Gina Khan on Sharia Courts

Long-time followers of my blog will recall that I have occasionally written about Gina Khan in my posts, going so far as to incorporate an extensive interview she had done in the media into a series that I did.

Well, I have also been in touch with this remarkable lady via e-mail. It is my impression that many people have sent her e-mails, and that the bulk of them have been very supportive. To be sure, I understand that, for taking a stand against militancy and extremism in the Islamic world, Gina, a Muslim, has also received her share of death threats from extremists.

Last year, I had hoped Gina would do an interview for me to post on this blog. If I am not mistaken, she was receiving so many e-mails with similar requests that she was unable to grant all the requests -- though, being a real lady, she made an effort to at least answer the e-mails she received.

During the course of this year, however, I have continued to occasionally pester Gina with questions. She has been giving my questions some thought, and has been doing some research, but does not yet have definitive answers for me. She did send me answers she had to questions she had been asked elsewhere regarding the implementation of sharia law in the West, commenting:

"One thing is for sure, I deplore the idea of sharia law being implemented in the West... so take the opportunity to put it up on your web.

Take care
Gina"

Though I only know Gina through the exchange of a few e-mails, my distinct impression is that she is honest and intelligent, and that she has a great deal of common sense and integrity -- no wonder the Islamists hate her!

I am pleased and honored now to present the thoughts Gina has asked me to share with my readers regarding sharia courts:

What is the drive behind these courts?

This is the culmination of decades of activism and ideological conditioning by Islamic institutions to incorporate the principles of separate laws for Muslims in the context of British society. More generally, it is a male-led movement, disguising itself under the rhetoric of equal rights and superficial notions of 'multiculturalism', to embed reactionary religious laws in our society, and beyond that, to increase the influence and power of Islamic values interpreted by male clerics over the lives of Muslims in Britain. Even the acceptance of the most innocuous forms of arbitration is a big stick in their hands, as they can then act out control and judgment with the sanction of the state, and can use that to intimidate or bully opponents of sharia in the Muslim community into silence, as well as Muslim women or men who do not want to be governed by this system of religious law, but are unable to deny its influence over them when it is used as a tool of arbitration with the tacit acceptance of the supposedly secular state. It is also a starting point to the long term attempts to increase the range and influence of sharia in Britain even further.

How are the courts viewed by the Muslim community? How are they viewed by women?

Most Muslims go about their daily lives without thinking about such things, because their most pressing concerns are to feed their families. Amongst conservatives there is support for the idea of basic sharia arbitration, especially when the denial of them as painted by activists like Bunglawala is erroneously generalized as discrimination against Muslims. On the other hand, all sentient non-Islamist Muslim women are horrified by the long term consequences of ceding power to sharia-ist men. We need to acknowledge that most Islamists are attempting to Islamize Britain and we need to acknowledge that sharia law is being used to discredit democracy. It is apparent that sharia law is different in may Muslim countries and very complex. The question we must ask is how will sharia judges be operating? There are serious ideological issues to consider, as well as legal, as a friend pointed out to me. Remember Anjem Chowdery (of al-Mujhajiroun) and Omar Bakri, who claimed to be judges of Uk sharia law. This is the impact of Islamist propaganda. Right now it's not the BNP I fear or militant jihadists as much as I fear the 'soft' jihadism creeping into almost every area of our lives at the grassroots level. Mr Bunglawala from the MCB seems to have an issue with the Jewish arbitrations Beth Din operating but they do not impose or contravene with British laws and rights. Above all it's not Judaismm that is in crisis, in conflict with democracies or a threat to Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide. Islam has been brought to a crisis and the sharia legal system is a major issue that cannot be resolved. It's ongoing and problematic.

What do I think government policy should be?

A brilliant barrister who has written to Muslim newspapers about Muslim marriages, Neil Addison, has already shown how Muslim practice is out of step with every other religious community in Britain, including the other main minority religious communities, in refusing to submit marriage ceremonies to British law. This leaves Muslim women and men beleaguered when marriages go wrong and they do not have the same legal rights as all non-Muslims have in a similar situation, all because many parts of the Muslim establishment in Britain refuse to deny the privileging of secular British law over sharia. The British government must openly declare a long term aim of harmonizing the Muslim community with mainstream British society, and the first step to doing this is to will into action at every level of administration in our country the intent to empower Muslim individuals by denying any religiously-inspired legal sanction against them. For the long-term emancipation of British Muslims, and for the long-term harmony of British society, there must be no legal barriers to hinder national integration between groups in our society. Anything that increases the power of imams and mullahs over Muslim women and men, and embeds their judgment and power, must be denied. The government must also be wary of 'sharia creep', where sharia is accepted tacitly. An example of this is the decision to allow the wives of a polygamous Muslim man to receive welfare benefits as a spouse. In the long term, the government is going to have to tackle issues like polygamy in the Muslim community, which is perpetuated by the reluctance of the Islamic establishment in Britain to submit their marriage laws to secular British law. In fact they need to start listening to Britsh Muslim women like Shaista Gohar and Diane Nammi, and ex-Muslim women Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maryam Nawaazi, who all strongly oppose sharia law. Plus, how are these courts going to be monitered and how can measures be taken to stop discrimination against women in these kangaroo courts, when Islamists make no scope for any kind of progress to create change within their interpretations of sharia law, in regards to family law and the rights of Muslim women? To me sharia law is medieval.

Is a failure to recognise sharia courts de facto anti-Muslim?

No. To suggest that it is anti-Muslim is a cheap rhetorical trick employed by Islamists to mask their real agenda of special privileges and social control, and to paint Muslim opponents of sharia as being in some way traitorous or complicit in mainstream society's discrimination against Islam. The fact remains that many British Muslim women and Pakistani Muslim women oppose sharia law, as it discriminates against them as women -- wives, mothers and daughters -- particuarly in cases of domestic violence, divorce, inheritance and rape/sexual abuse.

I hope we can look forward to more posts incorporating material from Gina Khan.

Pride of Lions, Part 14

We continue from Part 13 reviewing The Gina Khan Interview - Part Four. I backtrack just a little to the last question Gina was asked:

Q: So British mainstream politicians are missing the point here?

They have missed the point for the last 40 years.

Mr Brown, Mr Cameron should pay close attention next time they want to visit a Muslim community like mine. They could start counting the mosques springing up like mushrooms and the lack of resources for the youth in the community, especially for Muslim girls. They should introduce a law prohibiting total square metres of one religion's buildings exceeding a certain amount in a given area per capita. Next time when they are up here they could visit bookshops and run-down Islamic schools. They have abandoned these communities.

Polygamy is more common than the British realize. Young teenage forced marriages and honour killings have escalated. So why was our plight ignored and why the Islamists appeased? I could take them to some really nice mainstream English, Irish, Indian, Jamaican, Sikh and 'Modern' Muslims who sense and fear this rise of Islamism but because Britain is a civilised, tolerant society they remain silent. Most fear being called Islamophobic or racist. The public needs educating. As one decent Indian family told me, Islamists were trying to buy a pub in Hodge Hill to turn into yet another Islamic centre.

There are not many Muslims in Hodge Hill but this is how the Islamists operate. People in Hodge Hill are going to either get angry and move out or worry about their young becoming converted.

Muslims and non Muslims at grassroots level know something isn't right. They should talk to people, not just representatives or leaders. I am not scaremongering.

If you integrate you get to hear all sides like I have. Anyway I was in the minority who was standing up to radicals 20 years ago, no-one would listen to me then either. I feel the tide is turning - the Islamists have gone too far too soon. Britain is waking up and will show the world how to deal with these people.

Britain's political leaders have ignored the plight of Muslim women, although every day now the media is reporting honour killings, forced marriages and even the BBC Asian network debated polygamy recently. The silent taboos are being broken.

The forced marriage unit run by the foreign office will tell you that (although our hero is a British Sikh woman Jaswinder Sanghera, who had raised the issues of honour killing and forced marriages) they established the crimes against Muslim women are amongst the highest in the Pakistani communities in Britain. Take a look at Britain's most wanted list and a shocking amount of those wanted are Muslims. Young British Asian girls are still taken out of school and taken back to South Asia, denied a British Education and freedom of choice.

My God, it was the British themselves who passed the Marriage Act setting the minimum age to 14 for girls and 18 for boys in 1872 during the British Raj. They were themselves shocked at the practice of child bride marriages then. Over a century and half later and regardless of the abolition of slavery we didn't get very far did we?

Thank God for Jaswinder Sanghera and other activists like Dr Shazia Sovaisi.

Q: And meanwhile unelected groups are setting the local agenda?

A union member, a British Muslim mother, emailed me the 'manifesto for schools' that the MCB printed. She, as well as her Muslim female students, were stunned and opposed the manifesto. Others echo the same concern. They should read the emails I get.

I went to school in Britain too, my parents were Muslims and desired no special treatment for me at school - thank God. My faith was my business, between me and God, that if I wanted to fast, I didn't expect every one else to put up with my whims, we never asked for special treatments above everyone else. But the Islamicization of this country is headed by men like the MCB and their focus is on women's status as they perceive it and British Muslim children's education as they want it.

They have been manipulating government bodies and want to influence foreign policies. Hello?? Are we all living in the same country or not? Gender apartheid printed on an MCB letterhead isn't going to stop the young from falling in love or marrying non Muslims. Human beings are human beings. Teenagers will be teenagers. I'm sick of these ringleaders of Islam forcing their backward anti-Jewish, anti- gay, anti- women, anti- ex Muslims ideologies down our throats. Who gave them- these unelected nobodies - the right?

They are not Gods ambassadors, God doesn't need any. They have no right whatsoever to tell Muslims how to live in Britain.

They have to stop forcing the hand of God on us all and reject the writings of Maududi and Syed Qutb. They need to stop inflicting one brand of Islam on us all. They politicized young Muslims the wrong way. The Middle East are not what every Muslim worries about. The situation in Britain has to be addressed.

They're not forcing the hand of God on anyone -- they are forcing their own domination, attempting to manipulate and enslave others in the name of Allah.

Q: You say the MCB and the other self-elected Islamist groupings are affecting your human rights?

The declaration of Human rights in 1948 is now being used by Jihadists. We never got a look in as abused Asian Muslim women. The defenders of freedom are letting the people of this country down. There are 52 Muslim countries around the world. If you don't like the West and their liberal way of life no one is stopping an Islamist from leaving the country on a one way ticket.

Leaving the infidel countries isn't what it is all about -- converting, subjugating and enslaving the infidel countries is what the game is about. They don't want to go back to the hellholes they are from; they want to make the UK a hellhole.

And this is the way it must be -- as long as there is freedom somewhere in the world, people will dream of escaping to that freedom. The only way this version of Islam can survive is by destroying the light of freedom anywhere it can be found, until there is nowhere to escape to -- then people will be more controllable in the hellholes.

The likes of Dr Bari - the MCB leader - should be more concerned about his own people and their tragedies in Bangladesh than whether the British should adapt to arranged marriages. He's really getting peoples backs up. He has no right to put down the western woman or compare her to the pious Muslim woman, there is no such thing as the perfect religion or perfect human being. And they have no right to dominate and stress our status in British Islam. Islam is not as rigid as they would want it to be because it is still down to Muslims making their own choices, we are free agents. There's real inadequacy shining through these men in their actions and their ideology.

Another big Islamist myth is that arranged marriages rarely end in divorce. Today every other British Muslim woman I have come across is divorced or a lone mother. The lone mother isn't in the Islamic conscience but she is in the conscience of this great country. Sharia law defines the family structure but is silent on the status of the lone mother. Islam nor can God protect women from the raw power of male hierarchy exercised in Muslim communities. Arranged marriages are the norm. What isn't normal is being forced into or being manipulated into marriage for the sake of honour or extended family. They pretend to be in denial about the real issues Muslim women endure in the name of honour or because of the status they wish to keep us confined in.

Pointing out the hardships women face because of their backwards sharia is racist and xenophobic!

They have done nothing for the emancipation of Muslim women, in fact they advocate the opposite. They emphasize our duties not rights. Just like Maududi, who was not a scholar - he was a journalist who engaged with Syed Qutb in the mid 19th century. Men, who wanted Muslims to control the sexuality of women, advocated the burkha and a revival of 7th century Islam. They welcomed extreme Islamists from the Middle East. In so doing they fouled up. They do not represent the majority of mainstream Muslims.

We have to protect ourselves through learning to be independent, through education, skills, employment, housing, money for food, clothes and shelter. Where else in the world is the lone mother protected so that she can live with dignity? Most move out of Muslim communities that have turned into ghettos. It's no place for a lone mother.

Islam's ambassadors and spokesmen don't protect you here just because you're a Muslim woman. Ask the Muslim teenager who was ganged raped in a Muslim area by Muslim men. Was Islam's ringleaders or Sharia law there to protect her or give justice? No - only the British law and the services in place to support her protected her. These men have no idea what they are talking about except when it comes to reinforcing the burstable bubble that is political Islam.

A Muslim woman gangraped by Muslim men? The rape victim will be lucky if she isn't targeted for honor-killing to remedy the problem.

Q: You believe that these organisations serve Muslim women no purpose?

Absolutely no purpose. Community leaders are in denial about the real issues manifesting in Muslim communities besides Jihadism. Rape, sexual harassment, forced marriages, honour killings, polygamy, forced conversions, domestic violence, depression, drugs, gang culture and paedophiles all exist on our streets too, in our communities. And we remain shamefully silent. There is no such thing as a pious, true Muslim country or community. Not in Pakistan or in 'the great republic of Iran', where religious police force the subjugation.

Or in Saudi Arabia.

No wonder Muslim women feel they need to wear the veil in Muslim communities. We get harassed in Muslim areas. But I'm not afraid to speak the truth now.

What do you have to lose? Live like a slave, or risk your life to be free.

And that's what this is all about.

Public harassment is on the rise in such areas. Ask the local women. That's what happens when communities go backwards and not forward. That is the consequence when women are denied leadership in mosques or not given the space to have dialogue with the government. OUR VOICES ARE DROWNED OUT BY THE ISLAMISTS.

I hope Hazel Blears succeeds in this idea to empower Muslim women against extremists. What did Bunglawala have to say this time in response? Instead of welcoming the idea he said the government is asking women to be spies. With this obfuscation you can see that he is actually at war. The thought of Muslim women being empowered and standing up to their ideology threatens them.

Well, yeah.

Women are supposed to be sex objects, not equals.

I'd like to tell Bunglawala, I know who I would want outside my house protecting me and my children against harassment, extremism or Jihadism. Not the likes of him, who are part of the problem not the solution. If they're not blaming the police, they're blaming the Americans or the Zionists or they latch onto foreign policies. They never look within. They take on the mindless rhetoric that we Muslims have lost our true path and must return to 7th century Islam. Millions of Muslims want to live and let live and that's why we have to break our silence.

And this is my point -- what if what those guys teach really is the true path of Islam?

What if those who want to live peacefully, and not force Islam on the infidel world, really have strayed from Islam?

Stay tuned for Part 15, where Pride of Lions concludes as we finish reviewing The Gina Khan Interview - Part Four.

Pride of Lions, Part 13

We continue Pride of Lions by continuing our look at a four-part interview with Gina Khan. We begin The Gina Khan Interview - Part Four:

Q: Who in particular is exploiting the weaknesses of Britain?

MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala is a good example of what I mean by the extreme version of Islam. He is always playing down the real threat. People like Bunglawala have read the same books as me and understands Jihad like most Muslims do. In number the Islamists like him may be a minority, but the influence they represent is powerful because they use historical edicts in the Quran to mobilise the masses. It is up to Muslims to reject and lead the way by rejecting this modern Jihad and rejecting backward practices.

These Islamists also have backing from powerful foreign lobbies, foreign governments and foreign organized crime interests.

And, they obviously are not above using violence, or any other means to an end -- after all, their "Allah" understands; nothing is prohibited, provided it furthers what these guys consider to be "Islam".

Why oh why do TV stations allow these men on their shows to talk about us Muslims? They do not represent us - they enslave us with a backward mentality.

We are free agents we didn't need backward-thinking Muslims representing us.

When President Bush needs a token Muslim, whom does he contact? CAIR -- a front organization for Islamists.

It's proved counter-productive. They do not represent plural Islam. They have an issue with gays, with the Jewish, with liberal Britain. The government has been taking advice from the wrong people for the last 10 years. That is obvious.

And that's why they just let that terrorist out of jail, and give him a big, fat government subsidy into the deal -- see my recent posts on Abu Qatada under the title "What a shambles!"

Q: Who do you blame?

I blame the government of this country for the rise in Islamism. They were too slow while Islamists leaped ahead in order to turn British Muslims into Islamists. Europe and America have been given the wrong advice for the last 10 years too. If the best they can come up with to win the hearts and minds of people is a Bunglawala or Tariq Ramadan - who isn't even a citizen of this country - then we're in big trouble.

Why the government appeases Islamists and engages with men who advocate a backward Islam beggars belief. The government needs to create space for reformists and secular Muslims to lead debates - to push away the Bunglawalas who, for example, tried to shut down the debate on the veil, and believes Osama Bin Laden is a 'freedom fighter'. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Q: It's not a battle between men and women amongst the British Muslim community?

No. Just recently, modern British Muslim men pointed out to me that they are just as alarmed when they see an increasing number of Muslims (British Pakistani women) adopting the full veil. The same happens to all of us - you end up just staring at them, on the Ladypool road, Stratford road In Birmingham, Alum Rock Rd etc.

British Pakistani Muslim women have steadily shrugged off the beautiful chadors and head scarves full of vibrant colours that have always reflected the Indian or Pakistani culture and are turning to morbid colours of black. I personally call this revival of desert Islam. It really is beginning to look and feel like a cult; a political statement and a sign of women participating in their own oppression believing Allah ordained it. What's wrong with the Pakistani outfits?? It didn't happen at this rate in Pakistan until the media showed us the veiled women with sticks demonstrating outside the Red Mosque. Such an event could happen here - we may have democracy here but that isn't stopping Islamists from demanding Sharia law or special treatment in schools, councils or in the public sphere just because they are Muslims.

Dr Naseem Nawaz - a member of Hibz ut Tahrir - is a good example of a woman who wishes to live under the raw power of Islamists, dreaming of a revived Calpihate.

Men look at these people as though they are weird as well but they believe they are superior. There are women totally subjugated in some Islamic states forced to wear the veil, that's a different issue. The veil causes segregation in the West and these women know it.

Women are treated like cattle in Saudi Arabia -- the same was true in the Taliban's Afghanistan.

Now for a key question:

Q: Is the area becoming a no-go area for non-Muslims?

It is becoming a no go area in some parts of Birmingham. Non Muslims are becoming suspicious and uneasy as are secular Muslims. Why should Rev Ali (the Bishop of Rochester, pictured) be accused of racism when he is actually speaking the truth? Trevor Philips was spot on too - non Muslims are leaving these areas because Muslim leaders have allowed our areas to turn into Muslim ghettos.

Hazel Blears and William Hague say they don't recognise these areas? Well they only need to visit and see. I have respect for Blears and Hague and I'd like to put them right. It's one thing trying to be diplomatic, it's another if you don't face up to a serious ideology that is aiming to mobilise the Muslim community and the next generation. No other religious group has asked for special demands. Who is instigating this special need for Muslims and Islam? Not Muslims like me or people I know.

The British government has become Chamberlainized in the face of Islamism.

Meanwhile, a reminder -- here is a list of no-go areas in France: ATLAS DES ZONES URBAINES SENSIBLES.

So many British people from nearly every religion and race have said to me that something is going on but they just can't put their finger on it. I know exactly what they mean.

Q: So British mainstream politicians are missing the point here?

They have missed the point for the last 40 years.

Mr Brown, Mr Cameron should pay close attention next time they want to visit a Muslim community like mine. They could start counting the mosques springing up like mushrooms and the lack of resources for the youth in the community, especially for Muslim girls. They should introduce a law prohibiting total square metres of one religion's buildings exceeding a certain amount in a given area per capita. Next time when they are up here they could visit bookshops and run-down Islamic schools. They have abandoned these communities.

Polygamy is more common than the British realize. Young teenage forced marriages and honour killings have escalated. So why was our plight ignored and why the Islamists appeased? I could take them to some really nice mainstream English, Irish, Indian, Jamaican, Sikh and 'Modern' Muslims who sense and fear this rise of Islamism but because Britain is a civilised, tolerant society they remain silent. Most fear being called Islamophobic or racist. The public needs educating. As one decent Indian family told me, Islamists were trying to buy a pub in Hodge Hill to turn into yet another Islamic centre.

There are not many Muslims in Hodge Hill but this is how the Islamists operate. People in Hodge Hill are going to either get angry and move out or worry about their young becoming converted.

Muslims and non Muslims at grassroots level know something isn't right. They should talk to people, not just representatives or leaders. I am not scaremongering.

If you integrate you get to hear all sides like I have. Anyway I was in the minority who was standing up to radicals 20 years ago, no-one would listen to me then either. I feel the tide is turning - the Islamists have gone too far too soon. Britain is waking up and will show the world how to deal with these people.

"I feel the tide is turning - the Islamists have gone too far too soon."

The devil always overplays his hand.

Stay tuned for Part 14.

Financial Onslaught, Part 6

We continue from Part 5 reviewing an article entitled The Fifth Generation Warfare by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen. In this part, the article gets a little choppy, so I have had to do some formatting and editing for punctuation.

As I mentioned previously, please keep in mind as you read this that Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad, and needs contributions to her organization to continue her work and defend herself against the legal harassment of the libel terrorists that target her. See my sidebar for links for further information.

United Arab Emirates⁶⁴

Like every Muslim country, the UAE collects mandatory Islamic charity (zakat: the Third Pillar of Islam -- an annual wealth tax), of 2.5 percent to 20 percent from Muslim institutions and companies. Being non-Muslims, foreign banks and oil companies theoretically don't pay zakat. But foreign banks and oil companies do pay at least 20 percent of their profits in the form of a mandatory tax rather than zakat. In 2003, the UAE established an independent federal agency collecting zakat on government tax revenues from "companies listed on the Dubai Financial Market and Abu Dhabi Securities Market ... oil-producing companies and branches of foreign banks." In 2007 these revenues were estimated at $13.5 billion.⁶⁵

Although presenting itself to the West as a moderate ally, the UAE has consistently supported the peaceful and violent advancement of shari'a and terrorism worldwide. In 2006, to support suicide bombing, the UAE gave $100 million to the Palestinian Authority to build a new town named Sheikh Khalifa City, in honor of the UAE president. The city houses families of "shahids and prisoners" and was built on the ruins of Morag, one of the evacuated Israeli settlements in Gaza.⁶⁶

On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for [its] "unstinting support." The statement said: "We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support ... that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation."

The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had ... never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF .... The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies."⁶⁷

Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (CSS),⁶⁸ Hamas charitable societies are known as integral parts of the Hamas infrastructure, and are outlawed by the United States and Israel.

As we consider the support terrorism -- so much of which is linked to the Religion of Peace -- gets from "charities", it is worth keeping in mind Sibel Edmonds' quotes.

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

SE: You know how they always talk about these Islamic charities funding the terrorists, right?

CD: Yes...

SE: Well, and this is not a firm statistic, just a sort of ratio... but these charities are responsible for maybe 10 or 20 percent of al-Qaeda's fundraising. So where is the other 80 or 90 percent coming from? People, it's not so difficult!

From An Interview with Sibel Edmonds, Page Two by Chris Deliso, July 1, 2004:

CD: [snip] At several points you state that such organized crime networks employ "semi-legitimate organizations" as their point of interface with governments and the "legit" world. Can you explain exactly what you mean?

SE: These are organizations that might have a legitimate front -- say as a business, or a cultural center or something. And we've also heard a lot about Islamic charities as fronts for terrorist organizations, but the range is much broader and even, simpler.

CD: For example?

SE: You might have an organization supposed to be promoting the cultural affairs of a certain country within another country. Hypothetically, say, an Uzbek folklore society based in Germany. The stated purpose would be to hold folklore-related activities -- and they might even do that -- but the real activities taking place behind the scenes are criminal.

CD: Such as?

SE: Everything -- from drugs to money laundering to arms sales. And yes, there are certain convergences with all these activities and international terrorism.

CD: So with these organizations we're talking about a lot of money --

SE: Huge, just massive. They don't deal with 1 million or 5 million dollars, but with hundreds of millions.

Returning to Ehrenfeld and Lappen:

Hamas also included a special tribute, promising to "never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan [al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi],"⁶⁹ the current UAE president's father. The multibillionaire was an early PLO patron and, from the 1970s until his 2004 death, contributed millions of dollars to the PLO's terror agenda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.⁷⁰

Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan was the first Arab ruler to understand the strategic importance of economic jihad⁷¹ against the West. He was first to use oil as a political weapon after the 1973 Yom Kippur War.⁷² He was also the major sponsor of the first international Islamic bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). The bank was created to serve as "the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."⁷³ BCCI, which was shut down in July 1991 by New York City district attorney Robert Morgenthau,⁷⁴ funded and otherwise facilitated terrorist organizations and states, including the Sandinistas, Hezbollah, abu Nidal, the PLO, al Qaeda, Syria, Libya, Iran's Islamic revolution -- as well as Pakistan's nuclear program, to create the "Islamic Bomb."⁷⁵

BCCI is a scandal worth looking into. It was deeply linked to narcotics trafficking, organized crime, and covert activities of the West, as well as the funding of terrorism. In fact, it was a classic example of the kinds of things Sibel Edmonds later came across.

Immediately before the 1991 Gulf War, Sheikh Zayed branded the United States the Muslims' "number two enemy" after Israel. As of this writing, the UAE votes against the United States 70 percent of the time in the UN.⁷⁶

It is interesting how we were maneuvered into battling Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Even in 1990-1, the winds of war were fanned by lies and propaganda.

Many of our "allies" in the Persian Gulf have continuously called for jihad against Israel and the United States. Short of abandoning Israel and siding with terrorists, there is no policy the United States can have for the Middle East that will not be deemed a justification for terrorism, and even should the United States go that far, the reprieve -- if there were one -- would be short-lived, lasting only until Israel were destroyed and the jihadists could focus their attention more exclusively on America.

Consequently, the whole exercise of siding with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries against Hussein's Iraq was to some extent like siding with Stalin's Russia against Hitler's Germany; we would perhaps be foolish to even delude ourselves into thinking that we have chosen the lesser of two evils.

Human Appeal International (HAI), a UAE government-run "charitable" organization, whose board includes the UAE president,⁷⁷ continues to fund Hamas and other Palestinian organizations, "martyrs," and Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI modus operandi includes transferring funds to the Palestinian Red Crescent, whose West Bank and Gaza branches Hamas runs. Hamas, in turn, distributes the money to Hamas "charities." The Toronto, Canada, Orient Research Center reports that the UAE compensation plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shahid, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, and $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, the families of terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000. Also in 2001, the UAE held two telethons to support the "martyrs'" families. One entitled "We Are All Palestinians" raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and another called "For Your Sake Palestine" raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.

My denunciation of the terrorists should not be construed as to imply blanket endorsement of Israeli operations to destroy the homes of families of terrorists and suicide bombers. I think it is, in principle, wrong to hold a family responsible for the actions of one of its members, just because the people are family members. If it can be shown that those family members actually helped perpetrate the terrorist act, then that of course begins to be a far different matter.

On 15 February 2005, the Hamas Web site reported on funds transferred from HAI to two West Bank Hamas front organizations, IQRA and Rifdah, outlawed in Israel.⁷⁸ On 22 March 2005, the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to Hamas "charities" for 3,158 terrorists' orphans.⁷⁹

A detailed 25 March 2005 report, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, noted that the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank "charitable" organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus, and Tulkarem to distribute to families of "martyrs," orphans, imprisoned Palestinians, and others.

And in July 2005, Osama Zaki Muhammad Bashiti of Gaza's Khan Younis was arrested while returning from the UAE⁸⁰ for often transferring as much as $200,000 at a time to the Gaza branch of Hamas.

As long as there is this support network for terrorism, the terrorism will continue: in an environment where there is no hope, and where "religious" institutions fan the flames of hatred and promise virgins in heaven for sexually-frustrated males (in a society wherein wealthy males have up to four wives, and others do without), getting to Allah by means of a suicide attack on innocent civilians becomes a viable option for helping one's family and getting one's frustrations out -- the perfect storm.

Financial Onslaught, Part 5

We continue from Part 4 reviewing an article entitled The Fifth Generation Warfare by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen.

As I mentioned previously, please keep in mind as you read this that Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad, and needs contributions to her organization to continue her work and defend herself against the legal harassment of the libel terrorists that target her. See my sidebar for links for further information.

STATE ZAKAT AGENCIES

Saudi Arabia

In 2007, Saudi Arabia collected $18 billion in zakat⁵² -- which includes the 20 percent flat corporation tax from foreign companies. The Saudis claim that the money collected develops their infrastructure. However, two-thirds of Saudi men are unemployed and the infrastructure is crumbling.⁵³

And why should they work, if Allah has promised all this loot to holy warriors?

And then this explains why Saudi Arabia has to import so many foreign workers to do all the actual work of the Kingdom, while so many of the holy warriors encountered by U.S. forces in Iraq are Saudis -- our ally in the War on Terror is incapable of being anything other than a menace to world security.

Illustrating how funds are used, Saudi Arabia's secretary-general of the official Muslim World League Koran Memorization Commission stated on Iqra TV, on 29 August 2005, "The Prophet said: 'He who equips a fighter...it is as if he himself fought.' You lie in your bed, safe in your own home, and donate money and Allah credits you with the rewards of a fighter. What is this? A privilege."⁵⁴

You lie in bed with your four wives and as many concubines as your right hand possesses, and this is the same as martyring yourself for Allah -- why do all these young Palestinian and Saudi men not see that they are being duped and used by these shiekhs who have things way too easy?

Since the 1970s, the Saudi government has spent more than $100 billion⁵⁵ to build thousands of mosques, Islamic centers, and Islamic studies programs in universities worldwide to advance the ummah's power and undermine Western economic, political, cultural, educational, and legal structures and replace them with the shari'a.⁵⁶ In the last 13 years alone, the Saudis gave at least $459 million to British universities for Islamic study centers, according to Professor Anthony Glees, of Brunel University.⁵⁷

The worldwide Muslim riots following the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark's largest daily, Jyllands-Posten, began only after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark; after Sheikh Osama Khayyat, imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, praised on national Saudi television the Saudi government for its action; and after Sheikh Ali Al-Hudaify, imam of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, called "upon governments, organizations and scholars in the Islamic world to extend support for campaigns protesting the sacrilegious attacks on the Prophet."⁵⁸ Saudi-controlled OIC initiated and coordinated Muslim rioting worldwide after the Danish Muhammad cartoon publications.⁵⁹

How can the United States be allies of such a nation?

Did our politicians prostitute our country like that to the Nazis and the Communists?

Moreover, to wield more control over Muslim communities worldwide, better orchestrate "spontaneous demonstrations," and better allocate funds for them, the Saudi-backed OIC established the clerical International Commission for Zakat (ICZ) on 30 April 2007. Previously, there were more than 20,000 organizations that collected zakat. Now, however, the Islamic clerics' centralized "expert committee" based in Malaysia also supervises and distributes zakat funds globally. The new committee distributed roughly $2 billion collected over Ramadan 2007 to Muslim "charities".⁶⁰

In a show of unity, the Shiite Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah argued, "If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwa against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so."⁶¹

What is this if not an attempt to enslave us by force?

The Saudi role in terror financing is no secret. Yet, the U.S. administration keeps telling us that the Saudis are our allies. On 10 December 2002, criticizing the Joint Inquiry Staff (JIS) report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Senators Jon Kyl and Pat Roberts stated, "The pervasiveness in Saudi Arabia of Wahhabism, a radical, anti-American variant of Islam, was well known before 9/11. The JIS should have inquired why the country of Saudi Arabia was given such preferential treatment by the State Department and whether the intelligence agencies were complicit in the policy."⁶²

Foreign policy regarding Saudi Arabia is created by whores that we have sent to Washington.

In early 2008, however, U.S. government officials publicly noted that the Saudis continue the financing of radical Islamic groups.⁶³

Created by whores in Washington -- and these whores are running our military into the ground in Iraq, while denying our forces the possibility of victory by refusing to address the source of most of the problems, Saudi Arabia.

But, then again, the war in Iraq is good for business for too many that are closely associated with the Bush Administration. Halliburton, for example, has plenty of lucrative contracts supporting the war, and if anyone ever dealt with the Kingdom, all that would end, wouldn't it?

Whores in Washington....

Financial Onslaught, Part 4

We continue from Part 3 reviewing an article entitled The Fifth Generation Warfare by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen.

As I mentioned previously, please keep in mind as you read this that Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad, and needs contributions to her organization to continue her work and defend herself against the legal harassment of the libel terrorists that target her. See my sidebar for links for further information.

ZAKAT

Zakat, we are told, is to help the needy. But as Janine A. Clark's excellent 2004 study shows, zakat is used to support the middle class, to strengthen its loyalty to the rulers, and to back their radical ideology'.⁴³

Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi decrees, "Declaring holy war ... is an Islamic duty, and fighting ... is the Way of Allah for which Zakat must be spent." In his 1999 publication, Fiqh az-Zakat, al-Qaradawi adds, "The most important form of jihad today is serious, purposefully organized work to rebuild Islamic society and state and to implement the Islamic way of life in the political, cultural and economic domains. This is certainly most deserving of Zakat."⁴⁴ And as previously demonstrated time and again, Muslim jihadist-terror organizations are indeed prominent zakat recipients.

The use of charities to fund jihad, however, is not limited to radical Sunnis. On Jerusalem Day, 5 October 2007, Al-Manar TV broadcasted Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's cantankerous speech giving religious, moral, and political justification in support of "the armed Palestinian resistance" and calling for financial support to the Palestinian terrorist organizations. Nasrallah "gave Khomeini's fatwa [⁴⁵] ... allowing charity funds ... and the tax of 1/5 (khums)[⁴⁶] to be transferred to the Palestinian terrorist organizations ... to pay for their campaign."⁴⁷

The definition of zakat in The Encyclopedia of Islam includes in "category 7" of eligible recipients "volunteers engaged in jihad," for whom the zakat covers "living expenses and the expenses of their military service (animals, weapons)."⁴⁸

Millard Burr and Robert Collins's compelling study Alms for Jihad documents that when zakat, which is obligatory to all Muslims, is given "in the path of Allah," it is given to fund jihad. There are seven broad categories of eligible recipients: the poor, converts, wayfarers, those in bondage or in debt, those committed to Allah for the spread and triumph of Islam, newcomers whose faith is weak, and new converts to Islam "whose hearts have been [recently] reconciled [to truth]." Moreover, zakat may be used to support those who administer it.⁴⁹

What jumps out at me in this passage is the last part, indicating that charitable contributions to Islamic organizations not only fund holy war, but are a source of income for those who manage the money.

There's money in jihad -- big money.

In a 2006 federal case, alleged al Qaeda supporters Emadeddin Z. Muntasser and Muhammed Mubayyid were charged with soliciting and spending "funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad, including the distribution of pro-jihad publications,” through their now-defunct "charity" and front organization, Care International. The Boston-based organization published, among other things, the English version of al Qaeda cofounder and key Muslim Brotherhood leader Abdullah Azzam's "Join the Caravan."

It states, "The individually obligatory nature of jihad remains in effect until the lands are purified from the pollution of the disbelievers."⁵⁰ They collected more than $1.3 million in contributions. In their defense, Muntasser and Mubayyid claimed to merely have exercised their religious freedom and obligation to give zakat as part of their constitutionally protected freedoms. Their motion for dismissal (which the court denied) cited chapter 9, verse 60, of the Qur'an, describing "those entitled to receive zakat."

Jihad is an obligation that "remains in effect until the lands are purified from the pollution of the disbelievers."

Incredibly, the suspects' attorneys also argued that such charitable giving, to support jihad and mujahideen, is rightfully tax exempt under the U.S. constitutional protection of religious freedom.⁵¹ Court records show Care International deposited checks "with handwritten notes such as 'for jihad only,' 'Bosnia Jihad fund,' and 'Chechen Muslim Fighters'." The U.S. Constitution provides protections for religious freedom, but most certainly was never intended to protect religiously sanctioned or encouraged war in or against America.

The First Amendment bars Congress from enacting laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However, the Constitution offers no protection to any group or religion supporting "holy war" against the United States or its citizens.

That is how they twist our Constitution around.

This is a clash of civilization versus barbarity, and it is a fight to the finish.

Financial Onslaught, Part 3

We continue from Part 2 reviewing an article entitled The Fifth Generation Warfare by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen.

As I mentioned previously, please keep in mind as you read this that Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad, and needs contributions to her organization to continue her work and defend herself against the legal harassment of the libel terrorists that target her. See my sidebar for links for further information.

According to a 1991 U.S. Library of Congress report on Sudan, the IDB also supported Faisal Islamic Bank, established in 1977 under Sudan's Faisal Islamic Bank Act by Saudi prince Muhammad ibn Faisal Al Saud and managed by local Muslim Brotherhood members and their party, the National Islamic Front. Soon other political groups and parties formed their own Islamic banks. Together, Sudanese Islamic banks then acquired 20 percent of the country's deposits "providing the financial basis to turn Sudan into an Islamic state in 1983, and promoting the Islamic governmental policies to date."²⁵ Sudan Islamized its banking in 1989. However, Pakistan was the first country to officially Islamize its banking practices, in 1979.

Rising oil revenues encouraged MB leaders to formalize al-Banna's vision. In 1977 and 1982, they convened in Lugano, Switzerland, to chart a master plan to co-opt Western economic "foundations, capitalism and democracy" in a treatise entitled "Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy," also known as The Project. MB spiritual leader al-Qaradawi wrote the explicit document, dated 1 December 1982.²⁶ The 12-point strategy includes diktats to establish the Islamic state and gradual, parallel work to control local power centers ... using institutional work as means to this end. This requires "special Islamic economic, social and other institutions," and "the necessary economic institutions to provide financial support" to spread fundamentalist Islam.²⁷

In other words, this is a coordinated plan to spread not some "Religion of Peace", but the very ideology that terrorists adhere to.

Consequently, the IDB founded the AAOIFI in 1990. AAOIFI members include the Saudi Dallah al Baraka Group, al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation, and Kuwait Finance House²⁸ -- all implicated in funding al Qaeda and other MB offspring, according to Richard Clarke, the former national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection, and counter-terrorism.²⁹ The 18 AAOIFI members also include Iran and Sudan, both on the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions list; Iran is a U.S. State Department-designated terror-sponsoring state, too. UAE banks wired most of the funding for the 9/11 attacks.³⁰

In addition, the "de facto Islamic Central Bank," the Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB),³¹ was established in 2002 in Kuala Lumpur "to absorb the 11 September shock and reinforce the stability of Islamic finance." Chairing the organizers' meeting, then Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamed Mahathir stated, "A universal Islamic banking system is a jihad worth pursuing to abolish this slavery [to the West]." IFSB members include the central banks of Iran, Sudan, and Syria (all designated state sponsors of terrorism) and the Palestinian Monetary Authority (PMA), which is widely documented since its inception to be a terror funder.³²

I hope my regular readers by now understand that terrorism is not occurring on a shoe-string budget; rather, it is a proxy war being waged by people who know that if we really understood what was going on, we'd regime change them right out of a job, so they do this covertly.

Was it Benjamin Netanyahu? "It's the regimes, stupid."

According to Dallah al Baraka Group and Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCI) president Saleh Kamel,³³ more than 400 Islamic financial institutions³⁴ currently operate in 75 countries.³⁵ They now hold more than $800 billion in assets³⁶ growing 15 percent annually. HSBC, UBS, J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Lloyds TSB, and BNP Paribas are but a few that offer Islamic banking and shari'a-based products to their Western clients -- and promote them as "ethical investments."

So what is at risk, here?

"It's the economy, stupid."

And much, much more.

Billionaire Sheikh Saleh Abdullah Kamel and his family, like other wealthy Saudis, have built their terror-funding-affiliated $3.5 billion Dallah al Baraka Group to service the shari'a.³⁷ Its business, finance, and media sectors incorporate agriculture, communication, health care, real estate, tourism, trade, transportation, and finance companies -- including 10 banks and many leasing and finance firms, Arab Radio & Television and Arab Digital Distribution, and the International Information & Trading Service Co., producing the Top 1000 Saudi Companies Directory, among other publications.

Rapidly rising oil prices fill the coffers of Islamic banks, fuel the expansion of shari'a economics and financial jihad -- and threaten the United States and the entire non-Muslim world, in real time. Indeed, shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden called on Muslims "to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means.... Look for the key pillars of the U.S. economy. Strike the key pillars of the enemy again and again and they will fall as one."³⁸

Of course we won't hear about any of this from Bush & Cheney, nor will we hear about this from McCain or Obama. They will argue over federal taxes on gasoline, and debate health care and social security, and we will think we have an election; the real issue about how not just Western but all infidel societies everywhere are being targeted by Islamist economic warfare, with the sole goal of bringing us to our knees in forced submission, will not be addressed.

Why?

The NASDAQ acquisition, purchases of over 52 percent of the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and 47.6 percent of OMX (Nordic exchange), and vigorous expansion of shari'a finance all steadily implement al-Banna's plan to spread and ultimately impose shari'a worldwide.

Bourse Dubai in December 2006 loudly proclaimed its new conversion to "shari'a compliance and accounting practices."³⁹ Yet, responding to a specific inquiry on the Islamic nature of Bourse Dubai from the Partnership for New York City on 22 October 2007, Bourse Dubai denied being an Islamic exchange.⁴⁰ Still unaware of the implications of importing shari'a finance, however, hoards of Westerners eagerly attend such pricey events as the October 2007 Islamic Finance Summit in New York,⁴¹ which focused on the "innovations in shari'a compliant finance." According to an eyewitness, when one participant timidly inquired, "What is shari'a law?" a leading Islamic scholar responded from the podium: "It's good for you."

Executing rape victims, gays and lesbians, and anyone who wishes to leave Islam -- "It's good for you."

Lost on the attendees was the inescapable fact that shari'a calls for the supremacy of Islam, thus negating the U.S. Constitution.⁴²

Does anybody even read that document anymore?

I do, and I'll be most of my American readership is familiar with it, too.

Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Financial Onslaught continues.

Financial Onslaught, Part 2

We continue from Part 1 reviewing an article entitled The Fifth Generation Warfare by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen.

As I mentioned in Part 1, please keep in mind as you read this that Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad, and needs contributions to her organization to continue her work and defend herself against the legal harassment of the libel terrorists that target her. See my sidebar for links for further information.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The origins of the modern financial jihad infrastructure, including all Islamic economic and financial regulatory organizations like the 1991-Bahrain-registered and -based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI), date back to the 1920s and were an invention of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. He designed political, economic, and financial foundations to enable Muslims to fulfill a key form of jihad mandated by the Qur'an -- financial jihad.⁸

Terrorism is big business.

We have a popular misconception of underfunded and oppressed peoples battling their oppressors. This view was to some extent accurate during the jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviets, but there the mujahideen were not terrorists.

What is the difference?

To my view, targets make the difference. Guerrillas attack military targets, whereas terrorists attack defenseless and innocent civilian targets; guerrillas have a military objective, whereas terrorists have the political objective of terrorizing people.

Terrorists are criminals, plain and simple; one motivation for criminals is money, big money is needed in conducting terrorism, and with the extensive links modern terrorism has with organized crime and smuggling, there is big money to be made in terrorism.

He viewed finance as a critical weapon to undermine the infidels -- and "work towards establishing an Islamic rule on earth." ⁹ He was first to understand that to achieve world domination, Muslims needed an independent Islamic financial system to parallel and later supersede the Western economy. Al-Banna's contemporaries and successors (such as the late Sayed Qutb and current Yusuf al-Qaradawi) set his theories and practices into motion, developing shari'a-based terminology and mechanisms to advance the financial jihad -- "Islamic economics," finance, and banking.¹⁰

Early 1930s MB attempts to establish Islamic banking in India failed. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser shut down the second attempt, in 1964, after only one year, later arresting and expelling the Muslim Brotherhood for attempts to kill him.¹¹

It is important to note that these secular Arab governments, such as Nasser's Egypt (and later Sadat's Egypt and now Mubarrak's Egypt) are enemies of the jihadists. The jihadists accuse these secular Arabs of apostasy and make takfir out of them.

Which brings us to a question: why did we invade Iraq? There was not one Iraqi alleged to have been on those planes on 9/11. Hussein's regime was despicable, but his was just another dictator-centered personality cult.

Or, was Iraq involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, as has been very credibly alleged? (See Out of Context, Part 5.) And thus, was the OKBOMB just a dress-rehearsal for 9/11?

But, if that's the case, why does no one in the government say so?

Speaking of all this money it takes to fund terrorism... from Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

....JH: Let me read you a short quote from Dr. Griffin's book, quoting from War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky and ask you to comment on it. "...The transfer of money to Atta [$325,000], in conjunction with the presence of the ISI chief in Washington during the week, [is] the missing link behind 9/11....The evidence confirms that al-Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI (and it is amply documented that) the ISI owes its existence to the CIA."

SE: I cannot comment on that. But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.

Returning now to Ehrenfeld and Lappen:

But Saudi Arabia welcomed this new wave of Egyptian dissidents, as did King Saud bin Abdel Aziz earlier waves in 1954 and 1961.¹² Their ideas so appealed to him and his clerics that in 1961, Saud funded the MB's establishment of the Islamic University in Medina to proselytize its fundamentalist Islamic ideology, especially to foreign students.¹³ In 1962, the MB convinced the king to launch a global financial joint venture, which became the cornerstone and engine to spread Islam worldwide. This venture created charitable foundations, which the MB oversees and from which most Islamic terrorist groups benefit.¹⁴

The first were the Muslim World League (MWL) and Rabitta al-Alam al-Islami, uniting Islamic radicals from 22 nations and spinning a web of many other charities with hundreds of offices worldwide.¹⁵ In 1978, the kingdom backed another MB initiative, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), which, with all these "charities," is implicated for funding al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks, Hamas, and others.¹⁶ These "charities" are used to advance the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi political agenda, namely empowering the ummah and imposing worldwide shari'a. "I don't like this word 'donations'," al-Qaradawi told BBC Panorama on 30 July 2006. "I like to call it Jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money."¹⁷

In 1969, the Saudis convened Arab and Muslim states to unify the "struggle for Islam," and have ever since been the Organization of the Islamic Conference's (OIC's) major sponsor. The 56 OIC members include Iran, Sudan, and Syria. The Jidda-based, "pending the liberation of Jerusalem," OIC's charter mandates and coordinates "support [of] the struggle of the Palestinian people, ... recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories." ¹⁸ The OIC charter includes all the MB principles. Its first international undertaking in 1973 was to establish the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) "in accordance with the principles of the shariah,"¹⁹ as prescribed by the MB -- and to launch the fast-growing petrodollar-based Islamic financing market. The IDB, more a development than commercial bank, was established largely "to promote Islamic banking worldwide." ²⁰ "[A]n Islamic organization must serve God ... and ultimately sustain ... the growth and advancement of the Islamic way of life," writes Nasser M. Suleiman in "Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking."²¹

If we're going to change a regime, Saudi Arabia is the place to do it -- not Iraq, and not Iran. Saudi Arabia is the major instigator and a major source of the money; pull the plug on The Kingdom, and you pull the plug on most of the terrorist organizations that have been causing the problems. Riyadh is a critical node in the web of terror.

And the IDB has done just that. Between 1975 to 2005, the IDB approved over $50 billion in funding to Muslim countries,²² ostensibly to develop their economic and educational infrastructures, but effected little regional economic impact. Its educational efforts, however, paid huge yields -- via the rapid and significant spread of radical Islam worldwide. Moreover, in 2001 alone, the IDB transferred $538 million²³ raised publicly by Saudi and Gulf royal telethons to support the Palestinian intifada and families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IDB has also channeled UN funds to Hamas, as documented by bank records discovered in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet, the IDB received UN observer status in 2007.²⁴

Imagine if that money and that kind of effort had gone into the economic development of the Palestinian people.

But these guys don't want peace, and it's worth recalling from Part 1 the interpretation from one "holy man", that those who sacrifice money to fund the jihad are making a bigger contribution than those who sacrifice their lives actually fighting it.

In other words, some rich sheikh sending money to pay for terrorism, then going inside his harem and having a good time, is more pleasing to this "Allah" of theirs than the holy warriors who actually die bringing the Religion of Peace to the world.

This "Allah" that these guys are trying so hard to please isn't just evil; he's a cynical manipulating user.

Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Financial Onslaught continues.

Financial Onslaught, Part 1

An article entitled The Fifth Generation Warfare by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen recently appeared addressing yet again the threat we face of financial jihad. In this short series, I review the article; I have tried to reproduce it faithfully, but there were some parts that seemed a little garbled in the article at FrontPageMag.com.

As you read this, please keep in mind that Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad, and needs contributions to her organization to continue her work and defend herself against the legal harassment of the libel terrorists that target her. See the links in my sidebar for further information.

The United States and the West cannot win the war against radical Islam merely with the most sophisticated military strategies. Winning requires understanding the role of shari'a and the Muslim Brotherhood in developing a global ideological and political movement supported by a parallel "Islamic" financial system to exploit and undermine Western economies and markets. This movement is the foundation and the major funding source for the political, economic, and military initiatives of the global Islamic movement.¹

As I have pointed out before (in my very first post), the Religion of Peace is in fact an ideology of imperialism and armed conquest.

True, there are many Muslims who live their lives peacefully, and who sincerely believe that extremists are misinterpreting Islamic texts to justify criminal acts. However, my take on this is that there is something fundamentally wrong with Islam, and that those who try to live and practice a religion of peace are in fact veering off from what was originally a violent ideology.

Okay, so perhaps you are one of these people who really believes Islam is a religion of peace. Regardless, the point being made in the article is that the militant criminal extremists have quite a financial infrastructure behind them; this infrastructure is spreading.

Shari'a finance is a new weapon in the arsenal of what might be termed fifth-generation warfare (5GW).² The perpetrators include both states and organizations, advancing a global totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion. The end goal is to impose that ideology worldwide, making the Islamic "nation," or ummah, supreme.³

Rising oil prices and the West's dependency on Middle East oil, combined with willful blindness and political correctness, provide a surge of petrodollars, making financial and economic jihad so much easier to carry out. Moreover, according to shari'a, Muslims hold all property in trust for Allah.⁴ Therefore, under the shari'a, all current and historic Muslim acquisitions everywhere, including the United States, belong to the ummah, in trust for Allah.

That's it in an ominous nutshell.

From the right to rape female captives to the right to extort wealth from conquered peoples, this "Allah" that these people worship is an evil entity that promises those who submit to it anything they want, provided they can figure out a way to get it.

Shari'a is the crucial source and ultimate authority dictating the actions of practicing individuals and radical Muslim states and movements alike. Failing to understand the political use of shari'a hampers the U.S. ability to mount effective policies, plans, and strategies to successfully counter this fast-growing totalitarian threat.

There are Muslims who see shari'a as the threat it is, and are against it. See my sidebar.

This ignorance is illustrated by the statements of Massachusetts representative Barney Frank and Utah senator Bob Bennett. Responding to opponents of Bourse Dubai's then-proposed acquisition of 20 percent of NASDAQ in September 2007, Frank quipped, "In the ports deal, the concern was smuggling something or someone dangerous.... What are we talking about here" --smuggling someone onto a stock exchange?" ⁵ Similarly, Bennett said, "Dubai is making a purchase on the open market of an asset that's for sale. What's wrong with that?"

Although Senator Bennett is correct -- buying portions or all of NASDAQ is legal, and NASDAQ regulations could not be changed without Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approval -- Bourse Dubai's shari'a influence in the heart of the U.S. markets and economy should have been of grave concern.

Shari'a is the set of Islamic laws established by Muslim jurists, based on the Qur'an and deeds of the prophet Muhammad, as recorded beginning more than 1,200 years ago. Its end goal, for all time, is establishing a world ruled entirely by Islam and the harsh shari'a laws. These laws govern every aspect of daily life and prohibit individual, political, and religious freedoms.

I addressed this in one of my first posts, Islamic Imperialism 102.

FINANCIAL JIHAD

Funding the jihad, i.e., financial jihad, or Al Jihad bi-al-Mal, is mandated by many verses in the Qur'an, such as chapter 61, verses 10.11: "you ... should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives," and chapter 49, verse 15: "The [true] believers are only those who ... strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah." This has been reiterated throughout Islamic history and in recent times. "Financial Jihad [is] ... more important ... than self-sacrificing," according to Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) spiritual leader Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi.⁶

In other words, in the Religion of Peace, there is no such thing as "sin" if you pay for a holy warrior to rape, pillage and plunder.

Qatar-based Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most prominent Sunni scholars in the world today, reiterated the legal justification for "financial jihad [Al-Jihad bi-al-Mal]" in a lecture he gave on 4 May 2002 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to him, "collecting money for the mujahideen (jihad fighters... ) was not a donation or a gift but a duty necessitated by the sacrifices they made for the Muslim nation."⁷

And it is every good Muslim's duty to support these holy warriors (may Allah be pleased with them all).

Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Financial Onslaught continues.

An Asset for the Community

This is quality.

First we review Hazel Blears, Communities Secretary, says sidelining of Christianity is 'common sense' by George Pitcher and Jonathan Wynne-Jones, 09/06/2008:

It is "common sense" for Christianity to be sidelined at the expense of Islam, a Government minister claimed on Sunday.

Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, defended Labour's policy on religion after a report backed by the Church of England claimed that Muslims receive a disproportionate amount of attention.

She said it was right that more money and effort was spent on Islam than Christianity because of the threat from extremism and home-grown terrorism.

Ms Blears told BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme: "That's just common sense. If we've got an issue where we have to build resilience of young Muslim men and women to withstand an extremist message."

The message: the group that is most violent will get the lion's share of the funding.

It's called "shake-down".

She added: "We live in a secular democracy. That's a precious thing. We don't live in a theocracy, but we've always accepted that hundreds of thousands of people are motivated by faith. We live in a secular democracy but we want to recognise the role of faith."

It won't be long, and that "secular democracy" will be neither.

The Church of England bishop responsible for the report, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, said afterwards: "She said we live in a secular democracy. That comes as news to me – we have an established Church, but the Government can't deal with Christianity."

As The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday, the landmark report commissioned by the Church and written by academics at the Von Hugel Institute accuses ministers of paying only "lip service" to Christianity and marginalising the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, while focusing "intently" on Islam.

However Malaysia's Prime Minister warned yesterday that Muslim extremism in Britain will grow unless the Government and society learn to understand Islam.

No.

Muslim extremism will grow until the government has the guts to treat Muslim criminals the way any other criminals get treated; and, it will grow until the government has the guts to acknowledge publicly the connection between the "Religion of Peace" and jihad violence.

Abdullah Badawi claimed that the legacy of Britain's imperial past has hampered its ability to appreciate its Islamic population.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the prime minister urged Gordon Brown to allow the country's Muslims to live under Islamic law, but also said that they must prove their worth to society.

Let them live under sharia -- bury homosexuals alive, stone women who get raped -- make it just like Afghanistan was under the Taliban. Make it so our allies in the War on Terror, the royal family of Saudi Arabia, would feel right at home.

Mr Abdullah argues that the Government must do more to ensure Muslims do not feel discriminated against if it is to tackle the rise of radicalism.

"The failure to understand Muslims is driving a divide between the communities," he said.

No, the violence being preached and propagated in the Muslim community is driving a wedge between the communities.

They are trying to paint the people of the British Isles as racist, xenophobic bigots; if that had been the case, there never would have been all this immigration. The truth is the British people have been too tolerant, and now the wolf is in the hen-house demanding sharia.

"Gordon Brown must encourage a better understanding because Britain must appreciate its Muslims."

Mr Abdullah argued that Britain needs to come to terms with being home to immigrants from countries that it used to rule over.

"The British Empire expanded in Asia, everywhere, throughout the Muslim land, through the land of Hindus and the land of Buddhists.

"When they were ruling it was different because they wanted it to be peaceful and to keep it peaceful they had to use diplomacy."

He said that Muslims in Britain were more likely to be radicalised because they feel ignored rather than due to religious reasons.

Ignored? Well, 7/7 sure got them some attention, didn't it?

"Is it because of poverty, social unrest, deprivation, feeling discriminated against, thinking people don't care much because of the colour of their skin?"

No, it's because of jihad against the infidels.

Mr Abdullah, who was talking on the eve of a landmark summit of world leaders, echoed the calls of the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier this year for Muslims to be able to live under sharia.

The Malaysian Prime Minister also acknowledged that Muslims must also play their part in proving their value as immigrants.

"If they want to be respected then they must do something for the community," he said.

"They must not be a liability. They have to be an asset."

Too many people in the Islamic community are taught that a suicide bomber targeting infidels and takfir is an asset for the community.

Hat tip to my email tipster.

Saleema

We begin with a story from a Christian website. The story is undated, but the events described began in 1997. Here is Saleema!, by Tom White:

Saleema grew up in a Christian family in Pakistan. To her, faith in Jesus Christ is a part of everyday life and often comes with great costs. Saleema knows the dangers of sharing her faith in the Muslim stronghold of Pakistan, but like thousands of other Christians, that does not prevent her from being a living witness of her Lord and Savior.

Last year, Saleema gave a bible to a friend of hers who was also a Muslim. This Muslim friend was so impressed by what she read that she immediately fell in love with Christ. She longed to know more about Jesus, and on Good Friday, she found the courage to attend a Chritsian church.

It was on this day that Saleema's friend heard, for the first time, of the crucifixion, the atonement, and the resurrection of Jesus. She had read about Jesus in the Koran, but the Islamic Holy Book failed to mention his crucifixion and atonement for sin. That morning before returning home she gave her life to Jesus Christ.

Her parents were very disturbed by the news. According to Islamic law, their daughter was guilty of blasphemy against the prophet Mohammed. Saleema's friend was beaten, kicked and tortured by her parents. However, she would not deny Christ. In fact, the more she suffered for Jesus, the more she loved Him.

Her parents continued the persecution and decided it would be best to give their daughter in marriage to a Muslim man. It was at this time that Saleema's friend had no choice but to leave her home and go into hiding.

When the girl's parents discovered that she was missing, they immediately went to Saleema's home believing that she was guilty of hiding their daughter. They demanded to know her whereabouts. Saleema told them that she did not know where their daughter was and that her family had nothing to do with her disappearance.

Saleema, along with her parents, was picked by the Islamic authorities and interrogated for three days. They were beaten, starved, and continually questioned. As part of the torture, Saleema was forced to stand on the tips of her toes for over twelve hours. Each time she came down from this excruciating position, a stick came across her back. Saleema was eventually handed over to the police.

Saleema's pastor was also arrested and placed in the cell with her. The guards removed the prisoner's clothing and attempted to force Saleema and her pastor to commit adultery. When they refused, they were again beaten. The pastor's son was also arrested, hung upside down in a tree, and nearly beaten to death.

Every day and every night Saleema was tortured. Her tormentors inflicted unspeakable wounds both physically and emotionally. Saleema is an attractive young woman, and she was repeatedly violated.

Three weeks after Saleema was handed over to the police, the young Muslim girl who had turned her life over to Jesus, was discovered hiding in a woman's shelter. Her Muslim parents brought her back to her village where she was publicly executed. She was only a Christian for a few months when she learned the meaning of being "faithful unto death."

Saleema has since been charged with the girl's death. The judge found her guilty on two counts, 1> for proselytizing a Muslim girl, and 2> causing the events leading up to the girl's execution. Saleema now faces murder charges, and if found guilty under blasphemy law 295c, will herself be executed.

This tragic story is all too common in Muslim nations like Pakistan, where our family in Christ, our brothers and sisters, are beaten, tortured and even killed for their faith. It is for Saleema and so many others like her, that The Voice of the Martyrs exist. Your brothers and sisters need your prayers. They need your encouragement. They need to know that they are not forgotten, and that we will do everything in our power to help them.

More on the story can be found in a March, 1999, piece entitled Pakistani Teen Still in Legal Trouble:

28 March 1999 (Newsroom)--A Pakistani teenager arrested for helping to convert her Muslim friend to Christianity remains in legal jeopardy but is not dead or about to be executed, as some reports spread via the Internet assert. She and her pastor both were tortured while in police custody, however, Pakistani human rights groups claim, and her friend is dead.

Saleema (likely a pseudonym to protect her security) is accused of the crime of "converting a Muslim." According to International Christian Concern (ICC), a Washington, D.C.-based rights group, Saleema has not appeared at several scheduled court hearings. ICC President Steven Snyder believes that is either out of concern for her safety or because her advocates want to draw more attention to the case.

"We feel her case could be resolved," Snyder says. "Our concern is that there may be some Christians manipulating Saleema to maintain this as a high profile case in order to keep attention on the persecution of Christians in Pakistan."

The events leading to Saleema's arrest began in 1997 in the city of Sheikhupura in Punjab province when the then-17-year-old gave her friend, Raheela Khanam, a Bible. Saleema apparently had a part in the 18-year-old Muslim girl's conversion to Christianity. Under Islamic law, or Shari'a, converting from Islam to another faith--called apostasy--is punishable by death. Though the Pakistani civil code does not apply the death penalty to apostasy, Shari'a is often enforced by private citizens, who consider it their duty as a Muslim. On July 8, 1997, the local newspaper reported that Raheela was shot to death by her brother Altaf Khanam, who then turned himself in to police.

Sources in Pakistan connected to Advocates International, a Virginia-based Christian legal agency, say that shortly before her death Raheela had sought refuge at the home of her pastor, Arthur Salim, but was turned away. The pastor, according to ICC, is from Wandalla Junction, a community in the Shadara section of Lahore. ICC sources say that Altaf Khanam illegally detained Salim for two days, accusing him and his son Robin of kidnapping Raheela. On June 23, 1997, Khanam turned over the pastor to police. A day later, police jailed Robin as well.

Salim reportedly made a written compromise with the Khanam family that allowed him to be released with his son on July 4, 1997. While in custody, Salim told members of two Lahore-based human rights groups that he had been tortured by police. In response, the Center for Legal Aid, Assistance, and Settlement (CLAAS) filed a petition in Lahore High Court on June 17, 1999. CLAAS and the group Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) reported that when they visited Salim in jail he could not stand up due to the severity of the torture. But the pastor denied the charge when called before the court on June 30, 1997 and the case was dismissed. A few days after Salim's release, Raheela was murdered.

According to some accounts, the Khanam family pressed murder charges against Saleema because of her role in the conversion. ICC's Snyder questions that. "We have not seen any evidence that there was a murder charge brought by the family," he says.

Nevertheless, authorities took Saleema into custody at Sheikhupura jail shortly after Raheela's murder. On July 14, 1997, members of CLAAS visited Saleema at the jail. She told the rights group that police severely beat her with her clothes off, using a leather belt and hose pipes. She accused police of raping her and burning sensitive parts of her body with a hot iron rod and cigarette butts.

In its 1997 report on human rights in Pakistan, the U.S. State Department reported similar cases. A study of Lahore newspapers from January to July 1997 by the Commission of Inquiry for Women found 52 cases of violence or torture of women while in police custody, the State Department said.

Saleema was released on bail Aug. 7, 1997, facing the charge of converting a Muslim. According to Snyder, a guilty verdict would be punishable by no more than two years in prison.

Though Saleema did not make a required February 15 court appearance, sources say that negotiations are under way to drop charges against her. Legally, her prospects are good, according to a spokesman for an agency involved in the case that requests anonymity due its sensitive nature. "The way the case is going it doesn't look like the court will convict her," the spokesman said. "We are encouraging people not to call Pakistani authorities (on Saleema's behalf). There have been literally thousands of calls to Pakistani embassies, which has created bumps in the road."

Advocates International confirmed in a statement that Saleema so far has not been convicted of any crime and therefore is not in imminent danger of execution. The agency says it got involved because of queries from a number of Christians who had heard various versions of the story through the Internet. "We went to our own sources in Pakistan," says Wallace Cheney, Advocates director of international programs. "Our biggest concern is that if somebody is about to be executed we want to know and help, but we also are concerned about people embellishing a story."

Several sources point out, however, that in Pakistan people who have been acquitted of religion-related crimes have been killed by private citizens after leaving the court.

A couple months later, a short update at a Christian website appeared informing us that Saleema was acquitted:

In June 1997 the young Pakistani girl Raheela came to Christ through the influence of her 17-year-old friend, Saleema. Saleema and her pastor, Salim, were detained and beaten.

When Raheela's brother, Altaf, murdered her on 8 July 1997 for apostasy and for refusing to marry a Muslim man, Saleema was blamed and arrested again. In jail she was beaten, burned, raped, and received permanent and disfiguring injuries.

On 7 August 1997 Saleema was released on bail. In late April of this year the court acquitted Saleema. But Saleema's life and the lives of all those who have nurtured her are still in danger from Muslim extremists who won't accept the court's verdict. Pastor Salim and his family have already fled their homeland.

Of course, that is not the end of the line for one accused of converting a Muslim.

From Pakistani women unite against victimisation, Wednesday, April 6, 2005:

In a landmark move for human rights, Pakistani women protested peacefully on the streets of Karachi, Quetta and Peshawar against the victimization of Christian women on International Women's Day (March 8). According to Christian human rights activist Shahbaz Bhatti, "Subjugation of Christian and minority women is common in the Muslim social strata; they are harassed, tortured, raped and forcefully converted to Islam.

In a landmark move for human rights, Pakistani women protested peacefully on the streets of Karachi, Quetta and Peshawar against the victimization of Christian women on International Women's Day (March 8). According to Christian human rights activist Shahbaz Bhatti, "Subjugation of Christian and minority women is common in the Muslim social strata; they are harassed, tortured, raped and forcefully converted to Islam.

"Since the enforcement of sharia laws, thousands of women have been unjustly involved with the criminal justice system and subjected to sexual assault, torture and illegal confinement. Social attitudes, cultural practices and religious precepts in Pakistan have allowed violence against women, and the law has failed to provide safeguard against violence or to promote attitude conducive to the women's enjoyment of their fundamental rights.

"Minority women are victimized, harassed, tortured, raped, abducted and forcefully converted to Islam, due to their Christian faith. Those who commit these crimes (extremist elements and perpetrators) consider it to be part of jihad (Holy War) and give a cover of religion to their crimes."

"No compulsion in religion" - brought to you by the Religion of Peace.

Pride of Lions, Part 2

In Part 1 we had a brief excerpt from Are Muslim enclaves no-go areas, forcing other people out, asks historian John Cornwell, dated March 16, 2008. Skipping down some in that article, we have the following passage:

A mild-eyed young man called Osman comes to squat next to me where I sit with my back to the wall. "What does total submission entail?" I ask. "We don't leave our religion in the mosque," he says reverentially. "We take it out into the streets, the workplace, into our homes." Osman is joined by three other curious worshippers. One of them embraces me and starts to talk about the Prophet: "Peace be upon him." I ask him why, if their religion is truly peace-loving, it perpetrates crimes like honour killings and supports terrorism. "Islam is a religion of peace," he says. "There is no such thing as Muslim terrorism, just as there is no such thing as Muslim alcoholism, no such thing as Muslim pig-eating."

"There is no such thing as Muslim terrorism" -- the very statement makes takfir out of all the Muslims who commit terrorist acts. This goes beyond denial. By internalizing the concept of takfir, he is adopting terrorist ideology, and setting the stage for further terrorism.

The majority of Muslims do not kill women for running away from brutal husbands and forced marriages, nor are they terrorists, yet moderate Muslims nevertheless appear to be creating divisive enclaves within this country as a result of routine Muslim religiosity and lifestyle. Consider the following. In Dewsbury, imams petition Mid Yorkshire Hospital NHS Trust to request nurses to turn beds of sick Muslims to face Mecca five times a day. A Muslim shop assistant at Reading's Marks & Spencer refuses to touch a book of children's Bible stories because it is "unclean". In hospitals around Britain, female Muslim surgeons refuse to follow hygiene guidelines stipulating scrubbing up bare arms (a measure to combat MRSA and Clostridium difficile). In Oxford the imam of the new central mosque is requesting amplified calls to prayer, prompting Christian clergy to predict "white flight" from a city of burgeoning minarets.

It's called "Islamification".

While billed as a racial issue, Islam is in fact not a "race" but an ideology -- a religion, a way of life -- and anyone can become a Muslim.

However, since many of the non-Muslim inhabitants of the British Isles are "white" and, many of the relatively newly-arrived Muslims are of darker complexion, the matter is billed as "racism" -- hence, the use of the term "white flight" when non-Muslims leave an area that is becoming Islamified.

We consider now excerpts from 'White flight' increasing, race chief says by Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor, dated January 16, 2008:

Trevor Phillips said so-called "white flight" -- an American phenomenon now increasingly seen here -- was deepening racial segregation.

Mr Phillips has warned in the past of the growing polarisation of the country along ethnic lines.

But his use of the emotive term "white flight" will fuel the controversy triggered by the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester.

[snip]

The term "white flight" was coined in 1960s America to describe the emergence of inner city ghettos.

However, Government ministers have preferred to refer to it as "churn" and to attribute the movement of people to house price fluctuations.

House price fluctuations...

A survey conducted by the old Commission for Racial Equality in 2006 found that a quarter of Britons wanted to live in an all-white area.

The movement has been especially notable in London, which has always seen a big turnover of population, and is now witnessing unprecedented movement.

Last year, nearly 245,000 people left inner boroughs for the suburbs, rural areas, or new lives abroad.

The movement has a bigger impact in northern cities where communities already live "parallel lives".

As a consequence they become "shut off" and vulnerable to political and religious extremism.

[snip]

"This is another courageous contribution from Trevor Phillips, who is clearly prepared to face the facts about the current strains in our society," he said.

"We would add -- although he does not -- that massive levels of immigration are a significant factor in this."

The extremism is being cultivated by ongoing government policies. The government is allowing in too many immigrants, and making it too easy for them to not assimilate. That last sentence in the article nails it, although it is not just a matter of immigration. It is a question of the ideology held by the people they are letting in.

Toward the end of Part 1, we began reviewing The Gina Khan Interview - Part One January 9, 2008. That excerpt ended with Gina saying the following:

I am not liked by the Islamists. I've had bricks thrown through the window and I've had family members beaten up. I've been told to move on. But I'm not budging. This is my home and I belong here. The Islamists where I live -- in Birmingham's Ward End -- are an awful scourge.

We now continue with that interview:

Q: Why are you not like them yourself?

I was 10 when I first started to reason and listen to what my inner voice was telling me, compared to the voices that were drowning out my own authentic voice. I remained silent back then though, and I have since paid a very high personal price for that silence, as I could not get on with the confined ways as laid out for me. Looking back -- I suppose I was only young -- I participated in my own oppression and thought I was being a good Muslim woman. As hard as people tried though, they couldn't take the Britishness out of me! I fought suppression and oppression until I have become who I've become.

I think in English, I talk in English. I wasn't even fluent speaking Urdu and Punjabi until I was 18yrs of age. The women in my family were not backwards, my Mum was the head of the family, and she was a strong independent woman who made sure Dad could never engage in polygamy in this country (as he had done before in Pakistan before they migrated to Birmingham). But don't get me wrong -- I'm a Muslim alright.

This is a key point.

According to the extremists, Gina Khan is not a Muslim -- she is takfir.

Wikipedia explains takfir thus:

In Islamic law, takfir or takfeer is the practice of declaring unbeliever or kafir (pl. kuffār), an individual or a group previously considered Muslim. The act which precipitates takfir is termed the mukaffir.

Conditions

This declaration may be made if the alleged Muslim in question declares himself a kafir, but more typically applies to a judgement that an action or statement by the alleged Muslim indicates his knowing abandonment of Islam.

[snip]

What constitutes sufficient justification for takfir is disputed between different schools of religious thought. The orthodox Sunni position is that sins do not in general prove that someone is not a Muslim, but that denials of fundamental religious principles do; thus a murderer, for instance, may still be a Muslim, but someone who denies that murder is a sin must be a kafir, as long as he is aware that murder is a sin in Islam. An extreme case is exemplified by the early Kharijites, some of whom concluded that any Muslim who sinned ceased to be a Muslim, while others concluded that any major sin could cause that.

Funny how the Kharijites -- the Khawarij -- should come up in this topic!

The following excerpt is from Jihad Without Rules: The Evolution of al-Takfir wa al-Hijra by Hayder Mili, June 29, 2006. Notice how the term takfir here is used to refer to those who believe in the concept of takfir and incorporate it into extremist ideology.

The September 11 attacks precipitated the uncovering of extensive al-Takfir wa al-Hijra (Excommunication and Exile) networks across Europe specialized in logistical support to terrorist groups. While the obscure group had been previously encountered by law enforcement, many were surprised at the extent and reach of its networks. Once thought of as nothing more than a fringe group in Egypt, in the last 15 years the ideology has undergone a surprising internationalization and evolution with Takfir groups involved in terrorist attacks, criminal activities and cooperating with the al-Qaeda network in its jihad against the West.

The Doctrine

Most contemporary Takfir doctrine was forged inside Egyptian jails following the great wave of arrests targeting the Muslim Brotherhood in the mid-1960s where many of its members were tortured and/or executed. One of those arrested, the sheikh of Egypt's al-Azhar mosque, Ali Ismael, postulated that not only were Egyptian President Nasser and his entourage apostates, but so was Egyptian society as a whole because it was not fighting the Egyptian government and had thus accepted rule by non-Muslims. This was another radical turn in the concept of takfir (to excommunicate), first enunciated by Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and further developed by Sayyid Qutb, both intellectual pillars of the contemporary jihadist ideology. While the sheikh later rejected this doctrine, his remaining followers quickly gravitated around a young charismatic agronomist by the name of Shukri Mustafa, who became the spiritual leader of Jama'at al-Muslimin (as they called themselves) but whom Egyptian police came to call al-Takfir wa al-Hijra (ATWAH).

Takfir members exiled themselves (al-Hijra) in the desert practicing complete isolation (al-Uzla) from excommunicated (al-Takfir) Muslim societies. While jihad certainly remained an imperative, Shukri Mustafa initially believed that an imminent world war between the superpowers would leave free reign to the jihadists—then too weak—to take power. Arguing that Egyptian man-made laws were illegitimate, ATWAH was able to justify theft, kidnapping, forced marriages and even the assassination of anyone who was not part of the group (such as apostates). Most of these core precepts are still loosely followed by contemporary Takfir groups.

These extremist groups were "able to justify theft, kidnapping, forced marriages and even the assassination of anyone who was not part of the group" -- in other words, they became murders, criminals, terrorists -- Khawarij!

Here is an excerpt from Maulana Maudoodi’s article: Mischief of Takfir:

In the period of the decline of the Muslims, among the many troubles that have arisen, one serious and dangerous mischief is that of declaring one another as kafir and wrong-doer, and cursing one another. People introduced cracks within the plain and simple creed of Islam, and by means of inference and interpretation they created from them such branches and details as were mutually contradictory, and which were not explained in the Quran and Sunna, and even if these were, then God and His Prophet had not given them any importance. Then these servants of God (may God forgive them) gave so much importance to their own invented side-issues that they made them the criteria for faith, and on the basis of these they tore Islam to pieces, and made numerous sects, each sect calling every other as kafir, wrong-doer, misguided, doomed to hell, and God knows what. Whereas God in His clear Book had drawn a plain line of distinction between kufr and Islam, and had not given anyone the right to have discretion to declare anything he wants as kufr and anything he wants as Islam. Whether the cause of this mischief is narrow-mindedness with good intentions, or selfishness, envy and self-seeking with malevolent intentions, the fact remains that probably nothing else has done the Muslims as much harm as this has done.

"Whether the cause of this mischief is narrow-mindedness with good intentions, or selfishness, envy and self-seeking with malevolent intentions, the fact remains that probably nothing else has done the Muslims as much harm as this has done."

And that came out in May, 1935!

The more things change....

Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Pride of Lions continues.