What will it take for us to stop doing business with Qatar?

UN-GENERAL ASSEMBLY-QATAR

We’ve let the desert state face both ways on funding extremism.

The Spectator, Simon Heffer, 4 October 2014:

On 17 June, a meeting of the Henry Jackson Society, held in the House of Commons, discussed (according to the minutes published on the society’s website) how a tribal elder in northern Cameroon who runs a car import business in Qatar has become one of the main intermediaries between kidnappers from Boko Haram and its offshoot Ansaru and those seeking to free hostages. It was alleged that embezzlement of funds going to Qatar via car imports might be disguising ransom payments. It was also alleged that Qatar was involved in financing Islamist militant groups in West Africa, helping with weapons and ideological training, and (with Saudi Arabia) funding the building of mosques in Mali and Nigeria that preach a highly intolerant version of Islam.

This was far from the only time such accusations have been levelled. Yet Qatar is supposed to be one of our allies, supporting air strikes against the Islamic State. Its ruler even thinks his enormous wealth entitles him to blag his way into Her Majesty’s carriage at Royal Ascot. Given Qatar’s questionable role in the current tide of savage Islamism, should its ruler be allowed anywhere near our Queen? And should they be allowed to buy up our country, as they have done relentlessly since the crash of 2008?

After the overthrow of President Morsi of Egypt, Qatar became a place of refuge for the Muslim Brotherhood. However, on 12 September it asked several leading Brotherhood figures to leave. They duly did, not in outrage or indignation, but apologising for causing embarrassment. Clearly, they felt a debt to the Qataris, and a senior Brotherhood spokesman, Amr Darrag, said what it was. He issued a statement thanking Qataris for their support to ‘the Egyptian people in their revolution against the military junta’.

Qatar asked its former friends to leave because of pressure applied by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Some may come to London: there is already a group of Brotherhood members in Cricklewood, under scrutiny from the authorities. But even now, Qatar remains home to an array of exiled Islamists, and thus a focus of suspicion to its neighbours. Bahrain joined Saudi Arabia and the UAE in withdrawing its ambassador from Doha this spring. It has been widely reported that Qatari money funds extremists in Libya, and when these ambassadors were recalled, the Zionist Organisation of America asked the US government to declare Qatar a state sponsor of terrorism.

The Emir of Qatar’s personal fortune and the country’s sovereign wealth fund are rumoured to amount to £50 billion. Qataris own substantial amounts of real estate — such as the Shard, the Olympic Village, One Hyde Park, a part of Canary Wharf, the United States Embassy building in Grosvenor Square, the Chelsea Barracks development and Harrods. They have large stakes in the stock exchange, Sainsburys and Barclays bank. Almost all Britain’s liquefied natural gas comes from Qatar, accounting for a quarter of our gas needs. The desert state has also bought the 2022 World Cup — rather like playing a cricket Test series at the South Pole — in a fashion so seemingly corrupt that there have been widespread calls for a boycott.

Sir John Jenkins, the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has compiled a report exposing extremist activity among members of the Brotherhood and their links to jihadis. It named three Muslim charities in Britain that seemed to be sending funds to extremists in the Middle East. At the very least this should lead Britain to expel members of the Brotherhood, close down the charities and sequester their funds; but the problem will never be dealt with until the source of the funding is cut off. At some stage the British government must ask itself a simple question: however much we want Qatari gas, how much longer can we permit commercial relations with such people?

In June the American magazine The Atlantic asserted that Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qa’eda proxy in Syria, had somehow received ‘Qatar’s economic and military largesse’. There is no suggestion this was sanctioned or funded by the Qatari government: but every suggestion it came from interest groups based in Qatar and wealthy Qatari nationals. The problem has been around for years. Wikileaks published a memorandum from Hillary Clinton, when US secretary of state, saying Qatar had the worst record of counter-terrorism co-operation of any ally of the United States.

The Qatari foreign minister, Khalid al-Attiyah, called claims such as The Atlantic’s ‘Qatar-bashing’, and denied the country or anyone in it was bankrolling IS. Certainly, most of the evidence for IS’s funding points to groups and individuals in Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia may provide training camps for anti-IS groups from Syria approved by the Americans. In response to a US request for similar assistance, the Qataris said it would be ‘premature’. Meanwhile, the Americans continue to accuse Qatar and Kuwait of being ‘permissive environments’ for the funding of terrorism, and believe Qatar has unhealthily close links with Jabhat al-Nusra. Certainly, Mr Attiyah has sought to play down its activities by pointing instead to atrocities committed by those loyal to Bashar al-Assad.

Israel has driven America’s scepticism over Qatar, accusing it of funding Hamas and of exporting terror not just through Jabhat al-Nusra but through IS. A German minister, Gerd Müller, then said that when the question was raised about funding IS, ‘The key word there is Qatar.’ This brought an immediate repudiation from the Qataris, who argued they had been among the first to condemn the beheading of the murdered American hostage James Foley.

However, the Americans — whose largest base in the Middle East is, ironically, at Al Udeid in Doha — believe Qatar has funded extremists not merely in Syria and Libya but also in Tunisia, Mali and Iraq. Another Wikileaks cable revealed Meir Degan, a former head of Mossad, telling the US that ‘Qatar is trying to cosy up to everyone’, and warning America to close its bases there.

Qatar’s pretence that it is an honest broker in the Middle East, attempting to see all sides of an argument, may wash in Doha. It won’t, however, resonate in countries such as Britain and America whose citizens are targeted by jihadis financed by people who may be Qataris, and who have enjoyed Qatari hospitality. Qatar needs to be reminded that the civilised parts of the world with which it does business won’t tolerate apologists for savage extremists. It can’t face both ways on this. Britain must expel members of the Brotherhood and sequester their funds. And it must tell Qatar that unless it stops turning a blind eye to some of its people funding murder and extremism, and stops equivocating about extremists, its assets will be frozen and trade with it suspended until it does.

Simon Heffer, is a columnist for the Daily Mail and a former deputy editor of The Spectator.

UK special forces move into London as government fears “Mumbai-style” attack

Mumbai2611APBreitbart, by DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS:

London could be the scene of a Mumbai-style terrorist “spectacular” if Islamist jihadists get their way, British security chiefs have warned. There is growing concern that a list of “soft” targets is being drawn up, and that weapons and explosives have already been smuggled into the country.

The Sun is reporting that the SAS has moved part of its anti-terror team to a forward base near London, amid concerns that a prolonged attack may be staged in that city. MI5 also referred to the Mumbai atrocity of 2008 as a comparison, in which coordinated bombings and shootings took place over four consecutive days, killing 174 and wounding a further 300.

Speaking to The Sun, a source said: “The nightmare scenario is they mount a spectacular attack at a high profile location. They may try to storm a building, take hostages, rig it with explosives or kill at will.”

The threat has caused the official ‘threat level’ to be raised to severe, increasing tensions in the city and prompting people to share warnings of an imminent bomb attack on the London Underground on social media and via text last night. The threat was dismissed as a hoax after the head of the British Transport Police took to Twitter, posting: “Social media contains lots of rumours regarding threats to tube network tomorrow. There is no specific threat so keep calm & carry on.”

However, Twitter user David O’Neill pointed out: “Must say though. If you raise the threat level to severe you can’t be shocked when people believe stupid rumours about attacks on the tube.”

Up to 500 British-born men are understood to have gone abroad in order to fight for the Islamic State (IS). Scotland Yard believes that up to 200 may have already returned, and are concerned that they will have been taught to carry out similar violent attacks on the streets of Britain.

Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated that he is considering granting the border patrol new powers to seize passports from suspected jihadists, and introducing of a ban on travelling abroad to fight with IS. A government source has told the media: “We are considering measures to keep the country safe in the face of an increased threat level from Islamist extremism.

“The areas include making it harder for potential foreign fighters to travel abroad by making it easier to remove their passports through additional temporary seizure powers at the border.

“We are also looking at stopping British citizens from re-entering the country if they are suspected of terrorist activity abroad.

“Previously, our range of powers to prevent return to the UK applied only to foreign nationals, dual nationals or naturalised citizens.”

Cameron is expected to deliver details of a package designed to inhibit terrorist activity to the Commons later today. However, it is not clear whether the package will have the support of Cameron’s coalition partners, the Liberal Democrat Party.

Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell told BBC Radio 4: “I think it’s rather difficult and it might well constitute illegality. To render citizens stateless is regarded as illegal in international law. To render them stateless temporarily, which seems to me the purpose of what’s being proposed, can also I think be described as illegal. At the very least it’s the kind of question that will be tested here in our own courts and perhaps also in the European Court of Human Rights.”

WATCH: ANTI-ISIS PROTESTS IN LONDON POPULATED BY KURDS, COMMUNISTS, AND PKK SUPPORTERS

PIC_0263Breitbart London:

LONDON, United Kingdom – Anti-ISIS protests in London this weekend saw hundreds of people march from the BBC’s Broadcasting House to the American Embassy then down to Marble Arch.

The march followed the Gaza protests staged in London over recent weeks, and there were originally concerns that the demonstration would be met by London’s pro-ISIS campaigners who were spotted on Oxford Street, moments away from where the march is due to start and end, earlier this week.

But all passed peacefully, with the only animosity being directed at the Breitbart Londonteam itself after tough questions were asked about the support for the PKK, and the communist flags being waved at the event. At one point, Breitbart London’s correspondents were surrounded by hostile protesters shouting, “You are ISIS!” at us.

The PKK, or Kurdistan Worker’s Party, is listed as a terrorist organisation by NATO members included the United Kingdom and the USA, as well as Australia, Iran, the Netherlands, Turkey, Spain, and more.

But by and large the protests focused on the atrocities being committed by ISIS in the northern part of Iraq. Campaigners cited the massacres of Yazidis, though some, including speaking Dr Mary Davis, seeked to blame the Western powers rather than deal with the issue itself.

Breitbart London was there, with interesting results.

WATCH:

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 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

Europe: Islamic Terror Starts Here

Over 1000 European jihadists have joined the fight in Syria. Many will return home to plan terror attacks

Over 1000 European jihadists have joined the fight in Syria. Many will return home to plan terror attacks

European-based Islamists raise or launder money, supply false documents and weapons and recruit new operatives for a global network that spans from the United States to the Far East.

By Y.K. Cherson:

It’s no secret that most terrorist attacks perpetrated by those we call “Islamic terrorists” occurred not in Europe or the USA- but in Iraq, Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria and other non-Western countries. The murders of Lee Rigby or the 52 people killed in London in 2005 are, of course, heinous crimes. But compared to hundreds that die in Iraq daily, a hundred or so European victims of Islamic terrorist attacks in the last 10 years look very moderate. European political leaders, modestly lowering their eyes, hint that this is the result of their wise policy and of the highest efficiency of the police- that is directed and guided by them. The true reason, however, is different. Islamic terrorist leaders simply spare Europe. It is not dangerous for them. Moreover, Europe today is a true paradise for Islamic terrorist leaders, who in total comfort and safety are able to plan, organize and finance terrorist attacks all over the world from the European capital cities.

Before the 70s there was not any “Islamic terrorism.” In all those countries we today call “Islamic,” the governments, understanding perfectly well the danger, were mercilessly crushing all these “Muslim brotherhoods” and any other similar tactics. Muslim groups were illegal, and the ruling governments in Egypt, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia sent their members to jail without a second thought. Incidentally, the jails in these countries are not like in Norway, Sweden or Great Britain where they more closely resemble 4-star hotels than prisons.

Furthermore, Europe, due to the restrictive immigration policies and moderately strict laws, was closed to them. Islamic terrorism had no future and no perspectives. All that changed in the 70s when Europe became catastrophically humanistic and liberal- and opened its doors to a mass immigration from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The leaders of the Islamic terrorist organizations very soon discovered that to organize terrorist attacks and to launder money from drug and human trafficking is much safer from Amsterdam, London and Paris than from Cairo, Damascus and Riyadh: lawyers, human rights activists, lax laws…

And the efficiency is much higher.

The main rehaznos for the growth of Islamic terrorism in the world and the increase in its efficiency are:

• lax immigration policies that have allowed known Islamic radicals to settle and remain in Europe,

• the radicalization of significant segments of the continent’s burgeoning Muslim population, and

• the European law enforcement agencies’ inability to effectively dismantle terrorist networks, due to poor attention to the problem and/or the lack of proper legal tools.

Given these premises, it should come as no surprise that almost every single attack carried out or attempted by different Islamic groups throughout the world has some link to Europe, even prior to 9/11.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

The UK Confronts Islamism

kl-450x272

by :

A century ago the murder of a British soldier in broad daylight in London would have been an act of war. In this post-imperial and post-everything age, an atrocity leads to a task force which produces a report which is then filed in a desk drawer by the undersecretary for something or other.

Like clockwork, the murder of Lee Rigby led to a task force and to a report. The report is 7 pages long. It’s possible to read it in much less than the twenty minutes that it took London police to respond to the murder in progress. You could even get through it a few times in real time while a Muslim convert who describes himself as a soldier of Allah saws away at a fallen Englishman’s head with no one to stop him.

There is a thing that organizations say when they know that they are hip deep in a crisis. They say that “we are taking this seriously.”

The report, “Tackling Extremism in the UK” certainly takes matters seriously. The evidence of that is not so much in the report, as in the task force which included the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, four Secretaries of State, three Ministers, one Chancellor, one Lord Chancellor and a partridge in a pear tree.

Like so many of the more “serious” and “sincere” efforts at tackling the biggest threat to civilization in the twenty-first century, the report mixes occasional good ideas with politically correct absurdities. It starts off by equating Islamophobia with Al Qaeda and rolls out a plan to fight back against Islamism.

“As the greatest risk to our security comes from Al Qa’ida and like-minded groups, and terrorist ideologies draw on and make use of extremist ideas, we believe it is also necessary to define the ideology of Islamist extremism,” the report states. And then it goes on to carefully avoid defining it except to contend that, whatever it is; it is not Islam.

“This is a distinct ideology which should not be confused with traditional religious practice. It is an ideology which is based on a distorted interpretation of Islam, which betrays Islam’s peaceful principles, and draws on the teachings of the likes of Sayyid Qutb.”

The mention of Sayyid Qutb is startling considering that the UK seemed to be pretending that the Muslim Brotherhood was a “moderate” group. Say what you will about Cameron, but I don’t see Obama chairing a task force that would produce a report denouncing the Muslim Brotherhood’s evil genius.

But Qutb’s mention feels like a random aberration thrown in by someone a little too knowing. Beyond that the only further definition of Islamist extremism is that, “they seek to impose a global Islamic state governed by their interpretation of Shari’ah as state law, rejecting liberal values such as democracy, the rule of law and equality.”

In other words, Islamists are seeking to impose Islam on everyone. But then they aren’t a distorted interpretation of Islam. Islamism is simply the organized political implementation of Islam in the same way that Nazism was the implementation of National Socialism and Marxism is the attempted implementation of Karl Marx’s ideas.

Apologists can argue that Marxism distorts Marx and that Islamism distorts Islam, but those remain unconvincing defenses. Implementing a set of ideas always distorts them, but realizing ideas is the only truly objective way to assess their merit by seeing their consequences.

What the report is clumsily getting at is the idea that Islam is legitimate in private practice, but not in public imposition. It’s Islam when a Muslim goes to a mosque or avoids alcohol, but Islamism when he harasses barflies or chops off heads under the dictates of Islamic law. Unfortunately this distinction has no meaning in Islam which was never rewired to function as a private religion in a secular state.

America dealt with the clash between religion and tolerance by separating church and state allowing churches to retain their full doctrine while secularizing the machinery of the state.  Europe dealt with it by secularizing and liberalizing national churches to such a degree that they no longer had any religious content that anyone could object to.

Islam was absent from Europe when this rewiring took place. Unlike its Christian and Jewish antagonists, it hasn’t been liberalized or secularized. And it insists on being a public religion because theocracy is what it was built to do. Islam was not the religion of the oppressed. It was the religion of the oppressors. It equates morality with authority. If it doesn’t control the public square, then it has no function.

To Europeans, the infringement of religious values on public life is considered extremism. More so than blowing up buses. But Islam is dedicated to doing exactly that. It is an unreconstructed theocracy.

Read more at Front Page

Terrorist Killed British Soldier to “Make it to Paradise”

article-2520719-19FB211600000578-362_634x484by IPT News:

A British court Monday heard yet another first-hand statement that jihadist terrorist attacks are motivated by radical Islamic religious beliefs.

Michael Adebolajo is one of the two men charged with hacking British soldier Lee Rigby to death in a brutal, daylight attack in London last May. He testified Monday, telling the court he did kill Rigby.

While Islamist groups and even the United States government argue religion should not be part of the conversation when it comes to terrorist attacks, Adebolajo – a convert to Islam – made it clear it was the driving force behind his actions.

“My religion is everything,” he said. “When I came to Islam I realised that… real success is not just what you can acquire, but really is if you make it to paradise, because then you can relax.”

‘To fight Jihad for the sake of Allah, it’s not something that is to be taken lightly, fun or something like this,” Adebolajo said.

That is consistent with what he said moments after Rigby’s murder. “But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us,” he said, still carrying the meat cleaver, his hands covered in Rigby’s blood.

And it is consistent with what other killers and would-be terrorists have said for years.

Faisal Shahzad’s car bomb parked in Times Square in May 2010 turned out to be a dud. But he told his sentencing judge that he had hoped to fire a salvo in “the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah … which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order.”

Naser Jason Abdo was caught before he could try to bomb a restaurant popular with personnel from Fort Hood, Texas in July 2011. “The reason is religion, Mom,” he later said in a jailhouse visit with his mother.

Farooque Ahmed scouted Washington, D.C. area Metrorail stops, believing he was helping an al-Qaida terrorist plot.

“There’s an incessant message that is delivered by radical followers of Islam,” his own lawyer told the judge at Ahmed’s sentencing, “that one cannot be true to the faith unless they take action, including violent action, most especially violent action … that is a message that can unfortunately take root in individuals who feel like if they don’t do something, that they literally will not find salvation under their faith.”

Too often, the reaction to such brutality is to say it has nothing to do with the terrorist’s interpretation of Islam.

So whose message should we heed – the bureaucrats and activists promoting a politically correct ideal? Or the individuals who attempt to kill, or succeed in killing people because they believe Islam compels it?

UK Hate Preacher Choudary Linked to Terror Network

Anjem Choudary 3

British Islamist hate preacher Anjem Choudary and his al-Muhajiroun network has been named as “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history,” according to a large and significant investigation of the group.

The investigation, conducted by the anti-extremist organization called “Hope Not Hate,” found that Choudary’s network “facilitated or encouraged” close to 80 young Muslims from the UK as well as between 250 and 300 from other locations in Europe to join radical jihadi groups linked to Al Qaeda fighting with rebel forces in Syria.

“While painted by some as a figure of fun, an extremist crackpot whose media stunts are rightly ridiculed, Anjem Choudary has become a serious player on the international Islamist scene,” the report states “Perhaps it is time to start concentrating on his role as a facilitator of terror. Al-Muhajiroun has quite simply been the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history.”

**********

Although Choudary is not specifically mentioned in the following video, this BBC reports follows a young jihadi, from his ideological radicalization in the UK to his joining an Al Qaeda-linked group fighting in Syria:

 

Read more at Clarion Project

MI5: Radicalized Britons Fighting in Syria Cause Concern

radicalization

Exclusive video showing British Muslims fighting in Syria alongside Al Qaeda jihadi militias. Head of MI5: This is reason for concern.

Clarion Project:

There is growing concern in the British intelligence agency, MI5, that radicalized citizens who have fought alongside Al Qaeda militias in Syria will return to Britain to carry out terror attacks.

Channel 4 prepared the following video report which examines the process of radicalization of these young Muslims, usually recruited through extremist websites and social media networks which glorify the idea of becoming a martyr, promising paradise to anyone dying fighting against Assad’s regime in Syria. Shiraz Maher, a senior fellow at the Int’l Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, shows the pictures used to entice the young men to join the Islamist militants.

Watch video here

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

via The Blaze: ‘WE WILL BLEED YOU TO DEATH’: BRITISH JIHADIS DESCRIBE THEIR AIMS FOR AMERICA AFTER SYRIA FIGHT

British men fighting alongside Al Qaeda-linked groups in Syria have said that after Syria, they aim to take the battle to the United States and Britain.

Vice News posted video with interviews of British men who traveled to the combat zone to pair up with the jihadi groups Jabhat al-Nusra (Nusra Front) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“I say to United States that your time will come and we will bleed you to death and, inshallah [Allah willing], will raise the flag in the White House,” a 26-year-old Briton told the Vice News interviewer.

“My feeling is great, hamdullallah (thank Allah), I’m happy I’m here. And I’m here to please Allah… and I’m not here to please anyone else but Allah,” he added, describing his aim as contributing to jihad on behalf of Muslims.

During the entire video, all of the men were masked, revealing only their eyes, and none provided their names.

A second British citizen blamed his government and prime minister for perpetrating “crimes” against Muslims. He tied his objectives with those of the killers of Lee Rigby, the British soldier who was hacked to death in the London neighborhood of Woolwich in May. The perpetrators – both Muslim converts – described their motives as revenge for the killing of Muslims by British forces serving in the Middle East.

“Like the guy in Woolwich, he explained that [Prime Minister] David Cameron would never walk on the street, and he’ll never get shot in the face, whereas you guys who are soldiers, or just normal folk, will take the blame for the crimes that are committed worldwide by Britain itself so we have to fight. It’s part of our obligation…to protect our honor, to protect our women,” the Syrian rebel from the UK said.

After Syria, the aim is “to bring back the honor of Islam from Filastine [Palestine] to Al Aqsa to all over the Muslim world, and Britain will be next,” said one of the British jihadis.

“From this land we will march toward the Al Aqsa mosque [in Jerusalem] in the name of Allah. Allahu Akbar! [Allah is the greatest],” said another.

***

According to a Daily Beast report last month, U.S. intelligence estimates vary about the number of Americans who have gone on jihad in Syria, ranging from 10 to 60.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers has called the Syrian civil war a “jihadist magnet.” He told the Daily Beast in September, “At some point all of these people from Europe are going home. All the folks there from all over the world, including the United States, will be coming home if they do not meet their end on the battlefield.”

Read more

 

UK Child Brides Victims of “Cultural Sensitivity”

 

Steve Emerson interviewed on Sun News – Canadians leaving for Jihad

SunVideo at IPT:

Brian Lilley: We’ve told you in the past about Canadians joining foreign struggles. We’re talking about the international jihad. Now international media are taking note, Israel National News putting out a report the other day saying on Thursday reports were released that a Canadian citizen described only as Abu Abd Al-Rahman was killed in March in the city of Aleppo. Al-Rahman is one of many Canadian and other foreign jihadists journeying to Syria to join the bloodbath. Do we need to be concerned that our international allies are taking note of the growing jihadi movement in Canada? Steven Emerson is with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, joins us now from our studies in Washington. Mr. Emerson, we’ve been taking note of this global trend. How worried should we be that Israel, the United States other allies might be noticing it as well?

Steve Emerson: Well in Canada with the dubious distinction of your Mayor of Toronto with his exception –

Lilley: [Laughs.] Yeah.

Emerson: – Canada is probably the highest contributor of expatriates. That is Canadian citizens, to jihadist movements around the world, with the exception of the United States. There probably are at least 100 Canadians of Islamic origin or converts that have volunteered for the jihad in Syria over the past two years. And the reason that there is concern is that these jihadists not only acquire training overseas and engage in jihad, but are liable, are likely to become radicalized even more than they have been in terms of going over there when they return back to Canada, as we’ve seen in dozens of terrorist plots that have occurred in the last decade in Canada. As a Canadian intelligence report that was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act recently revealed, there are more terrorists per capita in Canada, Islamic terrorists, than there are any place in the world, with the exception of the United States.

Lilley: See and that part is shocking me, given what I read about in terms of a ghettoization of British culture, in terms of certain areas of London being referred to as Londonstan and the radicalization going on there, I would have thought the U.K. would have been far away ahead of both Canada and the U.S. So this is shocking news, not only to me but lots of other Canadians.

Emerson: Well what’s interesting here, you raise an interesting point, because in London and in other parts of Europe, there really has been a radicalization of the communities to the point where there are no-go areas that are Muslim areas only. And there are Muslim patrols that actually attack anybody who is a Westerner or somebody who is dressed in Western attire. This is something a little bit different than in Canada or the United States where you don’t have the same concentration within the communal structure of the radicals, but you do have a radical cultural ideology that is basically, that is proliferating from community, community, and ends up resulting in either lone-wolf plots, that is Islamic terrorist plots that are not directed from without but come from within, or you end up having people volunteer for jihad overseas, which has been dominating, shouldn’t be dominating, but actually has been proliferating in the last decade, particularly in the last three or four years as new jihad fronts have opened up in Al-Shabaab, you know that’s in Africa -

Lilley: Somalia.

Emerson: – in Somalia, that’s in Yemen, in Syria, in Iraq, even in other areas. Even in Europe you’ve seen Americans or North Americans, that is those with Canadian passports, volunteer to carry out plots with their European compatriots, which is a very troubling developing that only witnessed in the last three or four years.

Lilley: OK, so in Canada we have long had ministers, such as former Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, say we don’t have to be as worried about radicalization as they do in places like Europe, whether it’s Germany or Britain, because we’ve had a more successful integration of disparate communities. Should we be buying that line or does the fact that we are such a large contributor to the jihad put that, make that stand out as a bald-faced lie?

Emerson: Well I wouldn’t say it’s a bald-faced lie. There has indeed been more successful integration coupled with the fact that there’s been less of a concentration of jihadist immigration to North America, including Canada and the United States than let’s say in London or let’s say in Belgium or in Germany or Italy, where almost every week there’s a jihadist plot that’s interrupted. But the corollary of this is that there really is a cultural jihad that has not diminished but rather spread in different communities in Canada, in Toronto, in Montreal, in Ottawa, as well as in different parts of the United States. And you’ve seen that in the increase in number of lone-wolf attacks, these are attacks by Islamists who basically decide they’re gonna carry out jihad in the United States or in Canada for the sake of jihad. And if you look at the numbers, the numbers have been increasing actually in the last one-half decade than decreasing. So I think, look, the bottom line is, to the extent that these plots are interdicted and stopped, you know people don’t feel the threat. As soon as one plot is successful, I can guarantee you, all the complacency in the world will stop immediately in Canada or the United States.

Lilley: Alright, Steve great talking to you as always. The Investigative Project on Terrorism. You can find out more from their website. We’ll chat again soon my friend.

Do Not Be Fooled by Muslim Propaganda

TAQIYYA-SOftening-hearts-of-non-believer-fingers-crossed-300x240By Rachel Molschky:

Iftikhar Ahmad of the London School of Islamics Trust is a master propagandist who has been “commenting” on our most recent articles, though his comments are just as long as the articles themselves. Basically a cliché of the typical propaganda Muslims are taught to answer whenever there is any criticism thrown their way, these articles are an attack on Britain with statements like, “British schooling and the British society is the home of institutional racism.”

Apparently Mr. Ahmad presents his arguments on other sites as well. Paul Austin Murphy of Liberty GB decided to address Ahmad’s ridiculous claims back in April 2013: “Iftikhar Ahmad Says: Islamise UK Schools!” Mr. Murphy makes some valid points, and after posting six painfully long “comments” by Ahmad in the effort to allow dissenting opinions and self-defense from the Muslim front, I too feel the need to address some of his claims. (Though not all- his latest comment is three pages long, and I’m not going to waste my time answering each point.)

If this is the same Iftikhar Ahmad, he is associated with the Muslim Council of Britain and therefore has a special interest to defend the 72-page brochure that Paul Wilkinson analyzed in his latest article, “The Blueprint to Islamise State Education.” However, this site is not meant to be a platform for Muslim propaganda, but rather, is dedicated to showing the dangers of uncontrolled Muslim immigration to the West which has ulterior motives with Muslims intent on Islamicizing the entire world. And let’s not forget that one of the founders of the Muslim Council of Britain, Chowdury Mueen-Uddin, was recently sentenced to death in Bangladesh for the murder of 18 people in 1971, yet he was in the UK, spewing the same kind of propaganda as Iftikhar Ahmad here. Should he be given a platform on this site? I think I’ve been more than fair in posting what I’ve already posted of his “kuffarophobic” point of view.

Read more at Cherson and 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