Blog Archives

Shafiq and Dr. Shafiq – Moderate Muslims?


Mohammed Shafiq

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mohammed Shafiq

 

                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                Dr. Muhammad Shafiq  

 

John R. Houk

© September 19, 2014

 

Let’s look at Mohammed Shafiq the CEO of the Muslim British youth group Ramadhan Foundation. I was a bit confused because I read an article about a speaker at St John’s Church on Humboldt Street who had given a speech on ISIS. The St John’s speaker was listed as Dr. Mohammed Shafiq. I suspect the writer was referring to Dr. Muhammad Shafiq a Muslim Professor and Executive Director at Nazareth College with the Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue (CISD). I will get to Dr. Shafiq in a moment in relation to the ISIS speech at St John’s.

 

Now Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation is considered by Muslim apologists and Left Wing multiculturalists to be a Moderate Muslim that denounces Islamic extremism. Indeed he has the death threats to back up credentials as a Moderate. Evidently the Somalian terrorist group al-Shabaab that was influential in the public beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of London in broad daylight issued the death threat to Shafiq via video. Al-Shabaab was perturbed for Mohammed Shafiq condemning the barbarity of Rigby’s beheading.

 

So that makes Shafiq the image of a good Muslim that we non-Muslim Westerners like to hear about, right? Hmm… Has anyone heard the claim that a good Muslim believes that the pseudo-prophet Mohammed was the perfect man in Islam? In order to be a good Muslim one is to struggle to emulate the perfect man pseudo-prophet Mohammed.

 

Somehow Muslims seem to be only aware of the tolerant merciful Mohammed in his early days in Mecca prior to fleeing to Medina in what has become known as the hijra. Something seemed to have warped Mo’s mind in Medina because evolved from a monotheistic cult religious leader to a robbing bandit and finally to a vindictive conquering army leader killing and assassinating enemies with a special vengeance reserved for Jews. Thus emulating the perfect man (graphic 22 minute slide show) becomes problematic for me.

 

I sense that Mohammed Shafiq desires to be a good Moderate Muslim, but when push comes to shove, defending the principles of Islam overrules the Western image of a good Muslim and is replaced by the Islamic image of a good Muslim.

 

When there was a sex scandal involving numerous Muslim men enslaving young female sex-slaves in Shafiq’s British hometown of Rochdale:

 

Together Against Grooming (Tag) was organised in the wake of the convictions of Muslim men in British courts for a series of horrific cases, including in Derby, Rochdale, Telford, Bradford and Oxford, where on Thursday five men were jailed for life and two others received long sentences for the sexual abuse of girls. (Muslim youth leader says more must be done to fight grooming; By Haroon Siddique; The Guardian; 9/28/13 15.01 EDT)

 

The Muslim youth leader in title is Mohammed Shafiq. Shafiq in this article was shown to praising a Muslim sermon that denounced this purist Muslim treatment of young white British sex-slave gals. But at the same time Shafiq takes a walk on the racist side yet not mentioning Islam. From Debbie Schlussel:

 

At least one Muslim has the guts to tell the truth about his people, though he falsely couches it in purely ethnic, rather than religious terms:

 

‘There is a particular problem with groups of Pakistani men who think white girls are worthless,’ said Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation. ‘They think they can use and abuse these girls in this abhorrent sort of way and then discard them.’ (UK Muslims Gang Raped White Girls b/c They Weren’t Muslim; Islamic Studies Teacher @ Mosque; By Debbie Schlussel; DebbieSchlussel.com; 5/9/12 2:56 pm)

 

To get a grasp of the emulation of the pseudo-prophet became a cultural rift in the UK this is a rather horrid description of what these British white sex-slaves went through:

 

The girls were repeatedly raped, often by groups of men several men at a time, and some were subjected to “torture sex” tortured, the jury heard. The three-and-a-half month trial at the Old Bailey exposed a series of failings by Thames Valley Police and Oxford social services. Despite being told on several occasions by the girls and their parents about their abuse, the two organisations failed to act until 2010.

 

One of the defendants, Mohammed Karrar – who was accused of branding an 11-year-old, forcing her a girl of 12 to have an abortion when she was 12 and subjecting her to gang rapes – initially refused to come up from his cell.

 

The mother of Girl C – who told the Guardian she had begged social services staff to rescue her from the gang – said that her daughter’s abusers had threatened to cut the girl’s face off. and promised to slit the throats of her family members. She said that they had been forced to leave their home after the men had threatened to decapitate family members. (Oxford child sex abuse ring ‘threatened to cut off victim’s face’; By Alexandra Topping; The Guardian; 6/26/13 11.50 EDT)

 

Then to cap it off, Mohammed Shafiq became upset over some quite innocuous comments from fellow Moderate Muslim and fellow British Liberal Democrat member when in an interview/question & answer session flippantly ignored a couple of teen kids portraying Jesus and Mohammed respectively on their T-shirts.

 

Abishek Phadnis och Chris Moos

 

Here’s the scenario:

 

In 2013, two students from the London School of Economics (LSE), a major UK university in central London, set up their stall at the annual freshers’ fair (an event bringing together representatives of various clubs and societies to advertise to new students) for the LSE Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society to which they belong.

 

At the fair, Chris Moos and Abishek Phadnis each wore a ‘Jesus and Mo’ t-shirt – shirts featuring a cartoon from the Jesus and Mo series (www.jesusandmo.net) which satirises Jesus and Mohammed.

 

Chris and Abishek were immediately ordered to remove the shirts because wearing them apparently amounted to “harassment”. When they refused to do so, their stall was surrounded by uniformed security who threatened to remove them from university premises by force.

 

Later, the university apologised to the two students.

 

In January of this year, guests on the BBC Sunday morning show “The Big Questions” discussed causing offence to religious sensibilities. Chris and Abishek were invited to offer their views. When presenter Nicky Campbell questioned them on the t-shirt affair, Chris and Abishek opened their jackets to reveal the offending garments. The BBC camera operators made sure we did not get a clear view however.

 

Also on the programme was Maajid Nawaz. Nawaz is a former Islamist and member of Hizb ut-Tahrir who spent time in an Egyptian jail and now heads the anti-extremism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, which hit the headlines in 2013 having begun work with the former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson. Nawaz is also a Parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrat Party.

 

To demonstrate that he, a believing Muslim, was not offended by the depictions of Mohammed displayed in the Jesus and Mo series, Nawaz tweeted a copy of the cartoon saying that it did not upset him. (Blasphemy returns to Britain; By Anne Marie Waters; Dispatch International; 2/18/14)

 

Just so we are on the same page here. Maajid Nawaz a former Radical Muslim turned Moderate who has associated with Counterjihad enthusiast Tommy Robinson (who is often accused wrongfully of being a neo-Nazi) tweeted photos of the capricious young college students wearing the Jesus and Mo T-shirt parody. You need to catch that Nawaz operates an “anti-extremism think-tank” called the Quilliam Foundation.

 

How did the Moderate Muslim Mohammed Shafiq handle Maajid Nawaz tweeting Jesus-Mo caricatures? Shafiq put out the word to fellow Muslims and to crazy Radical Muslims that are terrorists that Nawaz was a blasphemer. And how does Islam handle blaspheming the pseudo-prophet Mohammed? A death sentence is issued. Now that is true Islam.

 

Mohammed Shafiq has tried to walk back any involvement in the get-even and dump fellow Liberal Democrat Nawaz. I look how Nick Cohen of The Observer puts it:

 

At the time we went to press, about 20,000 people had signed Shafiq’s petition to Nick Clegg, saying that the tweet had caused an “extreme amount of insult, hurt and anguish”. The Lib Dems must stop Nawaz standing as their candidate in Hampstead and Kilburn at the next general election, they demanded.

 

 

Shafiq denies that he is spreading fear and if you had not done the research you might believe him. Certainly, you could think him a man who can snuffle out offence where no one else can find it. You could think that the 20,000 or so who have signed his petition are so desperate for reasons to censor that they will manufacture them. But this is a free country and they are entitled to their hysterias.

 

But to put it as politely as I can, Shafiq is not your standard Liberal Democrat. He is in charge of the Ramadhan Foundation, which has hosted speakers whose attitudes towards gay people and Jews are anything but liberal. To make sure that Nawaz felt the full force of his critique, Shafiq slipped an aside into his open letter to Nick Clegg. He talked of Nawaz’s “expected, suspected, wanted reaction from the minority of unhinged in those communities”. Nawaz was deliberately soliciting attacks from the “unhinged”, apparently. He expected them. He wanted them. And if the unhinged should assault or kill him – he had no one to blame but himself. Shafiq told me that he did not mean that Nawaz was inciting his own murder, but I struggle see how else his followers can interpret his words.

 

On Twitter, Shafiq went further and gave a masterclass in double speak. “Ghustaki Rasool Quilliam,” he tweeted. Most of his audience had no idea what he meant. A few knew all too well. “Ghustaki Rasool” is “defamer of the prophet” in Urdu: a charge that incites Islamists to murder. Fanatics took to Twitter to prove the point. “Have spoken to someone in Pakistan,” one of Shafiq’s followers replied. “They will have a surprise for him on his next visit!” Another Twitter user contacted Nawaz to say: “Gustak e rasool is punishable by death anywhere in the world. Btw I’m in the UK not Pakistan.” A third cried that “dogs like Maajid Nawaaz will be punished!” (The Liberal Democrats face a true test of liberty; By Nick Cohen; The GuardianThe Observer; 1/25/14 13.04 EST)

 

At any rate the leader of the UK’s Liberal Democrat Party must have been doing some arm twisting. In a joint statement signed by both Maajid Nawaz and Mohammed Shafiq they offer a bit of give and take publicly which I doubt makes either one happy privately.

 

 

“We recognise that, when it comes to this question, some Muslims of various persuasions may take different views. However, we also recognise that there are many Muslims who have taken offence, and we assert that images of the spiritual leaders of all religions should be deemed to be respectful. We also respect the freedom of every member of the Liberal Democrats on either side of this debate who feels offended by tone or language to make representations to the Liberal Democrats as is their democratic right.

 

“We are both Liberals and support the principle of freedom of speech. But we also understand the importance of respect for others’ views and of moderation of language. In so far as this second principle of moderate language has been breached in the heat and passion of the current debate, we regret this and call for all those who have differing views to ensure that any debate which continues on this subject should use language and attitudes which conform to Liberal standards of respect and moderation.

 

“We now call on those on both sides of this argument to return to moderate debate, free of insult and threat and we do so because we believe this is in the interests of our Party, of the wider Muslim community in Britain and of the principles of peace to which Islam is committed.” (Statement by Maajid Nawaz and Mohammed Shafiq; Posted by The Voice; Liberal Democrat Voice; 1/28/14 12:10 pm)

 

Okay, that was about the good Moderate Muslim Mohammed Shafiq, born and raised in the United Kingdom.

 

Now let’s look at Dr. Muhammad Shafiq of Pakistani origin and a Muslim inter-faith Professor at a Christian college called Nazareth College located in Rochester, NY. The college’s origins in 1924 derived from Roman Catholic Sisters of St Joseph but there is no mention of Catholicism in the private school’s current curriculum. The college seems to have evolved from a parochial school to a Liberal (and I’m not talking liberal arts here) multicultural diversity slant in its current curriculum.

 

I have to tell you that Dr. Shafiq’s public character is representative of what an American would call a Moderate Muslim. He is the Executive Director of Rochester College’s interfaith program which seems to me to emphasize Islam more a typical Religious Studies collegiate program that usually examines all the global religions equally. Now granted secular college Religious Studies programs usually de-emphasize the Christian faith; however there is a close examination of the major religions that will include Islam. Dr. Shafiq’s direct connection to the Islamist organization the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and his seeming promotion of Islamic interfaith understanding with American culture suggests an Islamic emphasis at Nazareth College. This is America and if the privately funded Nazareth College that had its beginning within a NY State Catholic Diocese has no problem with a person at least sympathetic with Radical Islam then who am I to complain. The only criticism I have is that IIIT representation smacks of deception in the portrayal of a peaceful Islam. It might be a good idea to examine the IIIT bona fides.

 

Clarion Project on IIIT

 

 

The decision to establish IIIT was made at a major Islamist conference in Lugano, Switzerland in 1977. A lead organizer was a senior member of the Egyptian Brotherhood that was also the father-in-law of Ahmed Elkadi, the president of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood from 1984 to 1994. Participants included the leaders of other Brotherhood-originated groups like the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Students Association and non-American Brotherhood leaders like Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi.[5]

 

 

Swiss police raided Nada’s home in 2001 and discovered a secret 1982 Brotherhood plan called “The Project” that called for infiltrating countries around the world in order to advance the Islamist agenda. A stated goal is supporting jihad for “the establishment of an Islamic State, in parallel with gradual efforts aimed at gaining control of local power centers through institutional action.”[7]

 

A 1988 FBI file states that IIIT board members Jamal Barzinji and Yaqub Mirza are among those “previously characterized as … members and leaders of the IKHWAN [Muslim Brotherhood].”[8]Another 1988 FBI document states that a source inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network “advised that the IIIT … and all the subsidiary and sponsoring Muslim organizations under the control of the IIIT … are in fact IKHWAN organizations.”

 

A source told the FBI that IIIT leaders speak of a six-stage plan to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The leaders “indicated that in this phase, their organization needs to peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.” They “claimed success in infiltrating the United States government with sympathetic of [or] compromised individuals.” The source believed IIIT was only in the first stage.

 

The FBI source warned that the Brotherhood has “unlimited funds” and has “set up political action front groups with no traceable ties to the IIIT or its various Muslim groups.” In a document made public, the FBI redacted the name of a Brotherhood leader, presumably within IIIT, that the source claims “stated that Muslims in the United States have to be prepared for martyrdom.”[9]

 

In 1991, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo stated its “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” The same memo listed IIIT as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”

 

 

In 2002, the headquarters of IIIT was raided as part of a terrorism-financing investigation called Operation Green Quest. The probe continued until at least 2007 when the U.S. government tried to force convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian to testify before a grand jury about his links to the organization.[10] IIIT was the largest donor to Sami al-Arian’s front for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group, providing at least $50,000. Al-Arian even said in a letter to IIIT’s president in 1992 that the two groups are one.[11]

 

IIIT employed a founder of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Bashir Musa Nafi, until he was deported in June 1996. Nafi was a close friend of Al-Arian’s. [12] Another IIIT employee, Tarik Hamdi, gave cell phone batteries to Osama Bin Laden, according to a former U.S. Treasury Department official in 2002.[13] In 2003, IIIT made a donation of $720 to the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation in Oregon. The Foundation was shut down as an Al-Qaeda front the following year.[14]

 

 

IIIT has long published and promoted Islamist texts. In 1990, it endorsed the English translation of an Islamist text on Sharia (Islamic) law, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Umdat al-Salik, calling it a “valuable and important” work for “teaching Islamic jurisprudence.” In 2001, it published a book authored by an IIIT official titled Violence that approved of attacks on Israeli civilians as “justified acts of a liberation struggle, not terrorism.”[16]

 

The organization’s website still lists Islamist books it has published. This includes at least three by Brotherhood spiritual leader Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi. Former IIIT president Taha Jabir Al-Alwani authored one text that complains that there are no academic institutions in the Muslim world that teach “the Islamic vision with the same force and persuasiveness” as Western ideas are taught in the West.[17]

 

READ ENTIRETY (International Institute of Islamic Thought; By RYAN MAURO; The Clarion Project; 4/2/13)

 

This IIIT profile by Ryan Mauro is just an excerpt. You really should read the entire article. Discover The Networks (DTN) also has an excellent essay on IIIT. Most of the information corroborates The Clarion Project exposé but for brevity’s sake here is an excerpt that adds some extra info.

 

DTN on IIIT

 

In the early 1990s, IIIT invented and promoted the term “Islamophobia,” a term which implies that any societal fear associated with Islam is necessarily irrational, even if that fear stems from the fact that Islam’s prophet and its modern-day imams call on believers to kill infidels, or from the fact that the 9/11 attacks were carried out to implement those calls. Moreover, the term suggests that any negative societal reaction to such exhortations to violence reflects a bigotry that itself should be feared.

 

Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad — who was with that organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected IIIT’s ideology and terminated his membership in disgust — now reveals the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them. This plan was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s deceptive “General Strategic Goal for North America.”

Although the term was coined in the early 1990s, “Islamophobia” did not become the focus of an active Brotherhood campaign until after 9/11.

 

Controlled by the extremist, Saudi-based Wahhabi movement, IIIT maintains that reports about mosques distributing hate-filled literature are untrue, and claims that the concept of jihad in no way condones or connotes violence. As an IIIT public-relations flyer puts it: “Jihad does not mean ‘holy war.’ Literally, jihad in Arabic means to strive, struggle and exert effort. It is a central and broad Islamic concept that includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense or fighting against tyranny or oppression.” …

 

 

IIIT is a prominent endorser of the book Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, an authoritative compendium of sharia written by an eminent 14th-century Islamic jurist. By IIIT’s reckoning, the English translation by Umdat al-Salik is “a valuable and important work” that is highly successful in “its aim to imbue the consciousness of the non-Arabic-speaking Muslim with a sound understanding of Sacred Law.” According to Andrew McCarthy, Reliance “denies freedom of conscience, explaining that apostasy from Islam is a death-penalty offense”; contends that “a Muslim apostatizes not only by clearly renouncing Islam but by doing so implicitly — such as by deviating from the ‘consensus of Muslims,’ or making statements that could be taken as insolence toward Allah or the prophet Mohammed”; “approves a legal caste system in which the rights and privileges of Muslims and men are superior to those of non-Muslims and women”; “penalizes extramarital fornication by stoning or scourging”; endorses the death penalty for homosexuals and for people who make interest-bearing loans; venerates jihad; and exhorts Muslims “to strive to establish an Islamic government, ruled by a caliph.” READ ENTIRETY (INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC THOUGHT (IIIT); Determine The Networks)

 

Muslim apologists will look you in the eyeballs and tell the Reliance of the Traveller is not accepted as authoritative among Sharia scholars. The reality Reliance is authoritative but it is not singular. The Reliance is one of many instructive tools used by Sharia scholars.

 

The second source text of Islamic jurisprudence used to prepare our summaries is Reliance of the Traveller, compiled and written in the 14th century by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri. Reliance of the Traveller is a systematic codification of the laws of the Shafii school of Sunni Islam. It is based primarily on the writings of Imam Rafii and Imam Nawawi,[3] scholars of Islamic law who lived in the 12th-13th centuries and in the 13th century, respectively[4]. Although it is based on the laws of only one of the Islamic legal schools, Reliance of the Traveller is more comprehensive and detailed in its discussion of Islamic law than The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer is. Therefore, there are a number of places where our summaries refer solely to the Shafii school because certain topics are discussed in Reliance of the Traveller but not in The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer. The English translation of Reliance of the Traveller also includes some sections written by a variety of commentators ranging from the 9th to the 20th centuries. In certain cases, we have cited these other commentators, always clearly noting that these citations are not from the Ibn Naqib’s original 14th century Reliance of the Traveller. On occasion, Keller’s translation of Reliance of the Traveller points out an alternative view of one of the schools other than the Shafii on a particular legal point and we have mentioned these variant interpretations in our summaries. When a footnote on this site designates a source as “RT” without any mention in the text or the footnote of the time from which the comment is taken, that means that the citation is to the translation of the original 14th century text of Ibn Naqib. The full title of the original work is Umdat al-salik wa uddat al-nasikThe Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper. The English translation by Nuh Ha Mim Keller is called: Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Our summaries of Reliance of the Traveller are based on the 1994 revised edition of this work published by Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, USA. (Laws of Religion – Source Texts Used for Laws of Islam: Jurisprudence of Schools of Islam; Religion Research Society; Last updated 10/23/12)

 

Al-Azhar University in Egypt can loosely be described as Sunni Islam’s versions of verified Islamic theology much like the Papacy is the final authority on all things Roman Catholic. Al-Azhar University has given the official stamp of approval to Reliance of the Traveller not only on the original medieval Arabic document but also the English translation by American converted to Islam Nuh Ha Mim Keller (now living in Jordan).

 

The Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994) is “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ’Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The publisher is listed as amana publications in Beltsville, Maryland.

 

This an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam. (A Complete Collapse of Reason; By Baron Bodissey; Right Side News; 6/24/14 06:16)

 

Counterjihadists point out that Reliance is a manual on how Muslims can become brutal human beings and justified by Islam. For a synopsis of that brutality you really should read Mapping Sharia’s exposé of Reliance. Mapping Sharia also provides a link to the PDF of the full English translation of Reliance. If you want to delve into all 1251 pages in confirmation, knock yourself out HERE.

 

Dr. Muhammad Shafiq is a proud member of IIIT. As a proud member of IIIT he ironically is actively drawing the picture of one desirous of an interfaith dialogue between Islam and the West. AND YET as a member of IIIT he has to be supportive that organization’s secretive goals of promoting a Radical Islam (a la Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Wahhabism) and a stealth infiltration of Western governments and culture to message acceptance of the antichrist religion of Islam.

 

Okay, I’ve spent a bit of time differentiating two Muslims with the same pronunciation of their names yet with different spelling. First I looked at Mohammed Shafiq and followed that by looking at Nazareth College/IIIT professor Dr. Muhammad Shafiq. Both try to project an image of a Moderate Muslim yet associations and actions expose that moderation as a probable deception.

 

At this point I intended to cross post Paul Sutliff’s LinkedIn page report entitled “Dr. Shafiq vs. Me”. I do believe I have ran out of time and space if you have actually read this far. So this is what I am going to do. I will first post this Shafiq and Dr. Shafiq examination then in a separate post I will cross post Mr. Sutliff’s report pointing back to my thoughts via a link.

 

As background it would do well for you to be cognizant of the portion of this post pertaining to Dr. Muhammad Shafiq. This will help you to understand Sutliff’s outrage about the good professor’s ISIS talk at St John’s Church on Humboldt Street in Rochester, NY on the date September 16, 2014.

 

(Mr. Sutliff actually re-edited his LinkedIn post and got it published at the blog calling itself The Independent Chronicle. I’ll be sticking with the LinkedIn version since that is what inspired me.)

 

JRH 9/19/14

Please Support NCCR

 

Look Out! The Muslim Red Coats are COMING!



Screen Capture Vimeo Video - Unholy War - British Muslims who want to Murder Christians

John R. Houk

© June 16, 2014

 

On June 1st I posted a Shamim Masih submission entitled “New Ideas, New Players”.

 

Shamim’s report exposed how badly Pakistan Muslims treated Pakistan Christians. Here is a short excerpt from the report to give you a snapshot of the brutality Christians experience at the hands of Muslims:

 

The worst is that their children, particularly young girls are the targets of their violence. Girls are kidnapped, raped and forced to convert to Islam. Young girls that refuse to convert and marry are beaten, physically tortured and either killed or simply raped and left to die naked in the wilderness. It is unfortunate that Christians do not have access to the legal system in Pakistan. Police arrest them for any crime they are accused of and they are really only accused of one crime: blasphemy, which carries an automatic death sentences. Judges in Pakistan know that if they ever find a Christian innocent of blasphemy that the judge and his family will be murdered.  …

 

I shared this at several Counterjihad exposé groups on Facebook. I wish I could remember a particular group that Dale G. Brown left a very simple link as a comment. I copied the link and emailed it to myself failing to include the Facebook link. Oops.

 

The link was to a Vimeo video that I tried without luck to find the carbon copy on Youtube. The reasoning is that all the blogs I post on makes Youtube embedding quite easy. At least one of my blogs only allows me to post Youtube but I will give it a shot just in case that blog location on WordPress now allows it. (It may be the case that I don’t know the trick to post Vimeo videos there.)

 

The Vimeo video is entitled “Dispatches – Unholy War – British Muslims who want to Murder Christians”. The title is fairly self-explanatory. Muslims in Britain have become numerous enough that have demanded the government to recognize Sharia Law and British Muslims have been dodging hate-crime and hate-speech crimes consistently enough that many Brits are beginning to wake up that Multiculturalism has failed in ensuring civil harmony.

 

American Leftists have not yet learned this lesson. Although Americans still have a greater degree of freedom in our First Amendment Rights then do the Brits or the Europeans for that matter, Leftists in the USA have gone to great lengths to accommodate Islamic apologists and activists in the name of Diverse Multiculturalism. These Islamic Supremacists are demanding government recognition of Sharia Law for Muslims even though that Muslim theopoliticalJurisprudence for the most part is unconstitutional especially under the enforcement of the First Amendment.

 

I’ll make the attempt to embed this video but if it doesn’t take watch on this link: https://vimeo.com/34627153

 

Here is the Vimeo summary found underneath the video:

 

Defend our Freedom! ACT NOW! Join us at Stop Islamization of the world! siotw.org/

 

When muslims convert to Christianity, muslim cult followers go temporary insane and wish to murder the apostate. Full video report on the dangers and intimidation faced by former Muslims who have converted to Christianity in Britain. Looks at how hundreds of such converts have to worship in secret and how there has been silence on the subject from Muslim and Christian leaders. Conversion is viewed within Islam as apostacy, punishable by death in some Islamic countries and advocated by radical Islamic groups.

 

JRH 6/16/14

Please Support NCCR

_______________________________

Look Out! The Muslim Red Coats are COMING!

John R. Houk

© June 16, 2014

_____________________________

Dispatches – Unholy War – British Muslims who want to Murder Christians

 

From raskolnikov

January 5, 2012 3:10 PM

 

From the SIOTW About IslamPage

 

Islam is NOT a religion of peace. By its nature Islam is radical, it has no shades.

Most people are simply unaware that Islam is NOT just another religion but a totalitarian political cult-like ideology, which compels its followers into blind obedience, teaches intolerance, brutality and locks all Muslims and non-Muslims in a struggle deriving directly from the 7th century nomadic, predatory, Bedouin culture.

Islam means “submission” to the will of Allah and the teachings as depicted in the Qur’an which include jihad – the genocidal slaughter of infidels by the sword, killing by beheading, intolerance of other religions, as well as forcing submission to Islam. The ultimate goal of jihad is the domination of Islam over the entire world.

In Islam, one is considered “moderate” if one supports the goals of jihad, if not the tactics. Those who totally reject the violent teachings of Islam are considered apostates of Islam and as such, are condemned to death. Moderate Muslims are peaceful “in spite of Islam,” not because of it. The “religion of peace” is a concept the West is eager to embrace – all in the name of political correctness – refusing to believe that a major world religion poses such a devastating threat to humanity.

This site is designed to show you the dark side of Islam, the REAL Islam that the West does not want you to see. The Islam that Western media refuse to show you. The Islam that is slowly but surely changing the West. You may feel uncomfortable looking at this site. You should. You will feel anger and disgust that our leaders do not understand Islam when it comes to the motives that drive our enemies to commit suicide for their ideology.

Look at the photos, watch the videos, most of which come right out of the Muslim world, a world that glorifies death and destruction of all that is not Islamic. Understand that elements of Sharia law are creeping into our daily lives under shelter of religious freedom. Listen and learn about the real Islam, then tell your family and friends.

Do not fear being labeled an ‘Islamophobe.’ Winston Churchill was once accused of being a ‘Naziphobe.’

Sharia courts in Britain


No Sharia for America

ACT for America found a British video that was secretly taken in a Sharia Court that is legal in the UK. If the Muslim Brotherhood linked Muslim organizations like CAIR have their way then America could experience Sharia Courts which will act contrarily to the U.S. Constitution rule of law. Regardless of the propaganda that organizations such as CAIR use to deceive the MSM and the non-Muslim American people, the Counterjihad movement promoting American Laws for American Courts (ALAC – See Also HERE) is an imperative to make sure Constitutional Law trumps religious and foreign laws if those laws are not a part of Constitutional Law in the USA.

 

JRH 7/17/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Sharia courts in Britain:
A hidden camera report

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: 15 Jul 2013 09:27:40 -0700 (PDT)

 

This stunning, disturbing, eye-opening hidden camera investigative report is a MUST SEE!

Go inside a sharia court in Britain and ask yourself: Do we want this in the United States???

Hamas-connected CAIR claims that American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation is “anti-Muslim.”

When you watch this must see video below, you’ll see how dishonest that CAIR claim is. That’s because the Muslim women abused by the sharia court system in Britain would be protected under ALAC.

 

VIDEO: The Secrets Of Britain’s Sharia Councils: Hidden Camera Report

 

_______________________

Editor: The Bold Emphasis in the ACT email is arranged by me. Originally ACT emails are delivered in Bold Print.

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

 

The lesson from London


Lee Rigby - UK soldier decapitated London

An ACT for America email writes about the foolishness of President Barack Hussein Obama declaring the war on terror is now over.

 

Before I get to that email here is Liz Trotta of Fox News editorializing on BHO’s timing on declaring the war on terror over:

 

VIDEO: Obama Says The War On Terror is Over! – Is The War On Terror Really Over? – Liz Trotta Commentary

 

  

Now below is the ACT for America email which includes an editorial from the Wall Street Journal by Douglas Murray.

 

JRH 5/30/13

Please Support NCCR

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

The lesson from London

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: 5/28/2013 1:35 PM

 

“How many ignored warnings does it take?”

 

Douglas Murray of the London-based Henry Jackson society wrote an excellent column last week for The Wall Street Journal (see below).

The subtitle states, “Britain has been in denial about the Islamist threat.”

So true. It’s very disturbing that this same denial permeates the thinking of far too many of America’s political, academic, media, counterterrorism and law enforcement leadership.

An Associated Press story over the weekend, referring to President Obama’s national security speech late last week, began this way:

“Some call it wishful thinking, but President Barack Obama has all but declared an end to the global war on terror.”

The reason Obama has done so is because he sees only al Qaida and its affiliates as a threat. Doing so misses the point.

The point is the “war on terror” is not confined to one organization and is not limited by geography, but is defined by those who subscribe to jihadist ideology. Denial won’t change this fact.

Our federal government continues to lead us down the very same path that has failed so miserably in Great Britain and much of Europe.

________________

The London Terror Attack Was More Than ‘Unforgivable’

Britain has been in denial about the Islamist threat. Time to face it down.

 

DOUGLAS MURRAY

London

 

How many ignored warnings does it take? That is one question that should hang over Britain after the horror of the daytime murder of a British soldier on the streets of south London. On Wednesday afternoon, Drummer Lee Rigby was killed in Woolwich by two men wielding large knives and shouting “Allahu akbar”—God is great.

Islamists have been saying for years they would do this. They have planned to do it. And now they have done it.

Related Video

 

clip_image002

WSJ Europe editorial writer Ray Zhong on the alleged terror attack in London Wednesday, and what it says about the wider war on terrorism. Photo: Getty Images

 

The attack itself is not surprising. What is surprising is that British society remains so utterly unwilling not just to deal with this threat, but even to admit its existence. Politicians have called the Woolwich killing “unforgivable” and “barbarous.” But expressions of anger should not really be enough.

Attempts to attack military targets in Britain go back to before the millennium and even before, it is important to note, the war on terror. In 1998 Amer Mirza, a member of the now-banned extremist group al Muhajiroun, attempted to petrol-bomb British army barracks. In 2007, a cell of Muslim men was found guilty of plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier in Birmingham. The plan had been to take the soldier to a lock-up garage and cut off his head “like a pig.” They wanted to film this act on camera and send it around the world to cause maximum terror.

In 2009, al Muhajiroun protested at a homecoming parade in Luton for British troops returning from Afghanistan. Carrying banners saying “go to hell,” “butchers” and “terrorists,” the group was protected by British police officers from an increasingly irate crowd of locals. The resulting outrage toward the police gave rise to the deeply troubling English Defence League, a street protest movement that often turns violent.

 

clip_image003
National News/Zuma Press

Police in Woolwich, south London, after Wednesday’s attack.

Now comes the attack in Woolwich, which the perpetrators—as with the earlier cell—wished to be observed and even filmed. Reports suggest that they invited people to capture their actions on video. The perpetrators gave interviews, machetes in hand, to bystanders with cameras. This horrific scene is something that will stick in the memory.

But it should also have been foreseen. Instead we entered the stage of denial. For there is already, in the reaction to events, more than a hint of what I have previously termed “Toulouse syndrome.” The term is named after the attacks last year carried out by a jihadist called Mohammed Merah, who killed three French soldiers in a rampage that concluded with the murders of four French Jews at a school in Toulouse.

In the early stages of the attacks, when little was known, there was significant speculation that the culprit was a far-right extremist. At that stage everybody knew what they were going to say. But once the culprit turned out to be an Islamist, the gaze nearly fell away completely. “Nothing to see here, please move on” was the order of the day.

“Toulouse syndrome” also touched Boston last month. After the bombing at the marathon, media and politicians waited, hoping—some even said as much—that the attackers would be tea-party types. Then everybody would know what to say. But when it turned out to be Islamists?

So it is with the Woolwich killing, which British officials have lined up to denounce. Yes it is sickening. Of course it is barbaric. But what of it? Even all these years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2011, our societies remain unfit for purpose in facing up to—and facing down—Islamic extremism.

Too many still seek refuge in ignorance and denial that was so memorably displayed by U.S. officials after the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. A man who was a member of the American armed forces, Maj. Nidal Hasan, gunned down his colleagues while shouting “Allahu akbar.” On that occasion the American government, like the French government before it and the British government this week, decided to focus on everything about the attack other than what really mattered: the motive. Fort Hood was put down to a case of workplace violence.

There will be many angles to the events in London that must be addressed in the coming days, and we can hope many will receive the appropriate level of public attention. Among them will be one particularly unpleasant irony.

Most of the extremists who have repeatedly expressed their hatred of British soldiers are themselves supported by the British state. A prominent hate-preacher—Anjem Choudary, a leader of the disbanded al Muhajiroun—was even caught on video earlier this year extolling Britain’s “jihad-seekers’ allowance.” As he explained to his followers, “The normal situation, really, is to take money from the kafir”—a slur for non-Muslims. “Allahu akbar. We take the money.”

After the video showed up online, a BBC reporter asked Mr. Choudary to clarify how much he’s taking—the press has long reported a sum of £25,000 ($37,770) per year. “It’s irrelevant,” Mr. Choudary replied.

This would not be the first time a country has paid both sides in a conflict. But if the reported figure is anywhere near accurate, it would surely be the first time in human history that a society has paid its opponents better than it pays its own. A British soldier can expect to start in the army on a salary of around £16,000 ($24,172).

The events in south London must cause a re-evaluation by British society of the insanity we have been permitting. The question is not how sad we feel. The only question should be what we do about it.

Mr. Murray is associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank.

________________________

The lesson from London

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

_______________________

The London Terror Attack Was More Than ‘Unforgivable’

 

A version of this article appeared May 24, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The London Terror Attack Was More Than ‘Unforgivable’.

 

Copyright ©2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Should Jews leave Britain


Holocaust Imagery - Jews and Hitler sm

Not to long ago Caroline Glick and Danny Dayan were debating Daniel Levy and William Sieghart. Glick and Dayan took the pro-Israel stand and Levy and Sieghart took the pro-Palestinian statehood stand.

 

Levy became so incensed at Glick that an article by Douglas Murray said he had to be physically restrained. Apparently Levy took umbrage to Glick’s argument that a lack of solution about statehood was Palestinian rejectionism more than Israeli Settlements in Judea/Samaria (aka West Bank).

 

Glick came away from this debate writing that she sees no future for Jews in the United Kingdom. The implication being that antisemitism has become ingrained into the UK public that they would rather allow the practice of unwestern Sharia Law than remember the treatment of Jews in Europe during WWII which was the Holocaust that killed about six million Jews.

 

Below is that Murray article which I will follow with a one hour and 45 minute Youtube video of the debate.

 

JRH 2/7/13 (Hat Tip: Danny Jeffrey)

Please Support NCCR

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

Should Jews leave Britain?

 

By Douglas Murray

29 January 2013 15:39

The Spectator

 

Should Jews leave Britain? The question is prompted by this piece written by the Israeli journalist Caroline Glick.

 

Glick recently came to London to take part in an Intelligence Squared debate. The debate was about Israeli settlements. Glick and Danny Dayan attempted to explain to the London audience that Palestinian rejection rather than Jewish settlement in the West Bank is the primary reason there is still no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The debate is now available on Youtube and there you can see the deeply rancorous tone of the discussion. At one point Lord Levy’s son, Daniel Levy, (arguing against Glick and Dayan) has to be almost physically restrained by his own co-debater (William Sieghart). Levy’s frustration appears to come from being pulled up on an allegation he casually makes against Israel for which he turns out to have absolutely no evidence.

 

But the audience go with him, and go against Glick and Dayan in the final vote by a factor of 5 to 1. As Glick notes in her bitter farewell to London, the audience was so hostile towards her argument that when she even mentioned the matter of Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and his involvement with the Nazis during World War II she was booed down by the audience. They – having been presented to her as open-minded – turned out to be so close-minded and partial that they would not even hear a historical fact about a Palestinian figure who was an actual Nazi. Glick writes:

 

‘I was prepared to conduct a civilized debate based on facts and reasoned argumentation. I expected it to be a difficult experience. I was not expecting to be greeted by a well-dressed mob.’

 

I suppose that there will be those who think Glick’s recommendation to Jews to be over-statement:

 

‘There is no future for Jews in England.’

 

But after the events of the last week you do have to wonder.

 

After all it was a week in which David Ward, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bradford East, used the opportunity provided by Holocaust Memorial Day to punish the Jews for the Holocaust:

 

‘Having visited Auschwitz twice – once with my family and once with local schools – I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.’

 

And on the day itself the Sunday Times saw fit to publish a cartoon by the witless Gerald Scarfe showing the Prime Minister of the Jewish state building a wall consisting of bloodied and dying Palestinians.

 

Much of the comment on these latter cases has focussed on the ‘inappropriateness’ of running an anti-Semitic cartoon or making an anti-Semitic comment so close to Holocaust Memorial Day. I cannot help thinking that this is missing the point. Ward and Scarfe should be excoriated not for their sense of timing but for the fact that they are wrong. Wholly, completely and outright wrong. There is absolutely no connection between, for instance, the liquidation of hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto and the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank. There is absolutely no connection between the situation in Gaza and the herding of six million Jews into concentration camps. The wonder then is not over Scarfe or Ward’s sense of timing, but why at any point in any year they would be so keen to spread lies and to bait Jews by comparing the actions of the Jewish state with those of a genocidal doctrine of Nazism which sought to annihilate the Jews.

 

Rupert Murdoch has apologised for the Scarfe cartoon and Ward now seems to be reluctantly towing what Liberal Democrat party line can be held. But Glick’s question returns. What sort of future is there in Britain for Jews? I would submit that there is a future. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that the price of that future is that Jews will increasingly be expected to distance themselves from Israel. There is a fair amount of evidence from the Jewish community suggesting that this process is already underway. Once it is complete then those ‘good’ anti-Israel Jews will be able to proclaim victory. But the same force that they encouraged to come for their co-religionists will then just as surely come for them. And then where will they hide?

+++++++++++++

 

VIDEO: Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy

_____________________

The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All articles and content Copyright © 2012 The Spectator (1828) Ltd | All rights reserved

Islam must be scrutinised


Islam- The Untold Story

Is it not interesting that terrorism trumps Free Speech in Europe? The British television Channel 4 televised a documentary by Tom Holland “Islam: The Untold Story”. Channel 4 was preparing to show an encore of the documentary when the Islamic threats began pouring in. The threat of terrorism proved too much for Channel 4 for they pulled the encore presentation of the documentary.

 

Here is the email that notified me how Islam is warping European culture with dhimmitude to Islamic Supremacy.

 

JRH 9/19/12

Please Support NCCR

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

Islam must be scrutinised

 

By Maryam Namazie

Sent: September 14, 2012 10:12 AM

Sent by: Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB)

 

Dear friend

 

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain would like to make public its support for Tom Holland’s Channel 4 documentary ‘Islam: The Untold Story’ (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/islam-the-untold-story/4od). We are indignant to learn that due to threats made on Holland, Channel 4 has cancelled a repeat screening of the historical inquiry into the origins of Islam similar to the kind of inquiry that has been applied to other religions and histories in Britain for many years.

 

The threats and concerted attempt to stigmatise the documentary and its producers by attacking its credibility and even legitimacy as a field of inquiry is nothing less than an attempt to impose a blasphemy taboo by stealth and coercion against programming that scrutinises Islam.

 

Caving in to the coercive pressure of Islamists will have catastrophic effects on free inquiry and expression where it pertains to Islam. It would not only further silence academic, historical and theological scrutiny of Islam but would also have the chilling effect of exerting added pressure on Muslims and ex-Muslims who wish to dissent from and question Islam.

 

CEMB spokesperson Maryam Namazie says:

 

“Here’s my question to Channel 4: what about the threats on our lives for being apostates, ex-Muslims, atheists, freethinkers, secularists, 21st century human beings?

 

“What part of our thoughts, lives, and bodies do you recommend we cancel to appease the Islamists?

 

“If only there was such an ‘easy’ ‘solution’ for those who are languishing under Islam’s rules.

 

“You may accept censorship and cowardly silence in the face of Islamist threats and intimidation but we cannot afford to do so. And we never will.”

 

The CEMB urges you to view the documentary

 

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm8xKh8eQqU [SlantRight Editor: Unfortunately not available in the USA] or http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=578_1347455615&comments=1) and write to Channel 4 and Ofcom (contact information below) calling for a repeat screening.

 

LiveLeak VIDEO: Islam: The Untold Story

 

We look forward to your support.

 

NOTES:

 

1.  If you’d like to donate to our work, please send a cheque made payable to CEMB to BM Box 1919, London WC1N 3XX, UK or give via Worldpay or Paypal: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/donate/.

 

2. If you’d like to join a new coffee morning for ex-Muslim women, please email the CEMB at exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com.

 

3. See Maryam Namazie’s speech at the 5th anniversary celebration of the CEMB: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQrBA9Gyeg&feature=player_embedded.

 

4. Join the active CEMB forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/

 

5. Addresses for Channel 4 and Ofcom:

 

Lord Burns, Channel 4 Chairperson, Channel 4 Television Corporation, 124 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2TX

 

Avi Grewal, Programme Coordinator, Arts & Religion, agrewal@channel4.co.uk

 

Mark Raphael, Emma Cooper, Lina Prestwood, Anna Miralis, Commissioning Editors, Documentaries,  KHall@channel4.co.uk

 

Ed Richards, Chief Executive of Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA, ofcomnews@ofcom.org.uk

 

6. For further information contact:

 

Maryam Namazie

Spokesperson Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

___________________

CEMB Manifesto:

 

We, non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims, are establishing or joining the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to insist that no one be pigeonholed as Muslims with culturally relative rights nor deemed to be represented by regressive Islamic organisations and ‘Muslim community leaders’.

 

Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered ‘apostates’ – punishable by death in countries under Islamic law.

 

By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism.

 

Whilst religion or the lack thereof is a private affair, the increasing intervention of and devastation caused by religion and particularly Islam in contemporary society has necessitated our public renunciation and declaration. We represent a READ THE REST

 

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

BM Box 1919

London WC1N 3XX

telephone: +44(0)7719166731

e-mail: ex-muslimcouncil@googlemail.com

website: www.ex-muslim.org.uk

Interview with David Icke


David Icke

David Icke talks about Illuminati and Freemason involvement in the shadows of world politics and the U.S. Government. Although it is not a huge theme by Icke here, he implies he is a Truther meaning that the 911 Islamic Terrorist attack was actually an inside job rather than coordinated by al Qaida. I personally think that is a load of manure.

 

Here is the fourth section of Global Watch Special Report 2011.

 

JRH 8/31/12

Please Support NCCR

The Coming Criminalization of Christianity


John R. Houk

© August 1, 2012

 

If Obama is reelected YOU can look forward to the criminalization of Christianity as it nearly is now in the United Kingdom.

 

Check out this video about British Christians who are actually penalized by courts or job place for their faith.

 

Wake-up and look out America!

 

VIDEO: Britain’s War on Christianity: America’s Future Fight? …

 

 

JRH 8/1/12 (Hat Tip: Vicki)

Please Support NCCR

Jerusalem the Capital of Israel


City of David model

John R. Houk

© May 25, 2012

 

The Capital city of Israel is Jerusalem. Unfortunately a huge majority of nations refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the Capital city because of the Arabs that have designated themselves as Palestinians claim Jerusalem is a Muslim city and will be the Capital of a sovereign Palestinian state.

 

1.      The seat of government as stated by the Israeli government is Jerusalem.

 

2.      During Israel’s war of Independence and national survival in 1948 invading armies representative of Islamic culture and Islamic Supremacism tried to wipe Israel off the map. Israel successfully beat back all the invading armies except Transjordan’s Arab Legion. The Arab Legion in 1948 was under the command of British Officers that alongside the Bedouin army of the Hashemite Monarchy of Transjordan. The Arab Legion pushed the Jewish forces of Israel back to Israel and ended up usurping the Eastern half of Jerusalem aka the Old City in which the ancient Jewish Quarter had resided for over a thousand years. In 1967 Israel took the land back from had then became Jordan.

 

3.      After the Oslo Accords the Palestine Liberation Organization (an Islamic terrorist organization – PLO) became the backbone and ruling elite of the Accords’ semi-autonomous Palestinian Authority (PA) that would have administrative duties of Arab dominated portions of Judea-Samaria (termed as the West Bank after Jordan’s unilateral annexation shortly after the 1948 war). The PA demanded a Jerusalem Capital but Israel did not accede to that point; nevertheless other points of the Oslo Accords proceeded.

 

4.      The Jewish heritage to all of Jerusalem is longer and so much more historical than any claim by a group of people that did not even existed as an entity until after 1967.

 

5.      Therefore Jerusalem as the Capital City is a valid Israel designation and the International Community should respect Israel’s designation rather than fall prey to Islamic Supremacism.

 

And yet the United Kingdom’s subservience to oil producing Muslim nations is evident by refusing to honor Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital City. The so-called Free Press of the UK has shown its disdain for Israel by apologizing for initially calling Jerusalem Israel’s Capital when they believe that the Press should termed Tel Aviv as Israel’s Capital.

 

Here is the story from Honest Reporting.

 

JRH 5/25/12

Please Support NCCR

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

The British Empire Strikes Back: UK Body Rules Tel Aviv is Israel’s Capital

 

By Simon Plosker

May 21, 2012 15:12

Honest Reporting

 

Nearly a month ago, The Guardian posted a photo of passengers on Jerusalem’s light rail observing a minute’s silence for Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day. The caption, however, prompted a correction from The Guardian, which had originally (and correctly) referred to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital:

 

The caption on a photograph featuring passengers on a tram in Jerusalem observing a two-minute silence for Yom HaShoah, a day of remembrance for the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, wrongly referred to the city as the Israeli capital. The Guardian style guide states: “Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel; Tel Aviv is” (Eyewitness, 20 April, page 24).

 

PHOTO: Eyewitness: A pause in time for Yom HaShoah

 

Eyewitness- A pause in time for Yom HaShoah

 

Further resources: The Status of Jerusalem

 

Irrespective of whether the international community recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, it is simply inaccurate to unilaterally confer capital city status on Tel Aviv. Believing The Guardian to be in clear breach of the UK Press Complaints Commission clause on accuracy, HonestReporting submitted an official complaint.

 

Ironically received on Jerusalem Day, this was the outrageous PCC ruling:

 

Continued on Page 2

 

The terms of Clause 1 (i) of the Code make clear that newspapers “must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”, and the terms of Clause 1 (ii) state that “a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected promptly and with due prominence”.

 

In this instance, the Commission noted that the correction published had been a clarification of the newspaper’s earlier claim that Jerusalem was the Israeli capital. The Commission was mindful that while it is correct to say that Israel classes Jerusalem as her capital city, this is not recognised by many countries and those nations enjoying diplomatic relations with Israel have their embassies in Tel Aviv. As such, the Commission was of the view that the newspaper was entitled to refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. There was no breach of the Code in this instance.

 

This is astonishing and outrageous. Aside from a sovereign state’s right to determine its own capital, international convention maintains that a capital city is usually where a state’s central political institutions reside. The UK Foreign Office itself states:

 

Capital City: Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the UK and the international community. The UK locates its embassy in Tel Aviv.

 

Unlike The Guardian and the PCC, it does not designate Tel Aviv as the capital.

 

Related content: BBC Sorry For Calling Jerusalem Israel’s Capital

 

We believe that this flawed ruling has the potential to further delegitimize Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital, giving the British media a carte blanche to follow The Guardian’s lead. And furthermore, the PCC accepts no appeals or complaints on the substance of its rulings, effectively slamming the door in our face. HonestReporting CEO Joe Hyams said in response:

 

64 years after the end of the British Mandate, it appears that imperialism is alive and well. This ruling is an absolute outrage. The PCC’s role is to maintain standards of media accuracy, not to make political and politicized rulings. That this has been released on Jerusalem Day adds insult to injury and is yet another example of how contaminated with anti-Israel bias, British officialdom has become.

 

Convention has it that the location of national legislatures, judiciaries and other formal institutions of state make a capital city. What mandate does the PCC, or Britain for that matter, have in deciding that the location of foreign embassies determines a host nation’s capital status?

 

We will continue to work behind the scenes to bring pressure to bear on this issue. This is certainly not the end of the matter as far as HonestReporting is concerned.

____________________________

Jerusalem the Capital of Israel

John R. Houk

© May 25, 2012

____________________________

The British Empire Strikes Back: UK Body Rules Tel Aviv is Israel’s Capital

 

© 2012 HonestReporting All rights reserved.

 

About Us

 

Israel is in the midst of a battle for public opinion – waged primarily via the media. To ensure Israel is represented fairly and accurately “‘HonestReporting'” monitors the media, exposes cases of bias, promotes balance, and effects change through education and action. Read more

Do NOT Allow Sharia Courts Legal Sanction in America


No Sharia in America

 

John R. Houk

© August 4, 2011

 

Sharia Courts are legal in the United Kingdom. Sharia Courts are illegal in Australia however the lobbying in the Australian Parliament is aggressive enough to worry wise Australians that still enjoy Civil Liberties to worry. The worry is warranted since Sharia Courts have been operating illegally for years among Australia’s three hundred thousand plus Muslims.

 

I am guessing there is at least a modest secret world of Sharia Courts in America. If this is so it must be rooted out. Sharia Law is not compatible with the form of Democratic system our Republic has instituted successfully with the United States Constitution. Because Anders Breivik I have to add a disclaimer. When I say root out I do not mean search and destroy missions of people who have unwittingly embraced Islam. That would be just as evil as Sharia Law. The rooting out must be in strengthening Constitutional Rights. This will ensure that no religious faith that calls for the removal of Civil Rights or for the advancement of extralegal proceedings outside the rule of law of the American Constitution or the various States with Constitutions cannot occur.

 

ACT for America has sent out an email warning Americans not to accept the path of the United Kingdom or the Australian path of looking the other way (so far) as Sharia Courts administer extralegal punishments outside Australia’s rule of law.

 

JRH 8/4/11

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

Video: Sharia courts in action

Must-See Video: News report on sharia law in Australia

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: 08/02/2011 01:28 PM

 

As we have noted many times, naysayers intent on keeping their heads in the sand dismiss the threat radical Islam, jihad and sharia law pose to the United States.

 

 

A recent example of this was the July 10th article in The Tennessean newspaper, in which a university professor pooh-poohed concerns about sharia law.

These naysayers not only refuse to see how the threat of radical Islam is currently playing out in America. They also refuse to acknowledge how radical Islam and sharia have impacted Europe, the UK, and Australia—and what that means for us.

That’s why this eye-opening news report about sharia law in Australia is so pertinent to us. Rest assured, 15 years ago, when early concerns were being raised in Australia about the threat of radical Islam, there were plenty of naysayers who said such concerns were unfounded.

As you watch the video, keep in mind that eight years ago a Muslim organization did a survey of Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, and found that 81% agreed that sharia law should be imposed in Muslim lands.

It’s a safe bet that most of those surveyed would also agree that sharia law should eventually be imposed in America.

One last point. Did you see the news story last week about Islamists in the UK posting notices of “sharia-controlled zones?”

 

Sharia Zone Pamphel

 

It’s  another safe bet that 15 years ago Brits would have never believed this was possible!

______________________________

Do NOT Allow Sharia Courts Legal Sanction in America

John R. Houk

© August 4, 2011

_______________________________

Video: Sharia courts in action

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 106 other followers

%d bloggers like this: