Members of a group regarded as an 'organisation of concern’ by the Home Office has secured large government grants for schools, reports Andrew Gilligan.
Leading members of a group that wants to bring down the British state and replace it with a dictatorship under Islamic law have secured more than £100,000 of taxpayers’ money for a chain of schools.
Accounts filed at the Charity Commission show that the Government paid a total of £113,411 last year to a foundation run by senior members and activists of Hizb ut-Tahrir - a notorious Islamic extremist group that ministers promised to ban.
The public money helped run a nursery school and two Islamic primary schools where children are taught key elements of Hizb’s ideology from the age of five.
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, last night described the disclosure as “astonishing and outrageous” and accused the Government of “sleeping on the job”.
Hizb regards integration as “dangerous” and says that British Muslims should “fight assimilation” into British society. It wants to create a global Islamic superstate, or “caliphate”, initially in Muslim-majority countries and then across the rest of the world.
It says that “those [Muslims] who believe in democracy are Kafir”, or apostates. It orders all Muslims to keep apart from non-believers and boycott “corrupt” British elections and political processes. It has a tiny following and its views are rejected by most British Muslims.
Hizb, which operates worldwide, insists it is non-violent and condemned the London bombings.
However its website previously displayed a leaflet urging Muslims to “kill [Jews] wherever you find them” and at a rally in London earlier this year, Imran Waheed, its chief media adviser in Britain, said that there could be “no peace” with Israel, calling on Muslims to “fight” a “jihad… in the way of Allah” against it.
Its anti-Semitism has resulted in the group being banned in Germany and on some British university campuses.
After the bombings in London on July 7, 2005, Tony Blair, who was then prime minister, also promised to ban Hizb, describing it as “fanatical”.
A ban has not been introduced but the Tories have pledged to outlaw the group and the Home Office continues to regard it as an “organisation of concern”.
The three schools - in Tottenham, north London, and Slough, Berks - are run by the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, a registered charity. The foundation’s lead trustee is Yusra Hamilton, a leading Hizb activist who is married to Taji Mustafa, the group’s chief spokesman in Britain. Read more here ...
A British government funded organization has donated nearly £50,000 to a Muslim Brotherhood connected organization, according to a UK think tank. The Center for Social Cohesion, an organization specializing in the study of extremism in Britain, reports that Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) established in 2007 to "work with Muslim organisations to tackle violent extremism" had donated £48,000 pounds (almost $80,000) to the Muslim Welfare House (MWH)
MWH is a member of Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE.) The FIOE serves as an umbrella organization for most European Brotherhood group, according to analyst Lorenzo Vidino. The House has had on its board such extremists as Mohammed Sawalha, a former Hamas leader. Earlier this year, Sawalha signed a declaration in Istanbul in support of Hamas. One of the clauses in the document called for fighting "by all ways and means' foreign navies preventing the smuggling of arms into Gaza. The British navy was engaged in that very activity. Other MWH officials have had definite Muslim Brotherhood ties, according to the think tank.
None of the extremists are currently on the board of MWH. However, its ties to FIOE remain. At a time in which the UK is subject to intense international criticism for the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi the convicted Lockerbie bomber, the British government would do well to more closely vet the recipients of its largesse.
Despite his sectarian, racist incitements that Jews are "scum...rats...pigs and monkeys," the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abdul Rahman al Sudais, has been welcomed and invited to preach at the East London mosque in Whitechapel tonight, Tuesday evening, 4 August 2009.
Al-Sudais, who has close ties to the Saudi elite, has also insulted Christians and Hindus, referring disparagingly to Christians as "cross-worshippers" and Hindus as "idol worshippers".
He has been banned from Canada for his anti-Semitism.
The chairman of the East London mosque is Muhammad Abdul Bari. He is also the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).
Although the MCB has condemned anti-Semitism, it has previously declined to criticise the anti-Semitism of al-Sudais and has continued to support him despite his anti-Jewish tirade.
As the anti-Israeli atmosphere in Britain intensifies by the day, Britain’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee has now called on the British government to end its policy of not talking to the extreme anti-Semitic terror group Hamas while simultaneously urging the European Union to make its relationship with Israel conditional on good behaviour, the BBC is reporting today. The report was also carried in French and English by France’s top news agency, Agence France Presse.
The cross party group headed by Labour MP Michael Gapes — a self-declared friend of Israel — said that the policy of non-engagement with Hamas was ineffective. While criticising Hamas rocket attacks, it condemned Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza as “disproportionate”, criticised the blockade of Gaza, condemned settlement growth and urged the British Foreign Office to declare openly whether it believed Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza.
The committee had recommended reaching out to “moderates” in Hamas in 2007 but said such calls now had new impetus since Britain had begun engaging with the political wing of Hezbollah earlier this year.
Moves in this direction have been widely predicted and it may only be a matter of time before recognition of Hamas by the British government becomes a reality. The ground was laid in May when British Foreign Secretary David Miliband gave a speech in Oxford in which he sought to downplay the distinction between “moderates” and “extremists”. At the time, the Foreign Office denied that this was directed at Hamas.
But, in the context of last week’s announcement of a partial arms embargo by Britain against Israel and this latest parliamentary report, it seems clear that a paradigm shift is taking place in Britain’s attitudes to the Middle East.
Though famously unenthusiastic about European integration, Britain is perhaps the heaviest hitter in the EU in terms of foreign policy. Moves in Britain to recognise Hamas would undoubtedly strengthen the hand of constituencies across Europe which advocate a harder line on Israel and a softer line on groups such as Hamas.
For a broader explanation of why things have taken such a turn in Great Britain see my op-ed in the Jerusalem Post last week which is reproduced in an entry below.
To read the full BBC article referred to above, click here:
Message of hate: Anjem Choudary urges Britain to adopt public stonings, amputations for criminals and wants to see the flag of Islam over Downing Street
By Andrew Malone
On a hot summer afternoon, a man with a microphone stands on a busy London street. He is a tubby figure and sports a black, bushy beard, flecked with grey. He is shrieking at passing shoppers, insisting they follow him - and save their souls.
Teams of young, tough-looking men - all clearly devoted to their leader - dart through the crowds, handing out leaflets and haranguing anyone who questions their message.
From the other side of the street, you could be forgiven for thinking this is a harmless, if colourful, example of citizens making full use of Britain's ancient tradition of free speech.
But there is nothing harmless about what is really going on here. For the man with the microphone is Anjem Choudary, branded the most dangerous man in Britain.
An extremist who believes his sole-calling is to wage holy war against Britain and her 'infidel' allies, he is trying - and succeeding - to prepare the ground for his global Islamic jihad.
Funded by the taxpayer - he claims benefits so that he has plenty of free time to spread his message - Choudary is openly staging these 'Islamic roadshows' across Britain. And their aim is to recruit young British men prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for his chilling cause. Read more ...
The British government’s announcement to open a dialogue with “the political wing of Hizballah” is most troubling. In a statement to a parliamentary committee, Bill Rammell, the British foreign office’s minister for Middle East affairs, rationalized the decision on the grounds of what his office perceives to be “more positive developments within Lebanon.”
This British declaration underscores a pervasive failure to properly understand the structure of the Iranian-backed terrorist organization. At worst, the call to distinguish between the group's political and military wings (in terms of decision-making) may be driven by a desire to construct imaginary facts for diplomatic and political purposes. Are officials selling a false image of what Hizballah is so that they join the foray of the “sitting, talking and listening” with Iran and Syria's regimes now underway?
Very possible. But it would have been much better to inform the public that the government intends to talk to a terrorist organization for purpose of national interest, rather than claiming the talks are only with the political wing. Eight years after 9/11 and the subsequent attacks worldwide, citizens are much better informed about jihadi organizations than they were in the 1990s. Officials in the UK and the US must realize that claiming there are two Hizballah(s) will not fly with most of the public. Read more ...
When I was a prison doctor, not a few prisoners would demand tranquillizers from me, claiming to be so agitated that they would soon kill someone if they were not calmed down.
This was the kind of blackmail to which some of the doctors, especially the younger ones, did give in; but I quickly learned that it was both morally wrong and inexpedient in practice to do so. Read more ...
It was just a minor story on a Friday about a Dutch politician being denied entry to Britain at a London airport. You might well have missed it. But it was an extremely important event for its broader meaning.
Geert Wilders, a member of the Netherlands parliament, was invited to Britain by a member of the House of Lords. The invitation asked Wilders to show his 17-minute film Fitna, which he made last year. Fitna juxtaposes quotes from the Koran with images of Islamofascists attacking and murdering various non-Muslims.
Last year there were riots around the world by Muslims against this “anti-Islamic” film. None of the protesters claimed that the quotes from the Koran were inaccurate, nor did they claim that the murders and assaults depicted were in any way inaccurate.
The day before Wilders was to fly to London, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith told Wilders not to come because “his opinions would threaten security.” Wilders made the trip anyway, and was arrested at the airport in London and put on another flight back to Amsterdam. While he was on the ground in London, he condemned Britain for stopping him. He called the British government “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe.” Read more ...
February 12 was a black day for Britain. A democratically elected, law-abiding member of the Dutch parliament was treated like a criminal, seized at Heathrow airport, and sent home. A man who has not preached a word of violence, but has himself received death threats, was summarily ejected from this country in an uncivil and in every way uncivilized fashion, by a Home Office that welcomes criminals and terrorists with open arms. Why? Because his film Fitna tells uncomfortable truths about Islam. The expression “Churchill would be turning in his grave,” sometimes hyperbolically trotted out in reaction to a banned piggy bank or halal pizza parlor, now fits.
The story of the British government’s gutless appeasement has been eloquently told at this site by Andrew Ian Dodge and Mike McNally. The government’s cowardice is beyond dispute, and I have little to add to what has already been said on that subject here and elsewhere. It is the unthinking haste of the decision that I wish to consider, specifically what this shows about how the government sees Muslims.
The capitulation is all the more craven because it was reflexive and practically instantaneous. Foreign Secretary David Miliband admitted that he had not even seen Fitna, but claimed he didn’t need to because he “knew what was in it” — just as the barely literate book-burners of Bradford “knew” what was in Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. His consideration of the matter went no further than “nasty about Muslims — must be stopped.” Read more ...
On Thursday, February 12, visiting Dutch politician Geert Wilders was humiliatingly bundled back on to a plane to his native Holland shortly after arriving in London. Wilders had been invited to show his controversial, 17-minute documentary film, Fitna, in Britain’s House of Lords but was warned in a letter from the British Home Office last Tuesday he would be denied entry to the country. As reasons for his being declared persona non grata, Wilders was told in the letter he would “threaten community harmony and therefore public security.” The directive never stated, however, that the statements Wilders made in Fitna are false or misleading in any way.
A Muslim lord, Nazir Ahmed, and other Muslim leaders had vigorously protested Wilders’ visit, causing an initial invitation to be rescinded. It was reported that Ahmed had even threatened to mobilize 10,000 fellow Muslims to block Wilders from entering Westminster, a report Ahmed now denies. A cooler-headed peer, Lord Pearson, appalled at this attack on free speech, reissued the invitation to Wilders.
Daring the British government to put him in handcuffs, Wilders defiantly flew to Heathrow airport with the new invitation in his pocket. During the flight, Wilders expressed his opinion of Britain’s Labour government and its attempt to block his entry, telling the TimesOnline that it was now “more Chamberlain than Churchill.” Read more ...
A Dutch politician who is banned from Britain not because he's violent himself, but because the Islamists that have been welcomed to Britain could tear the joint apart
10-02-2009
Dutch Right-wing politician and controversial anti-Islam campaigner Geert Wilders has been refused entry to the United Kingdom despite being invited to visit by a member of the House of Lords, the British parliament's upper chamber.
Mr Wilders, who was due to go to London this Thursday, received a letter today, 10 February, from the British ambassador to the Netherlands telling him that he was not welcome, reportedly because his visit would constitute a threat to public order.
Mr Wilders responded to the decision in fighting mood, telling Dutch media that he still intended to travel to London: "I'll see what happens at the border. Let them put me in handcuffs."
Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen's response was also firm. He contacted his UK counterpart, David Miliband, by telephone and voiced his dissatisfaction that a member of the Dutch parliament - Geert Wilders is in fact also the leader of a political grouping, the Freedom Party - has been prohibited from entering a fellow European Union member state.
Geert Wilders, perhaps best known outside the Netherlands for having made the video Fitna, in which the religion Islam and its holy book the Qu'ran are attacked as providing a basis for terrorist attacks and for the undermining of western democracy and values, had been invited to London for a showing of this film to members of the British parliament.
The invitation to do so was extended to the controversial Dutch politician by a member of the unelected House of Lords.
Mr Verhagen commented regarding the showing of Fitna in the British parliament that this was a matter for the House of Lords to decide on, but added: "the fact that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country is highly regrettable."
Geert Wilders was initially to have shown his video to the British parliament in January, but those plans were cancelled following fierce protests from the UK's Muslim community.
Source: Radio Netherlands
British Government Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
LONDON, Jan 23 (APP)‑The British Parliament has cancelled the showing of a controversial film “Fitna” by the right‑win Dutch MP Geert Wilders following vociferous protest by the Muslim community.
The screening was to take place on January 29 at the House of Lords.
The decision to cancel the showing was taken on Friday when Lord Nazir Ahmed had a meeting with the Government Chief Whip of the House of Lords and Leader of the House of Lords, together with representatives from the Muslim Council of Britain, British Muslim Forum and other representatives from the British Muslim community.
The film has created huge controversy around the world, especially in Europe. The decision by the Amsterdam Appeals Court, the second‑highest legal authority in the country, overturns an earlier ruling by the Dutch Prosecution Service, which last June dismissed hundreds of complaints against Wilders on the grounds that his utterances had been made “in the context of public debate”, a position that was endorsed by the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, a Christian Democrat.
But on Thursday, the appeals court argued that the criminal prosecution did not conflict with Wilders’ right to freedom of expression and said it based its decision on the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights.
The Far-right Dutch politician will now be put on trial for his public statements against Islam. As a result of the meeting at the House of Lords not going ahead, all protests and demonstrations have now been cancelled Lord Ahmed termed the decision as “a victory for the Muslim community.” Read more ...
Islamic courts will be able to decide how a Muslim couple divide their money and property and who gets the children
By Steve Doughty
Islamic courts have been cleared to deal with family and divorce disputes.
Sharia tribunals will be able to decide how a Muslim couple divide their money and property and who gets the children.
The sole proviso from Jack Straw's Justice Ministry is that a formal law court must rubber-stamp the ruling.
This would be in the form of a two-page form sent to a judge sitting in a family court. The divorcing couple would not need to attend.
The decision follows nine months of controversy over the role of tribunals run according to Islamic strictures.
In February, Downing Street slapped down the Archbishop of Canterbury when he suggested the rise of sharia law seemed 'unavoidable'.
But in July, Lord Phillips, who has since retired as Lord Chief Justice, said sharia principles could be the basis for resolving family and business disputes.
Muslim ministers have warned that sharia should not have an official role because it accords unequal status to men and women.
Giving more weight to evidence from men could hand them a greater share of property and enhanced custody rights.
Lawyers said yesterday that using the secretive family courts to endorse sharia decisions would draw a veil over matters of wide public interest.
Critics of the idea said yesterday advancing the role of Islamic tribunals would further marginalise isolated minority communities.
The endorsement of sharia was announced to MPs by Bridget Prentice, a junior justice minister.
She said the councils would still have no jurisdiction in England and that rulings by religious authorities had no legal force.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, provoked controversy when he suggested the rise of sharia law seemed 'unavoidable'
But Miss Prentice added: 'If, in a family dispute dealing with money or children, the parties to a judgment in a sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court.
'This allows English judges to scrutinise it to ensure that it complies with English legal tenets.'
A consent order allows couples to have a 'clean break' divorce in which there are no long-term maintenance payments.
The orders can be approved only where a couple have negotiated and agreed all aspects of their break-up such as money, debts, property and children. The family court judge must decide whether the agreement is reasonable and ensure no side has been disadvantaged.
The great majority of consent orders are approved.
Barrister Neil Addison said yesterday: 'If the system works, the judge will not allow an agreement where there has been pressure on one party. He allows a consent order only if the agreement seems reasonable.
'However most mediation of disputes takes place in private and agreements are approved in open court. This is different - the original sharia law is secret and so is the judgment.'
Robert Whelan, of the Civitas think-tank, said: 'The problem with the Government's attitude is the big question over how far submission to sharia courts is voluntary among Muslim women.
'Women who live in some communities may have no option but to go to the sharia court. The case is then rubber-stamped by a family court without any of us knowing how the decision was reached.'
Islamic tribunals have authority to make decisions in business and financial disputes where both parties agree to accept arbitration.
Five sharia courts operate mediation systems under the Arbitration Act of 1996.
But financial disputes are less controversial because they are much less likely to raise problems over the status of women.
AN Egyptian al-Qaeda suspect and his family have won permission to live in Britain - and claim hundreds in benefits a month.
Ministers gave Hany Youssef “discretionary leave to remain”, even though the Home Office admits he is on a UN list of people “belonging to or linked” to the terror group.
The decision means he can stay in Britain with his wife and five kids up to 2011. He is also free to claim housing benefit, child tax credits and Jobseekers’ Allowance.
They have already been living in a house in Hammersmith, West London, at taxpayers’ expense. Read more ...
Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members.
Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.
Posts
