

Promote Racial Division

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

Destroy Native Resistance

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

Use Selective History to Counter Native Resistance

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

Distract the Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Report Finds Islamist Intimidation in Birmingham Schools

Trojan-Horse-stockIPT, by John Rossomando:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shariah-uk-APBy Katie Gorka:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Breitbart

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

The Muslim Brotherhood’s “Peaceful Conquest”

by Valentina Colombo:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Gatestone Institute