British Report Finds Islamist Intimidation in Birmingham Schools

Trojan-Horse-stockIPT, by John Rossomando:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shariah-uk-APBy Katie Gorka:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Breitbart

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

The Muslim Brotherhood’s “Peaceful Conquest”

by Valentina Colombo:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

The Brotherhood in London

 BY OLIVIER GUITTA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at The Weekly Standard

Muslim ‘Enrichment’ in Britain: One Week Snapshot

By Paul Wilkinson:

The celebrants of multiculturalism constantly remind us of never-ending invigorating cultural enrichment, so just for fun, I thought I would make a note of some stories involving Islam or Muslims in Britain over a one week period.

The week I happened to choose was between Thursday 23rd January and Wednesday 29th January 2014. There was nothing significant about those dates, and it was selected entirely at random.

To set the scene, just before the week in question commenced, the Home Office announced that high-risk terrorists will be released from prison and will not be monitored properly, to protect their human rights; a Muslima redefined British legal history as she stood trial in a full face veil; there were reports of a serial flasher (urinating) in the Blackburn/Accrington area; an Islamic teacher guilty of groping pupils; and reports of murders and rapes going unreported in no-go zones for police as minority communities (AKA ‘Muslim’) launch their own justice systems.

So what could happen in the week I chose? Having followed the exhilarating enrichment that Muslims bring to the rich tapestry of modern Britain for a few years now, I was certainly not counting anything either in or out, so here goes! It really was like having a blank canvas!

Thursday 23rd January

Friday 24th January

  • DittaSentencing of Lee Rigby’s killers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, was expected today but was delayed due to an appeal over whether whole life sentences can be given.
  • Blackburn: ‘You’ve messed with the wrong Muslims!’ CCTV images show three women trying to kidnap and rob their sister’s lesbian lover during a row over arranged marriage. Seamless integration is awarded with a combined 30 years in prison for the six siblings (Pictured here).

Saturday 25th January

  • (Video) London: Islamists demonstrate in support of Al-Qaeda in Syria, against FSA. No sign of ‘anti-fascist’ protestors either. Of course that would be ‘Islamophobic’ of them!
  • ‘Brits’ returning to the UK from Syria will be ‘stopped at the border and face arrest’, with 16 arrests made so far this month.

Sunday 26th January

  • Mo_bday_parade-300x200Sunday is no longer a day of rest in today’s vibrant Britain as residents of Nelson discovered when an intimidating group of 5,000 Muslims stormed through the town to celebrate Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. Pictured here is another show of force in Blackburn. I cannot see any females in the photo. Who knows, maybe the women are at the back?

Monday 27th January

  • Rochdale Councillor and Council Finance Chief, Farooq Ahmed, quizzed by police over ‘homophobic’ insult made at a fellow councillor in public.
  • News of child exploitation/grooming gang in Newcastle-upon-Tyne emerges today and by Wednesday a total of 25 arrests had been made. No news on the identity of the perpetrators at the time of writing, but this type of crime is dominated by Muslim men, and the focus of the investigation is in the west end of Newcastle, which is home to a large Muslim population.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Islam and David Cameron

cameronBy Paul Austin Murphy:

In a sense, David Cameron’s position on Islam is to be expected. As British Prime Minister, he is of course too busy to study Islam in detail. And even before becoming PM (in 2010), my guess is that he would have spent almost zero time studying Islam. Sure, he would have read about Islam, Islamic terrorism, and Islamism in the news. Nonetheless, I doubt that he gave such things much thought when out of power. He would have been far too busy planning his rise to power and, in a auxiliary manner, thinking about tax issues, the NHS, the structure of the Tory Party, competing with the Labour Party and whatnot.

It is of course true that Cameron should have studied Islam independently from the Conservative Muslim Forum, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi (the unelected Minister for Faith and Communities) and his advisers (i.e., the higher civil servants). After all, he was 35 years old when 9/11 occurred and 39 when 7/7 occurred in the city of London. He will now also know about the massive Muslim grooming of young non-Muslim girls in the UK. He knows about the 85 or more sharia courts in his country, the weekly political activism of Islamists on the streets of the UK, the 15 foiled Islamic terrorist attacks between only 2005 and 2008, etc. He also knows about the the Taliban, the Islamic civil wars in Iraq and Syria. He may even know about the Islamist slaughter of over one and a half million Sudanese Christians and black animists in the 1990s and 2000s.

In fact David Cameron is even on record as having criticized what he then called “Islamists”. That was in 2005. The “neoconservative” writer, Douglas Murray, at around about the same time, also suggested that things should be done to slow down the Islamization of Europe. What happened to him? The Conservative Party ostracized him. In addition, a Conservative Party MP by the name of Michael Gove wrote a book, in 2006, called Celsius 7/7. This book is about Islamism and the threat of Islamic terrorism in Europe. Michael Gove has been almost silent on these issues ever since. You may have heard of him: he’s now the Sectary of State for Education; working under David Cameron.

More relevantly, Cameron might have even read the Koran. However, what’s likely to have happened is that he has been fed various nice and innocuous extracts from that book by advisers and Tory Muslims (as well as by non-Tory Muslim individuals and Islamic groups). However, I doubt that he voluntarily picked it and read it before 2010. In mention this because Tony Blair, infamously, once claimed that he reads the Koran every night.

Since David Cameron became Prime Minister, he might have spent a few hours maximum independently studying Islam. But he most certainly won’t have chosen his own works to study. What will have happened, again, is that his civil servants, or perhaps certain Muslims within the party, will have supplied him with some Islam-friendly literature. He would have read all that and taken most of it at face value quite simply because he literally hasn’t got the time to study Islam in detail — let alone be critical. Besides which, Cameron will acquire the information he needs in order to be a successful politician. And being a critic of Islam, he may well think, will never pay him political dividends.

If the “Islam issue” were as pressing for him as debates about tax, the NHS, competition with the Labour Party, sustaining his own rule within the Tory Party, etc.; then he would indeed have studied it in detail. However, although the Islam issue is pressing for the UK and indeed for the world as a whole, it’s not pressing issue for David Cameron himself. Not in the least. In fact, from what he’s said recently, and indeed from what he’s recently done (e.g., making London the “Islamic finance capital of the world”), I would say that ingratiating himself with Islam and the Muslim community-of-votes (large parts of which tend to vote in blocks) has been (fairly) pressing for him.

Also see:

Women Forced to Sit in Back at Leading UK University Events

Queen Mary University

Clarion Project:

Women were prevented from asking questions at a recent public seminar at a top London University and were forced to enter the hall from an entrance separate from the men.

The event at Queen Mary University titled “Deception of the Dunya[world] was hosted by the Queen Mary Islamic Society.  The featured speaker, Ustadh Abu Abdillah, was discussing how to live a moral life.

Men participating in the event were allowed to raise their hands with questions and were called upon directly by the speaker. Women were banned from asking questions and were told to write their questions down, after whic they would be passed to the speaker.

“It’s not just about segregation but also about how they’re treating women,” said one woman quoted by the Sunday Times, who asked not to be identified for fear of being attacked.  The experience was “degrading.  It’s one thing to be segregated, but a whole other thing being told we are not allowed to speak and men being told not to look at woman,’ said added.

The student, a devout Muslim herself also described the experienceas “embarrassing. You just want to shake them and say “Why are you being so disrespectful?”

The controversy was not the first for the UK’s universities. The same week, at any event at the University of Leicester featuring a hardline Islamist group, women were forced to sit in the back, with the front rows reserved for male students.

Outcry over that event forced the intervention of Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron himself, who said, “I’m absolutely clear that there should not be segregated audiences for visiting speakers to universities in Britain. That is not the right approach. The guidance should say that universities should not allow this.”

Read more

 

Burqas and Niqabs: Both an Embarrassment and a Security Risk

2jpgBy Paul Wilkinson:

It is perfectly understandable if women choose not to wear Western-style tight or revealing clothing, preferring instead to dress modestly for personal, cultural and/or religious reasons. However burqas and niqabs overstep this mark and go way beyond ‘modesty’.

Burqas cover the entire body making it difficult to decipher even the body shape of what is underneath. They can have a mesh over the eyes, and gloves may be worn so no flesh is visible.

The niqab is a face veil that covers most of the face, apart from the eyes. However even the Qur’an does not command women to cover their face.

There are Quranic verses regarding female attire and the importance of dressing modestly, such as verses 24:31 and 33:59: “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused.”

There is no compelling religious reason why women should keep their faces covered, which instead highlights Islamic cultural issues regarding oppression and whether women are being forced into wearing them. Even if burqas/niqabs are worn through free choice they are still degrading, incompatible with Western society, a symbol of ‘Islamisation’ and indeed an embarrassment to humanity itself.

Painful viewing but ‘highly educated’ Muslimas describe their ‘entitlement’ in this Channel 4 debate at the hardline East London mosque. It must be noted that at least two of the veiled guests are believed to be Islamists (I guess many in the audience as well!) and this was not conveyed to the unsuspecting viewer.

Channel 4 ‘Debating the Niqab’ at the East London Mosque.

Channel 4 ‘Debating the Niqab’ at the East London Mosque.

How Do Non-Muslims View Niqabs & Burqas?

The majority of people find the sight of a woman in a niqab or burqa, which resembles a ‘mobile tent’, both morally offensive and divisive.In September a ComRes poll for Channel 4 News“revealed that 55% of Brits surveyed want to see a ban on full face veils in all public places similar to the laws in France, ‘because full face veils made them feel uneasy and unsure how to relate to the wearer.’” Eighty percent of Brits “support a ban on full face veils being worn in schools, courts and hospitals, while 58% want to see all head coverings abolished in these institutions … 75% of Brits said they were ‘unsure how to relate’ to women wearing the full face veil and niqab – which leaves just the eyes visible. People also admitted to feeling ‘uneasy’, ‘nervous’ and ‘threatened’ by the full face veil.”

So despite clear opposition to this clothing there has been and still are ample opportunities for public debate on this issue, but dhimmi slaves like David Cameron (who stayed with a Muslim family for two days in 2007 and subsequently thinks he is an Islamic expert), and Nick Clegg have both declared, without consultation with the public, that banning burqas is off-limits and would be an ‘un-British’ thing to do!

Cameron and Clegg say women should not be forced to wear burqas or niqabs and ‘ideally’ they should not be worn in hospitals or schools, but when exactly did women wearing a ‘black bin bag’ or a balaclava suddenly become ‘British’? It is pure cowardice because they don’t want to upset the PC brigade; Muslims may become violent and these politicians could lose the Muslim vote.

Read more at Cherson nd Molschky

 

Britain: “A World Capital for Islamic Finance”

sovereign-wealth-funds-are-also-more-cautious-about-investing-in-europeby Soeren Kern:

“I want London to stand alongside Dubai and Kuala Lumpur as one of the great capitals of Islamic finance anywhere in the world.” — David Cameron, Prime Minister, Great Britain.

But critics say that British ambitions to attract investments from Muslim countries, companies and individuals are spurring the gradual establishment of a parallel financial system based on Islamic Sharia law. The Treasury also said some sukukIslamic bond issues may require the government to restrict its dealings with Israeli-owned companies in order to attract Muslim money.

The London Stock Exchange will be launching a new Islamic bond index in an effort to establish the City of London as one of the world’s leading centers of Islamic finance.

Britain also plans to become the first non-Muslim country to issue sovereign Islamic bonds, known as sukuk, beginning as early as 2014.

The plans are all part of the British government’s strategy to acquire as big a slice as possible of the fast-growing global market of Islamic finance, which operates according to Islamic Sharia law and is growing 50% faster than the conventional banking sector.

Although it is still a fraction of the global investment market — Sharia-compliant assets are estimated to make up only around 1% of the world’s financial assets — Islamic finance is expected to be worth £1.3 trillion (€1.5 trillion; $2 trillion) by 2014, a 150% increase from its value in 2006, according to the World Islamic Banking Competitiveness Report 2012-2013, published in May 2013 by the consultancy Ernst & Young.

But critics say that Britain’s ambitions to attract investments from Muslim countries, companies and individuals are spurring the gradual establishment of a parallel global financial system based on Islamic Sharia law.

British Prime Minister David Cameron announced the plans during a keynote speech at the ninth World Islamic Economic Forum, which was held in London from October 29-31, the first time the event has ever been held outside the Muslim world.

“Already London is the biggest center for Islamic finance outside the Islamic world,” Cameron told the audience of more than 1,800 international political and business leaders from over 115 countries.

“And today our ambition is to go further still. Because I don’t just want London to be a great capital of Islamic finance in the Western world, I want London to stand alongside Dubai and Kuala Lumpur as one of the great capitals of Islamic finance anywhere in the world.”

 

UK Prime Minister David Cameron addresses the World Islamic Economic Forum in London on October 29, 2013. (Image source: 10 Downing St. Facebook page)

Cameron said the new Islamic bond index on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) would help stimulate fixed-income investments from Muslim investors — especially investors from oil-rich Persian Gulf countries — by helping them identify which listed companies adhere to Islamic principles.

Investors who practice Islamic finance — which is said to be structured to conform to a strict code of ethics based on the Koran and Sharia law — refuse to invest in companies that are linked to alcohol, gambling, pornography, tobacco, weapons or pork. Islamic finance also forbids collecting or paying interest and requires that deals be based on tangible assets.

Unlike conventional bonds, sukuk are described as investments rather than loans, with the initial payment made from an Islamic investor in the form of a tangible asset such as land. The lender of a sukuk earns money as profit from rent, as in real estate, rather than traditional interest.

Cameron says the British Treasury will issue £200 million (€235 million; $320 million) worth of sukuk as early as 2014. The objective is to enable the government to borrow from Muslim investors. The Treasury plans to issue fixed returns based on the profit made by a given asset, thereby allowing Muslims to invest without breaking Islamic laws forbidding interest-bearing bonds.

The Treasury also said some sukuk bond issues may require the British government to restrict its dealings with Israeli-owned companies in order to attract Muslim money.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

 

The U.K. aims to become the “unrivaled center for Islamic Finance” in the West.

sukukBy Jerry Gordon:

Word came from UK Prime Minister David Cameron of a plan to float a 200 Million Sterling ($324 Million) Sukuk issue next year. This would be the first Shariah compliant sovereign debt issued by a Western government. The Financial Times noted the comments of Chancellor of Exchequer Osborne who trumpeted the announcement as making the City of London the “unrivaled center for Islamic Finance”. The Wall Street Journal, in an article, “U.K. Considers Islamic Bond Sale” reported:

Treasury officials are working on details for a potential offering of Sukuk – bond-like instruments that comply with Shariah law –that could be launched early next year. The issue would raise about 200 million Sterling ($324 million) according to a statement from the Prime Minister’s office.

‘This government wants Britain to become the first Western sovereign to issue an Islamic bond, “Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to say in a speech at the World Islamic Economic Forum in London on Tuesday.

Turkey issued its first $1.5 billion Sukuk in September 2012 [at the urging of the Islamic Development Bank, of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation]. Tesco PLC and HSBC Holdings PLC have issued Sukuk bonds through subsidiaries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

Some $27 Billion Sukuk have been issued globally so far in 2013,  less than the  $40 billion in 2012.

The London Stock Exchange is also planning to launch an Islamic market index that will enable investors to identify companies that comply with Islamic business practices, the prime minister’s office said.

Islamic financial principles prohibit lenders from receiving interest. Sukuk offer fixed payments based on the profit generated by an underlying asset, but include no interest. The concept behind the Sukuk was explained in this Guardian article,“Could principles of Islamic finance feed into a sustainable economic system?”

*******

The U.K. announced plans five years ago to become the first Western government to issue bonds compliant with Islamic law only to disband the initiative in 2011 when the Debt Management Office said the securities don’t “provide value for money.” Shariah Finance Watch in a March 2013 post identified the growing use of Sukuk flotations as a means of forcing Shariah compliance in international financial markets. It noted:

1. Islamic issuers increasingly issue Sukuk rather than conventional debt instruments. Therefore, creditors who want to invest in the credit markets are compelled to invest their money in a Shariah-compliant way.

2. On the flipside, Islamic investors who invest in the credit markets are increasingly insisting on Shariah-compliance, thus compelling issuers/borrowers to issue Sukuk instead of conventional credit instruments, such as debentures. This is happening in the sovereign debt markets, as well as the corporate debt markets. The power wielded by oil-rich Islamic nations, institutional and individual investors makes this form of Islamic imperialism to impose Shariah-compliance globally potentially very powerful.

We wonder who are the Shariah experts that will advise the London Stock Exchange in developing the index of compliance with alleged Islamic business practice?  And how much of a split of the profits in these Sukuk issues goes to fund Zakat, Muslim charity, one purpose of which is to follow the way of Allah, Jihad?

Read more at New English Review

The Hidden Truth Behind Muslim ‘Enrichment’

By: Paul Wilkinson:

We have all heard the politically correct nonsense that multiculturalism and diversity make our society ‘stronger’ and are a cause for ‘celebration’. However anyone with common sense realises that enforced colonisation of our towns and cities by Muslims is not a ‘strength’ because they have created intolerant segregated ‘ghettos’ that have divided communities and stoked tensions.

So how on earth exactly is one supposed to ‘celebrate’ this planned cultural destruction of our Western civilisation based on Judeo-Christian values? To express my ‘delight’, personally I stick to singing sea shanties whenever I’m at a busy bus stop and no one else speaks English, or if I see one of several signs on buildings in my neighbourhood telling me to read the Qur’an because “it is the most positive book in the world.”

In the instance of ‘enriched’ Leicester, Ed West pointed out that Leicester council’s “’One Leicester’ guide states, according to them, ‘Leicester has a reputation for welcoming and celebrating diversity’ and ‘the residents of Leicester recognise that the city is multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-faith.’ The latter is a tellingly unenthusiastic phrase. I recognise that I’m not going to ever be confused for Johnny Depp or afford a house in Hampstead, but I wouldn’t ‘celebrate’ the fact, unless you call smashing an empty whisky bottle across the room while listening to Joy Division at 2 in the morning ‘celebrating’…” 

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2044748/Political-correctness-continues-stifle-debate-regarding-impact-multiculturalism.html

Photo Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2044748/Political-correctness-continues-stifle-debate-regarding-impact-multiculturalism.html

Celebrity chef Clarissa Dickson Wright described her visit to Leicester when she stumbled into a Muslim ‘ghetto’ as being “one of the most frightening experiences of my life.” She added: “I found myself in an area where all the men were wearing Islamic clothing and all the women were wearing burkas and walking slightly behind them… and the men would not talk to me because I was an English female and they don’t talk to females they don’t know. Here I was, in the heart of a city in the middle of my own country, a complete outcast and pariah… If multiculturalism works, which I have always been rather dubious of, surely it must be multicultural and not monocultural.”

Clarissa Dickson Wright’s observations are similar to what Leicester resident Darren Verity lives through daily when he states: “It doesn’t matter how much Leicester City Council force feeds us the idea of One Leicester, the truth is it’s a myth. Leicester is clearly split into separate communities, who live separately, worship separately and in many cases are now educated separately.”

Wikileaks revealed what US State Department’s senior adviser for Muslim engagement, Farah Pandith, said about Leicester: “The most conservative Islamic community she had seen anywhere in Europe. Girls as young as four years old were completely covered… At a local book store, texts… seemed designed to segregate Muslims from their wider community, urging women to cover themselves and remain in their homes, playing up the differences between Islam and other religions, seeking to isolate Muslims from community, and feeding hate of Jews to the young.”

We all know this to be true… even David Cameron knows it, I’m sure!? Although the Prime Minister only scratched the surface in his 2011 speech when he said: “We have even tolerated these segregated (Muslim) communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.”… But unfortunately Cameron blamed British society by saying “We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong” before that sentence. So it is our fault apparently! What is the answer then? Cameron adds: “Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.” No we don’t! It’s ‘muscular liberalism’ (whatever that is exactly?) that got us into this mess and will undoubtedly make things even worse!

Cameron is always out-of-touch with Islam, and the Nairobi atrocity recently highlighted this. He still cannot state the glaringly obvious, the link between Islam and the violence carried out in its name!

Read more at the Cherson and Molschky blog

 

PIPES: A common culture for refugees

Syrian refugees at the Beirut airport on the way to Germany.

Syrian refugees at the Beirut airport on the way to Germany.

By Daniel Pipes:

The lull in the chemical weapons crisis offers a chance to divert attention to the huge flow of refugees leaving Syria and rethink some misguided assumptions about their future.

About one-tenth of Syria’s 22 million residents have fled across an international border, mostly to neighboring LebanonJordan and Turkey. Unable to cope, their governments are restricting entry, prompting international concern about the Syrians’ plight. The United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesAntonio Guterres, suggests that his agency (as the Guardian paraphrases him) “look to resettle tens of thousands of Syrian refugees in countries better able to afford to host them,” recalling the post-2003 Iraqi-resettlement program when 100,000 Iraqis resettled in the West. Others also look instinctively to the West for a solution. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, has called on Western states “to do more” for Syrian refugees.

The appeal has been heard: Canada has offered to take 1,300 Syrian refugees; the United States, 2,000. Italy has received 4,600 Syrian refugees by sea. Germany has offered to take (and has begun receiving) 5,000. Sweden has offered asylum to the 15,000 Syrians already in that country. Local groups are preparing for a substantial influx throughout the West.

However, these numbers pale beside a population numbering in the millions, meaning that the West alone cannot solve the Syrian refugee problem. Further, many in Western countries (especially European ones, such as The Netherlands and Switzerland) have wearied of taking in Muslim peoples who do not assimilate but instead seek to replace Western mores with Shariah, the Islamic law code. Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron have deemed multiculturalism, with its insistence on the equal value of all civilizations, a failure. Worse, fascist movements such as the Golden Dawn in Greece are growing.

Many more Muslim refugees are likely on their way. In addition to Syrians, these include Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, Egyptians, Somalis and Algerians. Other nationals — for example, Yemenis and Tunisians — might soon join their ranks.

Happily, a solution lies at hand.

To place Syrians in “countries better able to afford to host them,” as Mr. Guterres delicately puts it, one need simply divert attention from the Christian-majority West toward the vast, empty expanses of the fabulously wealthy kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the smaller but, in some cases, even richer states of KuwaitBahrainQatar and the United Arab Emirates. For starters, these countries (which I will call Arabia) are much more convenient to repatriate to Syria from than, say, New Zealand. Living there also means not enduring frozen climes as in Sweden or learning difficult languages spoken by few, such as Danish.

More importantly, Muslims of Arabia share deep religious ties with their Syrian brothers and sisters, so settling there avoids the strains of life in the West.

Read more at Washington Times

 

In the Name of Islam

kenyaBy :

Denial is the first stage of coming to terms with the unthinkable.

In Westgate, a Kenyan mall oriented toward expats, terrorists separated Muslims from non-Muslims before killing them. The Muslims were allowed to go free if they could recite a Muslim prayer.

During the attack, Al Shabaab’s Arabic Twitter account quoted the Koran, “Plant firmly our feet and give us victory over (Al-Kafireen) the disbelieving people.”  (Koran 2:250). The Kuffar, the non-Muslims of Westgate, included small children.

“I don’t understand why you would shoot a five-year-old child,” one of the survivors said. But the five-year-old was not a Muslim.

Moments like these put the Clash of Civilizations into bloody context. This isn’t abstract politics. It’s not about economics, the environment or foreign policy. It’s about a worldview in which a five-year-old who can’t recite the Islamic confession of faith deserves to be killed.

The crime is not being a Muslim.

Or as Al Shabaab put it on Twitter, “Only Kuffar were singled out for this attack. All Muslims inside #Westgate were escorted out by the Mujahideen (Islamic Holy Warriors) before beginning the attack.”

Not getting the message, UK Prime Minister David Cameron declared, “These appalling terrorist attacks that take place where the perpetrators claim they do it in the name of a religion – they don’t.”

“They do it in the name of terror, violence and extremism and their warped view of the world,” he elaborated. “They don’t represent Islam or Muslims in Britain or anywhere else in the world.”

Considering the number of British Muslims who have joined Al Shabaab or support it financially, including reportedly at least one of the attackers, that is not the case.

Cameron, hardly an expert theologian even on his own religion, describing himself as a “committed,” but “vaguely practicing” Christian, is in no position to expostulate on Islamic theology. But that hasn’t stopped him before.

When a British soldier was beheaded in London, Cameron called it “a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.” Demonstrating again his utter ignorance, he added, “There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”

The attackers who had quoted the Koran during their butchery clearly disagreed. But every politician becomes an instant expert on Islam when it comes to giving it a clean bill of health after every attack.

Challenged on the Islamist orientation of the Syrian rebels, Senator McCain claimed that Allahu Akbar was just like “Thank God.” Allahu Akbar originates from a Hadith describing Mohammed’s attack on a Jewish settlement; a chain of atrocities culminating in the Muslim ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians from what is today Saudi Arabia.

The Syrian rebels screaming Allahu Akbar are living up to its original use as a battle cry by Mohammed in the Khaybar Massacre. Syria is low on Jews, so the Allahu Akbarers are ethnically cleansing Christians from places like Homs using weapons supplied to them by the CIA.

It’s an authentic war crime overseen by John Kerry, who had built his political career on falsely accusing American soldiers in Vietnam of having “cut off ears, cut off heads… blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”

Now Kerry is helping run guns to the Genghis Khans who cry Allahu Akbar before cutting off a head. And they don’t mean “Thank God.” They mean Allah is superior to your god because he enables me to cut off your head.

In July, Al Shabaab terrorists burst into the African Inland Church in Kenya and opened fire. Among the eleven dead was a nine-year-old boy. Twelve other children were injured.

“The Mujahideen punished with their hands those believing and worshipping other than Allah,” Sheikh Hassan Takar, an Al Shabaab leader, explained.

Read more at Front Page

The Gates of Vienna Are Wide Open – Conquest By Other Means

IslamizationBy Don Feder:

Besides the anniversary of the 2001 World Trade Center attack and the murders of four Americans in Benghazi last year, September 11 also marks the 330th anniversary of the beginning of the battle of Vienna in 1683, which stopped the Islamic advance in Europe – temporarily.

But where Ottoman armies failed, Muslim immigration, homegrown terrorism, demographic jihad and multiculturalism are succeeding.

The combined forces of the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – under the command of the Polish King Jan III Sobieski – lifted the Ottoman siege begun two months earlier.

The battle marked the turning point in the 300-year struggle between Christendom and the Ottoman Empire – itself an extension of a European war that started almost a thousand years earlier, with the Umayyad conquest of Spain in the 8th century.

Within a few decades of the battle, the Ottomans had lost most of their European domains. Viennese bakers celebrated their deliverance with what came to be called the croissant, a pastry in the shape of the Muslim crescent. Take a bite out of Islam?

Today, sans uniforms or siege engines, Islam’s armies are on the march across Europe.On May 22, in the London neighborhood of Woolich, two Muslims hacked to death and tried to behead British soldier Lee Rigby. The killers made no attempt to escape. Waving a bloody machete, one shouted at bystanders: “We must fight them as they fight us…. You people (Brits) will never be safe.”

Prime Minister David Cameron resolutely declared, “We will never give in to terror or terrorism.” Cameron added that the murder wasn’t just an attack on the British way of life, but “a betrayal of Islam.”

“There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act,” Cameron intoned – no doubt based on his extensive knowledge on the Koran and Hadith, after a lifetime of study. Rumor has it he’s memorized most of the Suras in Arabic.

At a procedural hearing, accused Michael Adebolajo (who missed the memo on the incompatibility of terrorism and Islam) kissed a copy of the Koran and asked the judge to address him as “mujahid” – Arabic for “fighter” or “warrior.”

Private Rigby is another casualty in a global conflict – where one side wields machetes and plants bombs, while the other mouths inane clichés.

On Armistice Day in 2010, while Englishmen were laying wreaths at monuments to their war dead, Muslim protestors in London waved signs that said “British soldiers burn in hell” (for fighting the civilizing influence of the Taliban in Afghanistan) and “Allah is our protector. And you have no protector.” The British police blame such incidents on the English Defense League, for making Muslims feel bad about themselves by pointing out the obvious connection between the religion-of-bloody-machetes and acts of barbarism.

In “The Story of the Malakand Field Force,” Winston Churchill, who experienced the business end of Islam in Afghanistan’s borderlands and the Sudan, wrote that, unlike Christianity: “The Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”

The man who faced another totalitarian threat half-a-century later referred to Islam as “the religion of blood and war.” In Cameron’s Britain, Churchill would be hauled before a human rights tribunal and charged with inciting religious hatred.

In the U.K. and Western Europe, tolerance is a one-way street.

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

UK’s David Cameron: No ‘Smoking’ Gun on Assad

By Keith Davies and Ben Barrack

When it came to action on Syria, Barack Obama’s emissary to the British Parliament, which also happens to be Prime Minister David Cameron, was unsuccessful in convincing Parliament that action was necessary against Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad. Lost in the news about this defeat for Cameron was a rather shocking admission by him that took place during the debate.

Cameron: ‘Let’s not pretend there’s one smoking piece of intelligence (on Assad)’

Cameron: ‘Let’s not pretend there’s one smoking piece of intelligence (on Assad)’

It started with a Conservative member of Parliament Julian Lewis asking Cameron if classified intelligence information Cameron claimed to have in his possession that implicated Assad could be shown to select members of Parliament who sit on the intelligence committee. Cameron’s response was incredibly revealing in that it indicated there isn’t any such intelligence.

Cameron’s initial reaction was typical politik-speak. He assured Lewis that he would be happy to take the request under advisement (this garnered some skeptical groans from other members) but then proceeded to demean the potential consequences of doing so, by saying he didn’t want the intelligence to be used to create a “cult” following. Cameron then directed members to “open source” information that implicated Assad which amounts to nothing more than scant circumstantial evidence, based on demonstrably false premises.

 

Did you catch that? Smear the request for access to smoking gun information; then point to ‘open source’ information that provides nothing more than circumstantial evidence; then admit (and diminish) the fact that there is no ‘smoking’ gun.

At that, Cameron’s circumstantial evidence is suspect and in some cases, flat-out wrong. After assuring members of Parliament that ‘open source’ information was sufficient, Cameron said:

“There’s the fact we know that the regime has an enormous arsenal; the fact they’ve used it before; the fact they were attacking that area. And then with the opposition, of course, there’s the fact they don’t have those weapons, they don’t have those delivery systems, and the attack took place in an area which they were themselves holding.”

While some of those claims are likely provable, others appear to be politically motivated and are demonstrably false.  Several statements of fact made by Cameron are disputable, questionable, disingenuous, or outright dishonest. He then suggested that there is no ‘smoking piece of evidence’, which translates to no direct evidence Assad carried out the attacks, saying that Parliament should vote his way based on a “judgement”.

Read more

I just found this by Ken Timmerman – Verify chemical weapons use before unleashing the dogs of war, written on 8/29/13. He has been an investigative journalist focusing on Iran for a very long time and has many reliable sources. It begins:

The Obama administration has selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes on Syria, former military officers with access to the original intelligence reports say, in a manner that goes far beyond what critics charged the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.

According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.

The doctored report was leaked to a private Internet-based newsletter that boasts of close ties to the Israeli intelligence community, and led to news reports that the United States now had firm evidence showing that the Syrian government had ordered the chemical weapons attack on August 21 against a rebel-controlled suburb of Damascus.

Read more at Daily Caller

Related articles