The PA presidential palace / Photo credit: Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR)
Thousands of Palestinian terrorists, including masterminds of suicide bombings and murderers of women and children, are given cash handouts by the UK, the Daily Mail revealed Sunday. A Mail two-month global investigation has revealed that in Judea and Samaria and Gaza, “despite promises by the ruling Palestinian Authority (PA) to end the practice of paying aid money to convicted terrorists … [have] simply duped the West by allowing the Palestine Liberation Organization to hand out the cash instead.”
Britain gives £72 million ($101 million) a year to the Palestinian Arabs, according to the report, “more than one-third of which goes straight to the PA,” which “openly admits supporting terrorists whom it hails as heroes for fighting illegal occupation, awarding lifetime payments that rise depending on time spent in jail and the seriousness of crimes.”
One example is a Hamas “master bomber” Abdallah Barghouti, who was given 67 life sentences: he has received a total of £106,000 ($150,000). UK funds also pay out “salaries” to the families of suicide bombers, as well as to “teenagers involved in the latest upsurge of deadly attacks on Israel.”
The UK government’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the European Union “are still effectively supporting these payments to thousands of terrorists – despite claims to have ended such links two years ago,” the Daily Mail report insists. This has been confirmed “by former prisoners and families receiving the cash, and in official statements by the PA.” Chairman Mahmoud Abbas used part of the UK gifts — £8 million ($11.31 million) — to build a palace in Ramallah.
The Sunday report presents an interview with Ahmad Musa, a convicted double murderer sentenced to life in prison, who was released from Israeli prison after five years, as part of Israel’s gestures to move along the “peace process.” He gets £605 ($855) every month. Others like him get much more, and after they die, the cash goes to their families. The money for these payments comes from British and European taxpayers. Amjad Awad, who murdered Ehud and Ruth Fogel and their three children in 2011, has received an estimated £16,000 ($22,600) from the fund so far.
Amr Nasser, adviser to the PA minister of social affairs, told the Mail: “It is not a crime to be fighting occupation. These people are heroes. We could be giving them much more money and it would not be enough.” Nasser added that, when Palestine wins its independence, its government would seek reparations from Britain for its historic role in encouraging Zionism. “You should pay us more money,” he stated.
The first time I was invited to Belfast I have to admit I was terrified. After a lull with relatively few bombings in the 80’s the 90’s there was a resurgence of bombing campaigns. I was travelling in the wake of a double bombing in London in several other places on mainland Britain. At the time the Irish population in England was forced to live in the shadows. The Irish communities came under enormous amounts of surveillance and Irish residents were viewed with the same suspicion.
The United Kingdom was not bound by the constraints of political correctness and threats from the Irish community. The government was concerned with the safety and security of its citizens. That’s not to say Britain did not make mistakes. Many were made but Britain recognized the problems and dealt with them.
So what changed?
On July 7, 2005 a series of deadly bombings hit London. ‘Traditional terrorism’ died and radical Islam took up the terror reigns.
(This video looks at that fateful day🙂 (The video refuses to embed. You will have to click on it to see it. — DM)
There are many differences between the terrorism of the IRA and today’s radical Islamists. Let’s not fool ourselves, both are cruel and heartless with no respect for human life. But the Irish conflict itself was stalled by a peace initiative. The IRA stopped the bombing, even the splinter groups have been relatively quiet for 15 years.
Let’s put one myth to bed. Islamist extremism has no political or religious agenda. It is about world domination under a man-made system of laws perverting the religion of Islam to suit their own means.
They kill without prejudice. Men, women, children of all nationalities and all religions, even Islam, are targeted. They do not bomb to force a political process they bomb to dominate.
It is not just the terror that is forcing Britain to its knees but the hyper-successful way Islamists have penetrated the government, intelligentsia and liberal elite controlling political correctness to breed a generation of apologists. Schools, municipalities, government officials and influencers all willingly feed on their Islamist agenda.
In the wake of the attacks by ISIS in France and Belgium, Britain needs to wake up. David Cameron, the UK’s prime minister, is among the few with the guts to speak out. Britain needs to decide what is more important, protecting the people, cultural identity and the rule of law or appeasing radical Islam and just giving up.
Make no mistake, Islamist extremism is also alive and well across the Atlantic. In fact it’s a global problem.
It’s time the U.S. admitted there is a problem, joined the dots and make sure it doesn’t repeat the same mistakes as the United Kingdom.
At least 28 are dead in Tuesday morning’s jihad attacks in Brussels. Enough.
It’s time for votes of no-confidence. Parliamentary systems generally allow for votes of no-confidence that trigger new elections. It’s time for the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and more to fall. I’m not talking about violent revolution. There are mechanisms for the peaceful replacement of governments in most European nations at times when the existing government is seen widely to be inadequate for the task at hand. It is time to put those mechanisms to use. The existing governments are responsible for policies that have turned Europe into a war zone, and that war is just beginning. The political and media elites have failed Europe and the free world, and put Europe on a course toward civil war and bloodshed unseen on the continent since the days of Hitler.
A new Hitler is in Europe. It is not Donald Trump. It is not the “right-wing.” The new Hitler is very much like the old Hitler: he hates Jews. He has contempt for the historical patrimony of Western civilization. He means to rule by an iron fist and subordinate every other power to his will. He respects only strength, and despises weakness. The new Hitler is not just one man, but millions — millions who believe in an ideology that teaches warfare against and subjugation of free people under its heel.
Historically, Europe saw the threat that the men who held to this ideology posed, and shed blood to resist their advance. Now, the sons and heirs of those who gave their lives to make sure their children and their children’s children would live free have flung open the gates and invited in those who would enslave them. They have invited them into their countries in massive numbers, and vilified and ostracized anyone who dared note the lessons of history and the content of the invaders’ ideology.
This morning, as a result of these policies, Brussels is engulfed in chaos and the grief of blood shed in war. There will be much, much more to come of this.
It is time to sweep them out. All of them: the multiculturalists, the cultural relativists, the internationalists, the levellers, the elites who have brought this death and destruction upon Brussels today, and Paris yesterday, and the rest of Europe tomorrow. Europe, if it is to survive as a home of free people, must turn out its entire political and media establishment. This can still be done peacefully, and must be done quickly. If Europe is to survive as a home of free people, it needs governments who recognize that the “refugees” storming into their countries now include an untold number of jihad murderers who mean to kill their people and destroy their societies, and who have the courage to stand up and stop that refugee flow, and turn it back. Saudi Arabia has tens of thousands of air-conditioned tents for hajj pilgrims, and not one refugee. Why? Because they have noted, correctly, that there are jihad terrorists among the refugees.
Can Saudi Arabia protect itself and Europe cannot?
This is a war. It is a war for survival. It is a war that will determine whether Europe (and North America is not far behind) will live in freedom or slavery. The present European political and media elites are inviting the slavery of their people. They must be soundly repudiated. Too much is at stake to continue to countenance their self-delusion and fantasy. Those who are struggling to survive cannot afford to be unrealistic about what they’re facing. In the United States also, we need leaders who will speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the war we’re in. Surely there are some people in Europe who are both able to lead and willing to tell the truth. It is time for them to be peacefully installed in power — before it’s too late, as it very soon will be.
♦ As with the Labour party students at Oxford, it is hard to argue that party members should have zero-tolerance towards anti-Semites when the party’s current leader has spent his whole career happily tolerating them.
♦ As many on the so-called left have earlier shown, their sinister idea of “re-education” for their opponents supposes that their own ideas on “education” are correct.
♦ “Anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article — if they are honest with themselves — will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret.” — Mehdi Hassan, The New Statesman.
♦ Is it not possible that anti-Muslim feeling, if it exists, might be in part propelled by the discovery that anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice (against women and gay people to name just two other “minorities”) are also “routine and commonplace” among British Muslims?
Not a month goes by in Britain without some left-wing proponent of anti-Jewish racism exposing themselves. Last month it was the Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) that was found to be harbouring anti-Semites among its members. In recent weeks there have been a number of adult members of the Labour party who have been readmitted to the party or promoted within it while holding extreme anti-Jewish views.
The most recent case revolves around one Vicki Kirby, a Labour parliamentary candidate before the last general election, when she was suspended from the party for tweeting about Jews having “big noses,” Adolf Hitler being the “Zionist god” and other ramblings. Naturally, Ms. Kirby’s suspension has since been lifted. As with the Labour party students at Oxford, it is very hard to argue that party members should have zero-tolerance towards anti-Semites when the party’s current leader has spent his whole career happily tolerating them. Last week it came to public attention that Ms. Kirby had now become the vice-chair of her local party chapter.
The story was broken on right-of-centre websites, which ordinarily means that left-of-centre activists dismiss them as “smears.” But these stories are now coming in so thick and fast that an increasing number of people on the left are starting to admit they might have a problem. At least they are choosing to throw the more minor anti-Semites under the bus while preserving those at the top of their ranks. Had the charges aimed at Ms. Kirby been aimed at Mr Corbyn, we would still be being told that these were “rumours,” “innuendo” and the like.
Nevertheless, some Corbyn loyalists have decided that Ms. Kirby may indeed be a bit much, and realized that it is probably time to address the problem. Unfortunately, having failed to recognize the virus earlier, the remedies these people are now suggesting for cure are predictably wrong-headed.
Take for example the Guardian-published Corbyn activist, Owen Jones. Last week, ignoring his own history of stirring up lies against the Jewish state, he responded to his party’s latest embarrassment by arguing that Labour’s rules should be changed so that “anyone found guilty of anti-Semitism — or any other form of racism — is expelled from the party.” He went on to say that, “Their readmission should only happen when they have demonstrably been shown to have been re-educated.” There is the start of the problem. As so often with those on the Corbyn-ite wing of politics, the answer to problems of the heart or mind is “re-education.” The only problem — as the left many have earlier shown in a range of twentieth-century initiatives ranging from Stalin to Mao — is that their sinister idea of “re-education” for their opponents supposes that their own ideas on “education” are correct. As Jones goes on to show, this is rarely the case.
For his second prevarication for dealing with Labour’s anti-Semitism problem, Jones wrote that the party should:
“… set up two commissions: one on antisemitism, the other on anti-Muslim prejudice, respectively headed by a leading Jewish and a Muslim figure. Both forms of bigotry are on the rise in Britain, and both exist within progressive circles and the Labour party. The commissions could issue a series of recommendations, both for dealing with it when it arises within Labour, and also in wider society.”
As everyone involved in politics knows, there are two ways truly to ignore a problem: the first is just to ignore it; the second is to “set up a commission.”
But there are several perhaps unwittingly interesting things about this flaccid suggestion. The first is the reflexive and unthinking demonstration among many these days that they cannot possibly deal with anti-Semitism unless they also throw Muslims into the mix. To deal with anti-Semitism on its own might throw up too many problems and raise too many communal problems.
But let us say that two such commissions were set up. And let us pretend for a moment that they were indeed headed by people who were not merely “leading” but also honest figures.
The head of the commission to look into anti-Semitic prejudice, might find a number of startling things. He or she might find, for instance, that the dominant strand of anti-Semitism in British life in 2016 comes not from Ms. Kirby’s ilk, but from the British Muslim community. The commission head would not have to go far to learn this. One only has to pick up a copy of the British left’s in-house magazine, The New Statesman, and read an article from just three years ago by the British-born Al-Jazeera broadcaster, Mehdi Hassan. In an unusually honest piece entitled, “The sorry truth is that the virus of anti-Semitism has infected the British Muslim community,” the author explains that:
“Anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article — if they are honest with themselves — will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret.”
So as Hassan has reminded us, the sorry truth is that if a commission into anti-Semitism were set up, it would have to finger the majority of British Muslims as at least a very large part of the problem.
Meanwhile, let us say that the second commission were set up — the one that gives cover to the anti-Semitism commission which is looking at “anti-Muslim” feeling. This commission might come to an equally problematic conclusion. This commission might conclude, for instance, that to the extent that any “anti-Muslim” feeling might be said to exist in the UK, it comes from a number of factors quite separate from innate and unalterable prejudice in the hearts of the British people. It might come, for instance, from a dislike of suicide-bombings, assassinations, beheadings and other varieties of terrorism carried out while discussing the greatness of Allah. Although most British people will remain perfectly capable of understanding the difference between the actions of the extremists and the behaviour of the vast majority of British Muslims, they may be concerned about the amount of deflection and denial that they see even from leaders of very mainstream Muslim organizations. Indeed, is it not possible that anti-Muslim feeling, if it exists, might not also be in part propelled by the discovery that anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice (against women and gay people to name just two “minorities”) are also “routine and commonplace” among British Muslims?
Perhaps after all it would be best if the Corbyn-ite element of the Labour party does not attempt this process of “re-education”? The path to wisdom must include some self-understanding. Yet the Labour party’s anti-Semitism problem comes from people who propel the very hatred they profess to despise. As such, they remain in no position to “re-educate” anyone, as they so stubbornly refuse to educate themselves.
After getting stuck in London traffic, Rashal Miah got out of his Mercedes and started shouting that he would “kill all the Jews” at an Orthodox Jewish school-bus driver in front of a bus full of young children.
During Miah’s sentencing, Judge Murray Shanks in the UK called the driver’s behavior “horrible.”
“I accept this was mainly driven by you being wrongly angry and suffering from road rage, as well as being arrogant about what you were entitled to do on the road,” Shanks told Miah. “I hope it doesn’t indicate some underlying prejudice.”
Surely shouting “Kill all the Jews” because you’re angry at a Jewish bus driver in no way indicates some underlying prejudice.
“If this was the other way around and Muslims were being insulted, I have a good feeling you would feel strongly. You need to understand that before you open your mouth,” the judge said.
Well of course he would feel strongly. But that’s different. Because Muslims are the Master Race.
These condescending liberal lectures are great, but Muslims don’t see themselves as a minority. Our friend Rashal has been informed by the Koran that Jews are accursed by Allah. He recites this every day in his prayers. His preachers tell him the Hadiths that the apocalypse won’t come until Muslims kill all the Jews.
So the “How would you feel” lecture doesn’t work at all because Rashal doesn’t share the universalist premises of Western multiculturalism that other people are basically like him. His religion tells him otherwise. And who is a British judge to argue with Islam?
Miah also reportedly called the bus driver “Yehudi,” the word for “Jew” in Hebrew and similarly in Arabic.
Yahoodi is basically a slur among Muslims. It is used to insult other Muslims and non-Muslims the way they might call a man a dog. But no underlying prejudice. Genocide without prejudice is the Muslim way since we know that Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance that kills people without any hatred.
Certain Muslim communities in the UK have been marrying girls as young as 11 to older foreign men in countries such as Pakistan in remote ceremonies via Skype, according to the anti-forced marriage charity Freedom.
The girls are later “put on a plane and consummating the marriage at the earliest opportunity,” according to Freedom.
“The reason is to curb the behaviour of their children when they become ‘too western’,” the founder of Freedom Aneeta Prem told The Sunday Times.
“Once married, there is enormous pressure to get a spouse visa. The hope is the girl will visit (country of husband’s origin) and fall pregnant to make the union seem more legitimate before bringing the partner back,” she said.
It is unclear how the UK could grant a spousal visa to the husband of a child. Forced marriage is illegal in the UK.
Issues have previously been raised over sharia marriages in the UK. There is currently a movement called One Law for All which campaigns against religious arbitration courts.
Sharia marriages are also the topic of a new book by esteemed academic and women’s rights activist Dr. Elham Manea, entitled Women and Sharia Law: The Impact of Legal Pluralism in the UK. The book goes into detail about issues surrounding sharia marriages in Britain and quotes one Imam as saying girls of 12 or 13 are “more or less fully-fledged women.”
“The fatwas and opinions of these men have grave consequences. A child will be raped in the name of religion. A woman will be beaten in the name of religion” Dr. Manea said in the book, according to The Daily Mail.
The Times of London reports on new evidence of police complicity in a child rape ring being run by Pakistani Muslims in Rotherham, England. The ring groomed and then raped children for a decade and a half before it was broken up. The authorities were repeatedly informed, as early as 2002, but agents did not want to risk their careers in an environment of intense pressure not to seem racist or critical of Islam. There was a Home Office investigation into charges that Tony Blair’s government had known of the ring as early as 2001, but did nothing because it conflicted with “his government’s efforts to pacify Muslim communities.” Some 1,400 children were raped over the ensuing 16 years.
Now the Times tells us that the police hadn’t just been warned, they knew and were sometimes complicit.
“Corrupt police and an influential politician fuelled a culture of impunity that allowed three brothers to ‘own’ the town of Rotherham and abuse children until their crimes were exposed by The Times. One officer had sex with under-age girls, passed drugs to the sex-grooming gang and tipped them off when colleagues were searching for missing children, a court was told. Another helped to broker a deal in which one brother returned an abused girl to police after receiving an assurance that he ‘wouldn’t get done’. The jury was told that Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of Rotherham council, also took part in the handover at a petrol station. Mr Akhtar, the former deputy chairman of South Yorkshire police and crime panel, was a relative of Arshid, Basharat and Bannaras Hussain, who behaved for years ‘like a pack of animals’ to pursue dozens of young girls before demanding sex, often with threats of violence.”
This sounds like a story of intense local corruption, and it is. It sounds like a story of the failure of the police to uphold their most basic oath, and it is that too. But it is also a story of the ways in which these criminals could rely upon protection from the highest levels of the British government.
The former Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, is being investigated for having known about the ring as early as 2001. Blair’s administration suppressed investigations into the ring because it would conflict with his Muslim outreach efforts — outreach efforts being advised by Muslim Brotherhood affiliate groups. Even today, Tony Blair’s religious charity is accused of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The culture of not questioning Islam or Muslims from on high made possible these corrupt police, who in turn made possible a child rape ring in the heart of England.
Follow the links. They are links to the most famous newspapers in Britain: the Times, the Guardian, theIndependent, the Daily Mail. Believe your eyes.
They’re not actually carrying out the rapes. They’re just protesting in support of the rapists. That’s the standard we use to distinguish “extremists” from “moderates”. Isn’t it?
But this is a story of an Eid celebration that ended in the traditional fashion with a brutal assault on non-Muslims by the migrants who came over to enrich Europe’s diversity with muggings and rapes.
Three Somali men who gang-raped a white 16-year-old girl in the bathroom of a hotel where they went to celebrate Eid have been jailed for 30 years.
The Somali Muslim migrant community in the UK of course condemned this disgusting crime. And by “disgusting crime”, I mean sending Muslims to jail for raping a woman. And a non-Muslim woman at that. Without the word of four Muslim witnesses.
In dramatic scenes outside the courtroom around 60 members of Manchester’s Somalian community protested against the verdicts suggesting the three men were being ‘victimised’ because of their race, while the victim was a white Brit.
They managed to pile into the public gallery and gasped as the sentences were handed down – while Yussuf flicked a middle finger at the mother of their victim, who was present.
Lovely people. We should bring more of them in. Millions of them preferably.
Ahmed, who was convicted of oral rape, was locked up for nine years whilst Osman got 12 years after being convicted of an unrelated robbery in which he mugged an innocent man on the street for his rings and mobile phone was also taken into account.
The three Muslim Somali rapists have tried to blame the victim. But was the man Osman mugged also leading him on? This is part and parcel of the Islamic attitude to women and non-Muslims.
Judge David Hernandez criticised the group’s attitudes to women and lack of remorse for their innocent victim.
I wonder which prophet, who liked to rape women, they could have gotten it from?
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Obama keeps telling us what America isnot. What does He think she is? Does He think that Obama’s America is America, or that His supporters are what America is? Does He think they make America great? Will America become acceptable to Obama, and hence “who we are,” only after He or His successor finishes her fundamental transformation?
By virtue of the now-implemented Iran nuke “deal,” Iran’s possession of an atomic and/or hydrogen bomb will be delayed for a few years unless she cheats (as in the past), reneges on the “deal” or out-sources nuke development to her long term partner, North Korea.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is now reaping the benefits of more than $100 billion in immediate sanctions relief plus a settlement of Iranian claims amounting to $1.7 billion.
Secretary of State John Kerry said today that the settlement is $400 million debt and $1.3 billion in interest dating back to the Islamic revolution. That’s separate from the sanctions windfall Iran will receive.
Iran will also benefit on a long-term basis from trade with countries formerly prohibited by sanctions.
Back in June 2015, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei had outlined the general policies of the country’s 6th quinquennial development plan.
On defense and security, the proclamation necessitated an increase in Iran’s defense capabilities at the level of a regional power in order to fulfill the national interests by allocating at least 5 percent of the national budget to boosting the defense power. [Emphasis added.]
With increased funding, Iran will be able to increase its already substantial support for Shiite terrorism throughout the Middle East; it will likely do so.
Iranians continue to experience Islamic human rights. Here’s a link to an article titled The Real War on Women in a Nightmarish Islamic Stateby Dr. Majid Rafizadeh. An Iranian-American political scientist and scholar, he is the president of the International American Council and serves on the board of the Harvard International Review at Harvard University.
When it comes to executions, girls are systematically more vulnerable due to the Islamist penal code of Sharia law.
Let’s take a look at the Islamist state of Iran, which creates its laws from the legal codes of Sharia and Quran. The first type of discrimination is related to age: girls are held criminally accountable at the maturity age of 9 Lunar years. (This will automatically put girls at a higher risk of execution by the court.)
Iranian ruling politicians hold the highest record when it comes to the most executions per capita in the world. Intriguingly, in the last two years that the so-called moderate, Hassan Rouhani, has been in office, there have been more than 2000 executions conducted in Iran. That is nearly 3-4 executions a day.
More importantly, Iranian leaders are also the largest executioner of women and female juveniles. Some of these executions were carried out on the mullahs’ charge of ‘Moharebeh’ (enmity with Allah), or waging war against Allah, ifsad-i Fil Arz (Sowing Corruption on Earth), or Sab-i Nabi (Insulting the Prophet). [Emphasis added.]
There are three methods of execution for women and female juveniles: 1. Stoning 2. Public hanging 3. Shooting. Some women are also beaten so severely in the prison that they die before reaching the execution. Shooting, which is the fastest method of the three for execution, has not been used since 2008. Instead, the most common method to execute women is public hanging or stoning. Some of these women are flogged right before they are hanged. Public hanging not only imposes fears in the society but also aims at dehumanizing and controlling women as second-class citizens. According to the Islamist penal code of Iran, women offenses are classified as: Hadd, Diyyih, Ta`zir, and Qisas. [Emphasis added.]
Please read the entire article. Isn’t it heartwarming that “we” are giving even more than a mere $100 billion to Iran? Perhaps some of the new money can be used to buy sharper stones and new devices for hangings. How about some new torture devices?
Islam, The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates
The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) claims to represent Muslims in America. They do represent those who favor terrorism and despise human rights (in the name of which they ironically claim to act).
[T]he Council on American-Islamic Relations, is a prominent Islamic group, but which has a long history of involvement with extremist and terrorist causes. In 2009, during the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis concluded that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas.” [Emphasis added.]
During the trial, CAIR was designated an “unindicted co-conspirator.” As a result of CAIR’s apparent links to a terrorist movement, the Justice Department in 2009 announced a ban on working with CAIR. The FBI also severed relations.
[F]or the past seven years, the Obama White House has opened its doors to the entire spectrum of radical Islamist groups, just like CAIR. These groups have rationalized the actions of Islamic terrorist groups that have killed Americans, warned American Muslims against cooperating with law enforcement, smeared genuine Muslim moderates like Zuhdi Jasser and Asra Nomani as traitors and accused anyone who dared to utter the term “radical Islam” as “Islamophobic.” These are the groups that the White House should have marginalized. The fact that Obama legitimized radical Islamist groups will be his real legacy. [Emphasis added.]
Very few American Muslims, however, seem to feel that CAIR is a legitimate ambassador for American Islam. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, about 88% of American Muslims said that CAIR does not represent them. Muslims all over the world, in fact, apparently do not think CAIR is a moderate or legitimate Muslim group: in 2014, the United Arab Emirates, a pious Muslim state, designated CAIR a terrorist organization, along with dozens of other Muslim Brotherhood organizations.
In reality, American Muslims are extremely diverse, and no single group can claim to speak on their collective behalf. American Islam comprises dozens of different religious sects and political movements, many of which advocate distinctly different ideas. But for Islamist bodies such as CAIR, it suits their agenda if American Muslims are portrayed as a monolithic community. If American Muslims can be seen as homogenous, then a group such as CAIR has a better claim to represent their interests.
Even CAIR’s own research, however, undermines their claim to speak on behalf of American Muslims. A 2011 report reveals that a majority of American mosques are not affiliated with any American Islamic body.
Addressing a conference in 2000, Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, a Muslim cleric and secretary general of the Italian Muslim Assembly, explained that, “[CAIR] is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda. CAIR opposes diversity in Islam.”
In truth, CAIR only speaks on behalf of a small extremist ideology that, as discovered by federal prosecutors, emerged across the United States during the 1990s out of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Although CAIR does not represent American Muslims, it managed, before the Holy Land Foundation terror trial in 2008, to persuade a great many people that it did. Enough time has passed that CAIR seems to believe it can try this move once again.
state that Congress believes the Muslim Brotherhood fits the State Department’s criteria of a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The Secretary of State would be required to designate the Brotherhood within 60 days or to provide a detailed report explaining why it does not. Three U.S.-based Brotherhood entities named in the bill are CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). [Emphasis added.]
The House version of the bill (HR3892) was introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) with Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Randy K. Weber (R-TX), Diane Black (R-TN) and Mike Pompeo (R-KS) as original cosponsors. They are now joined by Reps. Steve King (R-IA); Steven Palazzo (R-MS); Kay Granger (R-TX); Jim Jordan (R-OH); Steve Stivers (R-OH); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL); Charles W. Dent (R-PA); Bill Johnson (R-OH) and David A. Trott (R-MI).
HR3892 was referred to the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on December 4, 2015. Two cosponsors, Rep. Gohmert and Rep. Trott, sit on that subcommittee.
The Senate version of the bill (S2230) was introduced by presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and later cosponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). It was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on November 3. Two of Senator Cruz’s presidential rivals, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) sit on that committee and have not taken a position on the bill.
Although the bill has yet to earn bi-partisan support at this early stage, it is supported by members of Congress from different spectrums of the Republican Party. It includes endorsers of the presidential campaigns of Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich and not only supporters of Ted Cruz.
If enacted by the Congress, Obama will almost certainly veto it. If He signs it, He will ignore or bypass it as He often does.
Britain recently declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Here are thirteen quotes from the British Government’s review and Prime Minister Cameron’s official statement:
1. “The Muslim Brotherhood’s foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterizes Western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project.”
2. “Aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”
3. “From its foundation the Muslim Brotherhood organized itself into a secretive ‘cell’ structure, with an elaborate induction and education program for new members…This clandestine, centralized and hierarchical structure persists to this day.”
4. “The Hamas founding charter claims that they are the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood treat them as such. In the past ten years support for Hamas (including in particular funding) has been an important priority for the MB in Egypt and the MB international network.”
5. “From at least the 1950s the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood also developed an international network, within and beyond the Islamic world. Europe became an important base for the growing Muslim Brotherhood global network.”
6. “The wider international network of the Muslim Brotherhood now performs a range of functions. It promotes Muslim Brotherhood ideology (including through communications platforms), raises and invests funds, and provides a haven for members of the Brotherhood who have left their country of origin to continue promoting Brotherhood activity.”
7. “[F]or the most part, the Muslim Brotherhood have preferred non violent incremental change on the grounds of expediency, often on the basis that political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamization is complete. But they are prepared to countenance violence—including, from time to time, terrorism—where gradualism is ineffective.”
8. “Muslim Brotherhood organizations and associated in the UK have neither openly nor consistently refuted the literature of Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb which is known to have inspired people (including in this country) to engage in terrorism.”
9. “[The review] concluded that it was not possible to reconcile these [MB] views with the claim made by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in their evidence to the review that ‘the Muslim Brotherhood has consistently adhered to peaceful means of opposition, renouncing all forms of violence throughout its existence.’”
10. “In the 1990s the Muslim Brotherhood and their associates established public facing and apparently national organizations in the UK to promote their views. None were openly identified with the Muslim Brotherhood and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood remained (and still remains) a secret.”
11. “[MB fronts] became politically active, notably in connection with Palestine and Iraq, and promoted candidates in national and local elections…sought and obtained a dialogue with Government….were active members in a security dialogue with the police.”
12. “The Muslim Brotherhood have been publicly committed to political engagement in this country. Engagement with Government has at times been facilitated by what appeared to be a common agenda against al Qaida and (at least in the UK) militant Salafism. But this engagement did not take into account of Muslim Brotherhood support for a proscribed terrorist group and its views about terrorism which, in reality, are quite different from our own.”
13. “Senior Muslim Brotherhood figures and associated have justified attacks against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
The linked article goes on to note that
The U.S. government, without even conducting any kind of review of its own, issued a statement to the Investigative Project on Terrorism rejecting any ban or even any “de-legitimizing” of the Brotherhood at all. [Emphasis added.]
Do the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates represent Obama? Are they or Obama “what we are?” I don’t think so and hope not.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and reformation of Islam
In Heretic (which I reviewed here), Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote,
For years, we have spent trillions on waging wars against “terror” and “extremism” that would have been much better spent protecting Muslim dissidents and giving them the necessary platforms and resources to counter that vast network of Islamic centers, madrassas, and mosques which has been largely responsible for spreading the most noxious forms of Islamic fundamentalism. For years, we have treated the people financing that vast network — the Saudis, the Qataris, and the now repentant Emiratis — as our allies. In the midst of all our efforts at policing, surveillance, and even military action, we in the West have not bothered to develop an effective counternarrative because from the outset we have denied that Islamic extremism is in any way related to Islam. We persist in focusing on the violence and not on the ideas that give rise to it. [Emphasis added.]
Here is a video of which Hirsi Ali was the executive producer. It features Muslim and former-Muslim women discussing Islam and the Islam-mandated male domination of women.
Here’s Part II of Honor Diaries:
Here’s a video characterizing Hirsi Ali as an “Islamophobe.”
Along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Azeezah Kanji — the featured speaker in the above video — has been very active in disparaging Hirsi Ali and Honor Diaries. Like CAIR, she has ties to the Obama White House and was named a “Champion of Change” by the White House in 2011. What changes in Islam does Ms. Kanji champion? None, apparently, of those intrinsic to it.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the CAIR, condemned Hirsi Ali as “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide.”
On becoming a U.S. Citizen
Who better represents American values? Hirsi Ali, once a refugee from Somalia and a proud citizen of the United States since April 25, 2013, or President Obama? In the immediately linked Wall Street Journal article, she offers suggestions on American immigration with which I plan to deal in a subsequent post. In the meantime, here is her 2014 address at the William F. Buckley Program at Yale University on the clash of civilizations. If you have not yet watched it, please do so. If you have watched it, please do so again. I just did. Every time I watch it, there is something I had not previously considered.
Conclusions
To Obama and His acolytes, Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance; the Islamic State, its equally non-peaceful and intolerant franchisees and other comparable terrorist organizations are “not Islamic.” If “not Islamic,” what are they?
Despite Obama’s many statements and gestures, He has yet to convince any Islamic terrorist group that it is not Islamic. He has convinced them only that He is ignorant of Islam, a liar or both. Perhaps He needs a better joke writer.
was very striking for the one-sidedness and disproportion of the president’s concern for religious suffering.
President Obama worried that “politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or fellow citizens.”
But he couldn’t bring himself to worry aloud about the Christians being driven from Middle Eastern countries, the churches being burned from Nigeria to Malaysia, or the 22 Coptic Christians who were beheaded on video on a beach in Libya by Islamic supremacists.
Will our next president at least make a concerted effort to un-transform Obama’s America? Will he name and fight our enemies, foreign and domestic? Or will he simply “go with the flow” and do none of the above. Much depends on who it is and on the composition of the Congress.
During the Democrat Party debate on January 17th, Hillary Clinton “linked herself to the president again and again. And again.” An Obama clone to continue Obama’s fundamental transformation of America is the opposite of what we need. Nor will merely “fixing” broken parts of the governmental apparatus with duct tape and bailing wire be satisfactory. As I wrote last September, To bring America back we need to break some stuff.
In later posts in this series, I hope to deal with immigration, race relations, the ways in which Obama is distorting the Constitution, the decline of education and Obama’s very foreign foreign policy.
Crown court judge Shamim Qureshi, pictured, is also sitting in the Sharia Muslim Appeals Tribunal
A Muslim Crown Court judge has been granted permission to sit on a ‘Sharia court’ to rule on disputes such as marriage breakdowns in accordance with Islamic principals.
Judge Shamim Qureshi, who ordinarily sits at Bristol Crown Court has been granted permission by judicial authorities to act as the ‘presiding judge’ at the controversial Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT).
The ‘court’ was established in 2007 by hardline cleric Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, who was a leading figure in protests against Charlie Hebdo magazine after 11 of their journalists were massacred by Muslim extremists.
According to the Telegraph, Home Secretary Theresa May is set to launch an independent review into the MAT following allegations that the Muslim court undermined the rights of women.
Campaigners have claimed the tribunal, which is based in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, is discriminatory towards women and often rules unfairly in favour of men.
According to the tribunal’s website, it specialises in Islamic divorce, inheritance law and Islamic wills, family meditation and mosque dispute resolution.
It was established under the 1996 Arbitration Act on a statutory basis and as a result its decisions can be upheld by English courts.
In 2008, in its first ruling, MAT decided an inheritance case involving three sisters and two brothers. in accordance with standard Sharia principles, the male heirs should be given twice as much money as the women.
According to the Telegraph there is no suggestion that Judge Qureshi has been involved in any controversial decisions with the Tribunal.
However, in March 2015 he ordered hardline Christian preacher Mike Overd to pay a £200 fine and pay £250 compensation after the former paratrooper quoted offensive passages from the Bible concerning homosexuality in public.
Cross bench peer Baroness Cox, pictured, has introduced private member’s bill to restrict the powers of Sharia courts
Baroness Cox told the House of Lords: ‘The Bill will strengthen the position of vulnerable women who need protection from exploitation. It will ensure that all such women, whatever sect or creed, get the help they need to enjoy full lives.
‘There can be no exceptions to the laws of our land which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights.’
Baroness Cox said her bill will address a number of major problems in the country including: ‘The suffering of women oppressed by religiously sanctioned gender discrimination in this country; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all—a matter of especial significance as we mark the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta.
‘The Bill is also strongly supported by many organisations concerned with the suffering of vulnerable women, including the Muslim Women’s Advisory Council, Karma Nirvana, Passion for Freedom as well as by the National Secular Society: I am grateful to them all.’
Baroness Cox used an example of a man who wanted a doctor to perform an illegal operation on his wife so he could sell her to a Pakistani man who would marry her and receive a British passport.
She said there are approximately 100,000 Islamic marriages in the UK which are not registered with the civil authorities.
She revealed: ‘A consultant gynaecologist described to me a request from a 63 year- old man for a repair of the hymen of his 23 year-old wife.
‘The gynaecologist refused as this is an illegal operation, whereupon the man became intensely angry, claiming that doctors in his town, not far from London, frequently undertake this operation under another name.
‘He wanted this surgical procedure for his wife in order to take her back to their country of origin to marry another man. Her next husband could then obtain a visa to enter the UK. He would probably abuse and then divorce his wife and marry another or more wives here.
‘The man who asked for this operation said that he earned about £10,000 for effecting this arrangement, which was very helpful as he was unemployed. Such shocking cases surely cannot be allowed to continue.
‘The rights of Muslim women and the rule of the law of our land must be upheld.’
The PA presidential palace / Photo credit: Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR)
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments