Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Labour subsidises Islamic extremism with taxpayer funding

Cranmer has written about Hizb-ut-Tahrir before: here, here and here.

They are not very nice.

Not nice at all.

So it comes as something of a surprise (or perhaps not) to learn that this amoral, deficient, anti-Christian Labour government are subsidising a terrorist-supporting, kuffar-hating, strife-inducing Islamic agenda for world domination.

His Grace has been sent a very interesting letter by the Conservative Party (at last, they are trusting him with their intelligence).

It was sent from the Michael Gove MP to Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.

It concerns the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, which runs an independent school in Slough and an independent school and nursery in Haringey. The foundation allegedly has strong links to Hizb ut-Tahrir. Mr Gove says he believes that the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation not only has very strong links to Hizb ut-Tahrir, but is in fact a front for its political activity. He says:

‘I believe that the Foundation’s schools are teaching an educational philosophy that is incompatible with Britain’s liberal democratic values. Furthermore I am greatly concerned the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation is in receipt of public money to further radical Islamist aims despite appearing not to meet basic DCSF criteria.’

Most concerningly, the headmistress of the Slough school, Farah Ahmed, is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir and has written for its journal attacking the ‘corrupt Western concepts of materialism and freedom’.

When Mr Gove asked the DCSF what had be done to ensure the senior staff at the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation schools were suitable people to be teaching children, they responded that all school staff ‘had undergone a CRB check’.

It beggars belief that even this Labour government believes that a CRB check would ascertain whether or not a teacher or school leader is a political extremist.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, whose supporters and members run the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation and teach in its schools, defines Israel as an enemy state and sanctions the killing of Israeli Jews. The party’s ideology is therefore inherently anti-Semitic.

It is not therefore clear how the headmistress of the Slough school can possibly fulfil her statutory duty to promote racial equality. Perhaps someone from the DCSF, or a Labour supporter, or even a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir (should any be sufficiently enlightened to read His Grace’s blog) could explain how a school whose head teacher is a member of a radical Islamist organisation; which teaches an educational philosophy imbued with an Islamist world view; and whose foundation was started and run by members of Hizb ut-Tahrir can possibly be ‘meeting the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils’.

But Cranmer has another interesting question:

The DCSF has recently conducted a review into safeguards to protect young people from discrimination and prevent the teaching of partisan political activities. One high profile suggestion which came from this was the banning of BNP members from working in schools.

If BNP members may not be teachers, how is it that members of Hizb ut-Tahrir may be head teachers?

At PMQs today, David Cameron disclosed that £113,000 of taxpayers money has so far been donated to the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation. Ironically, this has been secured from the Pathfinder scheme, whose objective is supposed to be the prevention of violent extremism.

A few facts:

Tony Blair promised to ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir: On 5 August 2005, the Prime Minister set out a twelve point plan on new measures to tackle terrorism. He said: ‘We will proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahira and the successor organisation of Al Mujahiroun. We will also examine the grounds for proscription to widen them and put forward proposals in the new legislation’.

‘Kill Jews wherever they are found’ was a Newsnight Reporter on August 2003: ‘We went to Denmark, where Hizb Ut Tahrir has come to the attention of the police and the courts because of its anti-Semitic views. In March and April 2002, Hizb Ut Tahrir handed out leaflets in a square in Copenhagen, and at a mosque. The leaflet, which also appeared on the Danish groups internet site, makes threats against Jews, using a quote from the Koran urging Muslims to 'kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have been turned you out.' The leaflet also said, 'The Jews are a people of slander...a treacherous people... they fabricate lies and twist words from their right context.' And the leaflet describes suicide bombings in Israel as "legitimate" acts of "Martyrdom"’.

Then: ‘The Danish magistrate described Hizb Ut Tahrir as secretive, but the case did expose something of the way the group is organised. The Danish police established that the web site on which the offending material was published was being hosted in the UK. That wasn't relevant to their case so they didn't pursue it any further. However, Newsnight can reveal that it wasn't only being hosted in the UK, it was actually being run from the UK. Computer records show that the Danish web site shared the same internet address as web sites registered to a mailing address here, at 56 Gloucester Road, London, the British Headquarters of Hizb Ut Tahrir, and that's not all. Newsnight can reveal that the leaflet, which has been successfully prosecuted for racism in Denmark, is on the British group's web site today. The document is in English and has been on the web site since March 2002’.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir constitution. Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s constitution states that non-Muslims in non-Muslim lands are ‘in a state of war’ and are ‘combatants on the battlefield’ whose ‘blood is lawful [to be spilt].’ (Muqadimmat al-Dustur aw asbab ul-Muwajjabbatlah, p.450, cited in the Centre for Social Cohesion’s report, Hizb ut-Tahrir: Ideology and Strategy, p.26)


Islam4UK is an extremist organisation which calls for Islamic rule in Britain and the blanket imposition of Sharia law. Members of Islam4UK, including its leader, Anjem Choudary, are linked to the banned terrorist groups Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect.

Anjem Choudary described the 9/11 hijackers as ‘magnificent’ and organised a protest against British soldiers returning from Iraq in March this year. He and his demonstrators shouted at the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton, calling them ‘murderers’ and ‘rapists’.

Same as banned organisation. For all practical purposes Islam4UK is the same organisation as Al-Ghurabaa, listed as a proscribed group in 2006.

Organisations can be banned if they are the same as others that are already banned. The Terrorism Act 2000, as amended by the Terrorism Act 2006, allows the Home Secretary to proscribe a group that he believes is to be treated as another name for a group that has already been proscribed.

Links with Al-Ghurabaa. Al-Ghurabaa was proscribed in the UK on 26 July 2006 because it was ‘concerned with terrorism.’ Al-Ghurabaa still run a website aimed at a British audience which hosts lectures inciting terrorism. At the moment, the website is offering a free download of a lecture by Anwar al-Awlaki (considered the spiritual guide of several of the 9/11 hijackers and also linked to the gunman who attacked Fort Hood, Texas recently). The lecture, delivered in March 2009, urges on the Pakistani Taliban and their allies against the Pakistani government. There are strong links between two of the people known to be involved in Al-Ghurabaa, Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri Mohammed, and Islam4UK:

Anjem Choudary, a British-born agitator, was the spokesman for Al-Ghurabaa. He was interviewed by The Guardian a few days before the group was banned. Asked what he would do once the group was disbanded: ‘[Choudary] makes it clear that he sees nothing to prevent members of al-Ghurabaa regrouping under a different banner, as long as they avoid the glorification of terrorism, the offence which has allowed the Home Office to ban the organisation.

‘One could still have an organisation that calls for Islam and sharia, and calls for an alternative to the capitalist ideology, and doesn't do those things which caused the other organisation to be proscribed. I could join Labour tomorrow, and they're not going to proscribe the Labour party just because I've joined, are they?’ (The Guardian, 22 July 2006).

Choudary is now the spokesman for Islam4UK and his mobile phone number is often the contact number given at the end of Islam4UK press releases (Islam4UK website, accessed 9 November 2009). He has lived on benefits for many years (Daily Mail, 24 July 2009).

Anjem Choudary quotes:

On the aims of Islam4UK: ‘On this day we will call for a complete upheaval of the British ruling system, its members and legislature, and demand the full implementation of Shari’ah in Britain’ (The Daily Express, 15 October 2009).

On a British army homecoming parade in Luton: ‘A vile parade of brutal murderers’ (The Daily Express, 15 October 2009).

On blasphemy: ‘Whoever insults the message of Muhammad is going to be subject to capital punishment’ (Evening Standard, 19 September 2006).

On Jihad: ‘What the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Palestine are doing is defending themselves from foreigner fighters coming to kill them. It's outrageous that we get called terrorists if we speak about the right to defend ourselves’ (Daily Mail, 24 July 2009).

On non-Muslims: ‘At the end of the day, when we say “innocent people” we mean “Muslims”. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God’ (BBC Interview, accessed 4 January 2007).

On Jihad: ‘This honourable act must be carried out according to your own capabilities because... Muhammad said strike the [infidels] with your wealth, hands and tongue’ (The Times, 14 January 2007).

On the 9/11 hijackers after Al-Muhajiroun branded them ‘The Magnificent 19’: ‘Those individuals are Muslims, they were carrying out their Islamic responsibility and duty, so in that respect they were magnificent, and the Muslims worldwide hope that they are accepted as martyrs in the eyes of God’ (CNN, 10 September 2003).

After 7/7: According to the Evening Standard, ‘after the July 7 atrocities in London, he vowed he would not tell the police if he knew a terror attack was being planned and urged Muslims to defend themselves against perceived attacks by “whatever means they have at their disposal”’ (Evening Standard, 19 September 2006).

On the role of his groups in creating terrorists: ‘To say that we radicalise people is unfair. I don't think it is a surprise that a small number of people who have met us might go on to do other things. But it is not the case that anyone who comes across us automatically becomes a radical and commits a martyrdom operation’ (The Independent, 17 June 2009).

Statement on behalf of Islam4UK: ‘We have had enough of democracy and man-made law and the depravity of the British culture’ (The Daily Express, 15 October 2009).

On Nelson’s column: Under his Sharia government it ‘would be removed and demolished without hesitation’ (The Daily Express, 15 October 2009).

Omar Bakri Mohammed. Omar Bakri Muhammad is a Syrian-born cleric who lived in London until banned from Britain shortly after the 7/7 terrorist attacks. He is considered to have inspired the group that formed al-Ghurabaa and, subsequently, Islam4UK. Anjem Choudary, spokesman for both organisations, has said that he was first drawn towards Islam4UK’s perverted form of Islam when he ‘bumped into Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed’ at a mosque in Woolwich in the early 1990s (The Guardian, 22 July 2006). The websites for al-Ghurabaa and Islam4UK have both been used to host video messages from Omar Bakri Mohammed to a British audience.

The Islam4UK website carries audio lectures by both Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri Mohammed. One of Bakri’s lectures is on the life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder and former leader of Al-Qaida in Iraq, who was killed by the United States in 2006.

Omar Bakri Mohammed quotes:

On suicide bombings: ‘We call it self sacrifice. You must fight for the way of Allah - to kill first and be killed. If somebody decided to land an aeroplane over 10 Downing Street, for example - this is a form of self sacrifice’ (The Times, 21 July 2005).

On Jihad: ‘The jihad is halal [permissible] for the Muslims wherever they are, the whole ummah [Muslim community] wherever they are. OK brothers - wherever you are, do it’ (The Times, 21 July 2005).

On the deaths of British servicemen in a Nimrod crash: ‘Allah has his own soldiers and I was so happy. I was just thanking Allah’ (The Sun, 11 September 2006).

On terrorism: ‘We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity…they are our brothers, the terrorists’ (The Age, 19 April 2004).

On Tony Blair: ‘A legitimate target’ for assassination (Sunday Mercury, 31 May 2009).

On Osama bin Laden: ‘An honourable man’ (Sunday Mercury, 31 May 2009).

On Osama bin Laden again: ‘Why I condemn Osama bin Laden for [sic]? I condemn Tony Blair, I condemn George Bush. I would never condemn Osama bin Laden or any Muslims’ (The Times, 21 July 2005).

On the 7/7 bombings: ‘I blame the British Government and I blame the British people. They are the ones who should be blamed’ (The Times, 21 July 2005).

As His Grace said, they are just not nice people at all.


Blogger Gnostic said...

New Labour: supporting an act of terrorist extremism coming to a town near you.

25 November 2009 at 17:10  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Excellent post, Your Grace, but it made me feel ill just reading it.

Thank goodness our King and Saviour is coming soon. If I wasn't sure of this fact, I would have lost the will to live by now!

25 November 2009 at 17:18  
Blogger English Viking said...

New Labour: Tough on Christians, tough on the causes of Christianity.

25 November 2009 at 17:27  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"His Grace has been sent a very interesting letter by the Conservative Party (at last, they are trusting him with their intelligence"

At least your honesty provides evidence that CCHQ uses Tory bloggers to get their message out (something that that your colleagues in crime frequently deny). Unfortunately intelligence would be stretching it somewhat - just listned to Ed Balls pick the story apart on PM.

Please note for future referecne that CCHQ, Tory MPs and their aides do not count as sources entitled to normal confidentiality.

In short - you've been used!

25 November 2009 at 18:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed Balls pick the story apart? Ed Balls couldn't pick his nose without a target-driven govermnent socially-cohesive safeguarding strategy telling him how to do it.
Leave it out...

25 November 2009 at 18:23  
Anonymous english kuffar said...

Ed Balls does not have the ability to pick anything apart. Yet another example of the government pandering to their own support base.

25 November 2009 at 18:27  
Anonymous not a machine said...

your grace is very thorough , this organistion does not want to be in a christian society , I note labour MPs are trying to to turn it back on the conservatives , I have a feeling that Ed balls should have responded to Mr Goves letter somewhat faster than what he has , as there is no doubt that this organisation is not what you would call moderate .

your inference of BNP not being allowed to be teachers shows how much labour think they understand the publics views , in not being able to discerne the other aspects of multiculturialism .

25 November 2009 at 18:35  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace

A small quibble: Your ultimate sentence "As His Grace said, they are just nice people at all."

I feel there should be a 'not' in there somewhere.

25 November 2009 at 18:47  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Of course this is not the only extremist group that Labour has sponsored and fostered - financially or otherwise. What about the IRA, for example? And then what about the activities of Red Ken at the GLC?

No, we should understand that Labour has never been a party which has had the nation's interests at heart, New Labour is no different.

25 November 2009 at 18:57  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Unsworth,

His Grace is most appreciative: the quibble was far from minor. But he has had rather a stressful day.

25 November 2009 at 19:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lets not knock diversity, its made us a richer, better nation.

25 November 2009 at 19:48  
Blogger Zach Johnstone said...

Interesting to watch Brown squirm in PMQs today when this came up.

He had no answers.

25 November 2009 at 20:46  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

"Lets not knock diversity, its made us a richer, better nation."

So Mr Anon, Sir, so diversity in your view extends to giving terrorists a free reign in our beloved homeland? You sir, are scum. If I thought you were of any kind rank, I would duel with you for dishonouring our great nation. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I say that we should round up the terrorists, put them before a court of the land and try them for treason. And apply the method of punishment appropriate for reason- hung, drawn and quatered.

25 November 2009 at 21:12  
Blogger Zach Johnstone said...

Lord Lavendon,

That seems to me to be a fairly extensive extrapolation. All anon said was that diversity in itself was not inherently a bad thing. There was no defence of terrorism, merely the notion that a minority of evil should not represent the decency of the majority in people's minds.

Whether or not you agree, and you may well not, I think you presume more from Anon's comments than is viable or constructive to a rational debate.

25 November 2009 at 21:17  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Mr Zach Johnstone, yes sir, it is true that the anon did not endorse terrorism-the coward would be shot down by other posters otherwise.

But the comments are in the context of discussing terrorists. I did not mention the terrorist's background- they could be white middle-income Brummies for all I care. It was the anon that made a link between terrorism and "diversity" (code for Islam).

Now I have no problem with diversity, in the sense of the diversity of the counties and the regions which exist in this country. I have no problem with the loyal immigrants who have sworn an oath to this country’s Queen and the nation. I have no problem with immigrants who want to better themselves, to contribute this great nation. One of my best friends was a poor Chinese immigrant , who is now a successful person in her life and worked up through society, not through any labour party diversity programme, but through sheer hard work and determination . This person, I would say, actually speaks and writes better English than I , a blue blooded peer of the realm.

But by God, I will not ever endorse Islamic terrorism and call that diversity. What twisted logic is this? I find those who want the ‘diversity’ Anon refer to are often middle class fools who live in suburbia. It is the philosophy of the liberal champagne socialists who will continue to read the Guardian! But these champagne charlies are out of touch and out of support of the country.

25 November 2009 at 21:39  
Blogger Zach Johnstone said...

Lord Lavendon,

I find myself in agreement with you, I just struggled with the comparative level of aggression in the previous post you made.

On the issue of artificially-constructed multiculturalism I couldn't agree more. But I do think there is a danger of tarnishing vast swathes of people with a particular brush. Take for instance this thread: do you really think that if it had been a post about diversity and not terrorism, that the subject of terrorism would not have dominated anyway?

25 November 2009 at 21:49  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I do not understand Mr Zac Johnstone; I am motivated by a desire to keep this nation intact and through a deep patriotism and love of this country. I have no ill will towards any group or Islam or anyone.

I simply wish to prevent the Lion of Britannia from being blown away in some catastrophe. I am no nationalist. I have seen the world and I like it; as a silly example I actually like Brussels and Belgium, her beer. Leffe is comparable with Abbot ale. But I do not want England to be part of the EU. But I believe England to be the most diverse and beautiful country on the face of the earth.

I do not agree with matters such as detention without trial, which is against all we have fought for over the past 800 years (Magna Carta, the Civil War).I cannot, unlike other colleagues of mine, simply 'bugger off’ as one uncouth colleague said, to some tax heaven whilst my country goes, what does my Valet say? , "Tits up".

If am aggressive, it is simply because I see it as my duty as a person of rank, to defend this realm, against all enemies- foreign and domestic. And defend it, in the name of Jesus Christ, for Queen Country and Parliament,I shall.

No matter the cost.

25 November 2009 at 22:01  
Anonymous St Bruno said...

not a machine said...
25 November 2009 18:35

‘your inference of BNP not being allowed to be teachers shows how much labour think they understand the publics views , in not being able to discerne the other aspects of multiculturialism .’

Don’t quite get your drift there.

I suppose the bottom line to this fetid debate of the rights or wrongs of a medieval thought process will only go round and round in ever decreasing circles.

I just find it unimaginable to live in a Britain over-populated by immigration from third world countries. I am forced not to participate in what is asymmetric warfare. Please tell me how I can voice my anger legally and in a true non-violent democratic way, as they do in third world countries.

They believe we, the white Christians in UK, are killing their brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore they create change to our society, by Jihad, warfare, know your enemy! Read their Five Pillars of Islam and judge for yourselves. Is this a religion of peace?

How many times do they have to say it, get the message, get the words, get the actions, war, war, war, jihad, jihad, jihad all followers of Mohammed are embarked on a Jihad, simple, War! A religious WAR get it. 1,400,000,000 Muslims in the World. 65,000,000 in UK.

We in Britain sit back and hope it will go away, but it is here to stay unless something is done to stop the rot and soon.

The two main political parties in Britain today know the score but are basically scared to stand up and be counted as true Brits. They would rather see the country go to the wolves and jackals and remain as some wishy-washy diverse pander to clever Trevor Phillips and others of our ethnic loud mouth minority of politicians, Lords, Dames and Baronesses.

25 November 2009 at 22:03  
Anonymous english kuffar said...

Lord Laven -tory is correct, we need to defend our country against threats. And Islam is our Third Reich people ! How many people does the religion of peace have to slaughter in cold blood before this is understood.

PS- not all muslims are terrorists etc.

25 November 2009 at 22:13  
Blogger Zach Johnstone said...

Lord Lavendon,

I am sorry, I didn't make myself as clear as I had intended. What I meant was that I agree with what you're saying. Initially, I merely questioned what I perceived to be far reaching deductions from one sentence.

The latter paragraph was a tangent; I was raising a separate point. With regards to those views you say you hold, I find little room for disagreement between us. A UK with Europe but not of it, haebeas corpus, no detention without trial...and Belgian beer is, as you say, a bit special too.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

25 November 2009 at 22:18  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Yes, it does Zach Johnstone, old bean.

25 November 2009 at 22:26  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

I wonder if the Tories have contacted his Grace yet so as to correct their errors and to tell him the new line to push?

25 November 2009 at 22:41  
Anonymous Labour troll department x said...

awaiting orders comrade Ed Balls. Unable to function without spin. Cannot function.......

25 November 2009 at 22:44  
Anonymous Raffles said...

Back to the thread of His Graces blog. Is it possible that a government of intelligent, educated people could really be blind enough not to realise that they were financing a potential nursery school for future jihadists?.Or could it be that they are encouraging acts of terrorism to promote fear in the public, which will make it easier to expand their programme of surveillance & control under the banner of anti-terrorism with the eventual objective of eradicating all personal freedom of thought or choice.
Weird I know, but stranger things have been known!

25 November 2009 at 22:51  
Anonymous St Bruno said...

english kuffar said...
PS- not all muslims are terrorists etc.

Yes, agree, but why have they not said so?
I suppose it depends on the definition of ‘terrorist’
Do you really think that a non-terrorist Muslim is going to say so to his terrorist friends or neighbours in Birmingham?
I think he/she would be due for a bit of retraining.

In asymmetric warfare anything can be ‘terror. Generally upsetting your host country by creating fear and swamping them with demands.

25 November 2009 at 22:54  
Anonymous english kuffar said...

st bruno

"PS- not all muslims are terrorists etc."

This has to be said because the religion of peace has such a grip on our legal system. But I am sure the other readers will know the truth.

25 November 2009 at 23:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some one once said to me :

"Islam is the way the UK is going. In 20 years Islam will be the established religion and Christians will be a minority or in jail. Or dead. The Christians will melt away. Once we torture and cruxify a few of you, you will all convert to the religion of peace. It is the will of Allah!"

Is this true ?

25 November 2009 at 23:08  
Anonymous english kuffar said...


25 November 2009 at 23:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is english kuffar a racist ?

25 November 2009 at 23:16  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

But what is a kuffar ? Is it a religion?

25 November 2009 at 23:32  
Anonymous St Bruno said...

Part 1
Thought I'd put this here for some posters who might find it interesting and informative.

The Five Principles
Islam’s Trilogy of three sacred texts is the Koran and two books about the life of Mohammed. When the Trilogy is sorted, categorized, arranged, rewritten and analyzed, it becomes apparent that five principles are the foundation of Islam.
All of Islam is based upon the Trilogy—Koran, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (his Traditions).
Most of the Islamic doctrine is political, not religious. Islam is a political ideology.
Islam divides the world into Muslims and unbelievers, kafirs.
Political Islam always has two different ways to treat kafirs—dualistic ethics. Kafirs can be abused in the worst ways or they can be treated like a good neighbor.
Kafirs must submit to Islam in all politics and public life. Every aspect of kafir civilization must submit to political Islam.
These Five Principles can be put in five words—Trilogy, politics, kafirs, dualism and submission. These five words bring clarity and ease of learning about political Islam.
Up until now Islam has been hard to understand because it seemed complex and contradictory and did not make sense. But, once you see how the Five Principles work, everything falls into place. Complexity becomes simplicity. Chaos becomes order.
1. trilogy
The Trilogy contains three books—
The Koran is what Mohammed said that the angel Gabriel said that Allah said. But the Koran does not contain enough guidance for one to be a Muslim. The Koran repeatedly says that all of the world should imitate Mohammed in every way. Mohammed’s words and deeds are called the Sunna. The Sunna is found in two different texts—the Sira and Hadith.
The first source of the Sunna is the Sira which is Mohammed’s biography. The most authoritative version is by Ibn Ishaq.
The other source of the Sunna is the Hadith, the Traditions of Mohammed. There are several versions of Hadith, but the most commonly used is by Bukhari.
So the Trilogy is the Koran, Sira and Hadith.
2. political islam
Political Islam is the doctrine that relates to the unbeliever, the kafir. Islam’s relationship to the kafir cannot be religious since a Muslim is strictly forbidden to have any religious interaction with them. The religion of Islam is what is required for a Muslim to avoid Hell and enter Paradise.
The Trilogy not only advocates a religious superiority over the kafir—the kafirs go to Hell whereas Muslims go to Paradise—but also its doctrine demands that Muslims dominate the kafir in all politics and culture. This domination is political, not religious.
As mentioned earlier, the Koran has 61% of its text devoted to the kafir. The Sira (Mohammed’s biography) has about 75% of its text devoted to the kafir and jihad.
Islam’s success comes primarily from its politics. In thirteen years as a spiritual leader, Mohammed converted 150 people to his religion. When he became a political leader and warrior, Islam exploded in growth, and Mohammed became king of Arabia in ten years.
Islam has a complete doctrine of how to treat the kafir that is found in the Trilogy.
3. kafirs
Non-believers are so important that they have several names. Christians and Jews are called People of the Book or infidels. Other religious names for non-Muslims are atheist, polytheist, and pagan. But the Koran uses one word that includes all of the religious names. That name is kafir, an Arabic word.

26 November 2009 at 00:02  
Anonymous St Bruno said...

Part 2 0f 2

Kafir is usually translated as unbeliever, but that translation is wrong. Unbeliever is a neutral word. The Koran is very clear about the kafir. Indeed, the Koran defines the kafir by how it speaks of them. Kafirs are the lowest and worst form of life. Kafirs can be robbed, murdered, tortured, enslaved, crucified and more. Later in this chapter, more of the Koran’s doctrine of the kafir is given in some detail. But the key point is that a kafir is not only a non-Muslim, but also a person who falls under a different moral code from the Muslim.
The Koran is devoted to the division between those who believe Mohammed, Muslims, and those who do not, kafirs. This grand division of the Koran means that there are two points of view of the Koran—the view of the Muslim and the view of the kafir.
4. dualism
The third principle is duality, and is unique to Islam. As an example, here is a verse from the Koran:
109:2 I do not worship what you worship, and you do not worship what I worship. I will never worship what you worship, and you will never worship what I worship. You to your religion, me to my religion.
This sounds very tolerant, but this verse was written later:
9:5 When the sacred months are passed, kill the kafirs wherever you find them. Take them as captives, besiege them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush. If they submit to Islam, observe prayer, and pay the poor tax, then let them go their way. Allah is gracious and merciful.
Now we have absolute intolerance. This contradiction is normal for the Koran and is even addressed in the Koran. The solution to contradiction is called abrogation where the later verse is better than the earlier verse.
The logic here is very important. Since Allah is perfect and the Koran is the exact words of Allah, then both contradictory verses are true, but the later verse is better or stronger. This leads to dualistic logic where two contradictory facts can both be true.
5. submission
Islam means submission and Muslim means one who has submitted. It is clearly stated in the Trilogy that all kafirs and their civilizations must be annihilated. Mohammed’s success depended on violence to persuade kafirs that he was the prophet of Allah.
Submission is political, as well as religious. Islam demands that kafirs submit in every aspect of public life. Every part of kafir culture is an offense to Allah.

26 November 2009 at 00:04  
Anonymous Typical NuLabour Bufoon said...

Your Grace, do you really mean to imply that if we keep paying these nasty muslim bullies more and more money then they're still not going to like us or want to be our friends? I say, that doesn't seem very fair or gentlemanly of them at all. It's just not cricket.

26 November 2009 at 00:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace, these violent unpleasant people have votes...

26 November 2009 at 00:49  
Anonymous Artressa said...

Your Grace,

I'm pleased to see you have raised the important issue of links between Hizb ut Tahrir and the Islamic primary school in Slough.

You might be interested to know that Zafar Ali, Chair of the Governors at the Iqra Islamic School, was appointed by Kingston University in 2005-06 to investigate trumped up allegations against a Jewish-American lecturer
in order to dismiss him.

Mr Ali is currently the University's "star" witness in an ongoing Employment Tribunal case against the University, which as you might be aware has a long history of supporting Hizb ut Tahrir's recruitment operations on campus as well as a history of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, including the writing by the Vice-Chancellor of an anti-Semitic/anti-American letter to the aforementioned lecturer, as well as the purging of all six Jewish and all American staff members from the School of Music in 2004-06.

Please see the following links for further information:-

26 November 2009 at 03:32  
Anonymous not a machine said...

St Bruno , I think many get the dangers of this , when one splinter group said it wanted to see Islamic flag flying above no10 and the UK to become an islamic state , you could sense that they didnt really like the UK , some days I dont like the UK , but that doesnt mean I want to be in an Islamic state .

Labour has made the problem much worse, other than that you seem to have made your mind up.

26 November 2009 at 03:41  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I watched PMQs yesterday. I laughed at Balls' discomfort, his, furiously shaking head and tried to make out potential obscenities forming one his rapidly moving lips. Talk about if looks could kill!

So this is the impasse we have been dragged to. Set up a school for future jihadists and get handed lots of kuffar cash. Or! Protect life by handing in a sawn-off found tossed into your garden and face five years in the slammer:

Beggars Belief

NuLab funding a group that, by rights, should be in the dock and being tried for treason before getting its backside kicked out of this country (I don't give a crap whether or not the bastards were born here), comes as no big surprise. NuLab itself should be charged with treason too so I won't hold my breath.

Which brings me to the question, if Cameron has discovered the raisins to go after the fundamental extremist nutter elephant in the room, why does he ignore the equally huge and odious EU one?

26 November 2009 at 09:14  
Blogger Chrysippus said...

Your Grace, anonymous points out that many of these unpleasant people have votes.

One suspects that a postal strike would prevent many of them from being used.......

26 November 2009 at 10:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any party or politician that attempts to curry favour with islamists, extreme or not quite so extreme (‘moderates’), for votes is committing treason. Labour’s ‘human rights’ legislation and a cold and calculating deliberate policy of mass immigration for votes has allowed hundreds of thousands more of Satan’s followers to set up camp amongst us. The Tories want the muslim vote as much as Labour which is why the Conservative Muslim Forum has been spawned and Cameron encourages ‘us’ to change our way of life to ‘theirs’. I’m afraid I’m not really ‘in’ to honour killings, forced marriages, female genital mutilation, persecution of homosexuals and the killing of cartoonists, apostates, Jews and ‘non-believers’. Therefore I will not be voting either Labour or Conservative at the general election.

26 November 2009 at 10:53  
Blogger FABVirgil said...

Can't wait 'til slaughtering people is on the menu.

26 November 2009 at 13:30  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Maybe if they got rid of all religious schools. Schooling would then have no other agenda to push except to educate the students in factual knowledge and this wouldn't have been able to ever become an issue.

26 November 2009 at 13:55  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"PS- not all muslims are terrorists etc"

Said it before and I will say it again.

Yes, not all muslims are terrorists. But all Islamic terrorists are mulsims. And it just another example of attrocities being carried out in the name of a religion.

They are basically just as bad as the Christians were a number of centuries ago. But then again I suppose it is a younger religion so why not, just seems to be going through the same traditions all be in it a later age.

The Chrisitians had the Crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, whatever. The muslims have terrorism.

"With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

-Steven Weinberg

26 November 2009 at 14:06  
Blogger FABVirgil said...

I have been for some petrol to throw in:

Paul Waugh writes:

When an 'extremist' is not an extremist.

"As the Tories have now admitted there is no evidence for the allegation David Cameron made in the House of Commons yesterday that the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation has secured government money from a fund intended to prevent violent extremism. Both Slough and Haringey local authorities have confirmed that this is the case. The only public funding they are aware of is pathfinder funding for the provision of free nursery places for three and four year olds, for which the two independent schools in question are registered and have been inspected to ensure they comply to the relevant standards.

"Nor was Michael Gove right to claim that the schools had not been inspected or registered, when in fact they had been.

"It now turns out that Michael Gove has form in this area and had to apologise to the House of Commons for making false allegations in 2005 about an individual who had absolutely no connection to Islamic extremism.

"If the Conservatives want to be treated as a serious opposition, let alone a serious alternative government, they should be more careful, get their facts right before making false allegations and stop playing politics with such serious and sensitive issues."

Let's see what the Tories do in response...

26 November 2009 at 14:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

'His Grace has been sent a very interesting letter by the Conservative Party (at last, they are trusting him with their intelligence).'

They have also observed that your blog is beginning to exceed a daily readership in excess of 2,000.

They know that your blog is influencing relgious communities throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

26 November 2009 at 15:00  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@The Glovener

As far as I'm aware, there haven't been any recorded cases yet of an Church of England schools preaching messages of hate (etc etc) nor preparing its pupils to die as suicide bombers (well, whatever, you get the general drift)

Of course they could simply have kept it all secret, and that, even as we speak, there's a whole raft of secret classes out there extolling a 4th crusade and death to the infidel. On the other hand, maybe not.

Perhaps it is just possible that it's only fanatical muslims who want to put the kuffir on the chopping block and hoist the flag of Islam over number 10.

In which case, why should C of E schools be shut, just because they might suggest, ever so hesitantly, that the teachings of Jesus might be a good idea.

Furthermore, nobody is obliged to send their kids to them.

Who knows...maybe not everyone feels that their offspring should be taught be fanatical atheists and secularists?

yours most cordially

26 November 2009 at 17:09  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

@Old Grumpy

All religious schools should be shut for the simple reason that it is just another facility to breed hate.

Seperating children while they grow up just leads to distrust they grow. Keeping kids apart based on religion is not healthy to the betterment of a cohesive community spirit.

I make no such suggestion that children should be taught by "fanatical atheists" and secularists. I believe that schools should certainly be secular establishments for learning certainly, but a secular establishment can easily have teachers of either atheistic or religious leanings, what they can't do is foist those beliefs on the students that they hope to educate.

Morals and the like is for the parents and family to teach in the home, schools are to educate based on facts and provable theories.

26 November 2009 at 18:43  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Glovner - I went to Church Schools. The ones I went to taught Love (as in Caritas - not the filth secularists now think infants should have forced upon them). Christian schools taught even that one should love one's enemy: again, in the Christian sense of Caritas.

Hate, in that world and that time, was no more than a strong dislike for rice pudding. Years later, I wondered why some people got so excited about the world. And then your world forced its way into mine: quite recently. Only then did I begin to see what secularists and mozzies call 'hate' - and the things they do to express it.

Christian schools (including the Grammar Schools of my day) also provided some of the best education ever known anywhere: including science, maths, and Latin. Church schools are, you see, survivors of the tradition that developed education in the West - some of it, indeed, stemming from the preservation and development of Arab learning, or that which Arabs had acquired from further East. Without the propagators of that Search for Truth, we would not have schools and universities even in the dumbed-down state known to you.

As to the Crusades - your expression is again simplistic. The Mediterranean has never been lovely and peaceful: various peoples set up empires long before either Christianity or Islam appeared. And those empires contended against each other: power and wealth apparently being the incentives.

When Rome fell (fifth century) the Byzantines held to Christianity - but tended to Greek influence and theology, and so they related more to the eastern Med. The Roman Church differed in its approach, and related more to western euroland.

The Holy Land had long been Byzantine territory until the Muslims conquered it in the seventh century. In the ninth and tenth centuries, Christians were beset not only by Vikings, but also by Moslems: who came from North Africa, whence they attacked e.g. the Rhone, establishing their pirate strongholds on the French Med. coast, and even in the Alps. They operated much as the Vikings did here; and they've been aggressive about euroland ever since. They finally conquered Constantinople/Byzantium/Istanbul in 1453.

The First Crusade was not launched until the Papacy of Urban II (1088-99), who not only sought Christian Unity with Byzantium, but also the deliverance of Jerusalem from Moslem domination. They achieved this in 1099, however Saladin retook it in 1187. At least three more major crusades followed, with ostensibly the same goal, although the Fourth resulted in establishment of the Roman Church in Constantinople 1204-1261.

One effect of the wars was to unite Christians and maintain some peace in the west: which allowed furtherance of that civilization. However, the Moslem hordes have always been at the gates.

Overall, your Mr. Weinberg notwithstanding, I'm inclined to suggest that while what you call religion may have fuelled the aggression, it may not always have been the cause. The dynamic probably has something in common with the psychology of the rapist who uses gender as an excuse for his 'hating disorder.'

Whatever, though: the truth is that "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Secularism, and its little tin god marx's doctrine of socio-economic dialectic, is no different from that of the early Middle Eastern practice, except that it offers less.

So I would never submit children of mine to your impoverished version of education, or to your doctrine of 'hate' - any more than I would to a school run by the woman His Grace mentions.

26 November 2009 at 21:08  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Sorry, that should have been 'excited about the word.'

26 November 2009 at 21:19  
Anonymous peter wright said...

So glad you are now receiving "intelligence" from CCHQ - pity they couldn't check their facts before doing so!

A sort of minor version of the Zinoviev letter!

26 November 2009 at 22:49  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
'foisting beliefs on students'

How about Darwins 'theory of evolution' being taught in schools do you agree with that?this is surely a belief system?

27 November 2009 at 23:30  
Anonymous Mike Stallard said...

What a thorough, thoughtful and excellent article that was, your Grace.
Thank you for taking the time to do it for us.

28 November 2009 at 09:30  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"How about Darwins 'theory of evolution' being taught in schools do you agree with that?this is surely a belief system?"

No I don't believe it is a belief system. It is a workable theory to explain the evidence and as such a viable attempt to answer the question of how the human race got here. If new evidence is found then the theory is able to evolve and change to accept and include this new evidence.

That does not a belief system make.

I actually replied to no nonny the other day quite extensively but on submitting my post it was stolen by the great World Wide Web. I will endevour to reply again at some point soon but it kind of gets a bit annoying when you write up that much and then it goes missing. Who knows, some might say it was perhaps an act of god.

28 November 2009 at 11:32  
Anonymous len said...

The unsubstantiated, unfounded and unprovable theories of evolution are believed by ardent followers whose faith would make the faith of most Christians pale by comparison.Dr. Richard Leakey, discoverer of Skull 1470 (Homo habilis), one of world’s foremost paleo-anthropologists,said in a PBS documentary in 1990:
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.

28 November 2009 at 14:19  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"whose faith would make the faith of most Christians pale by comparison"

Don't make me laugh, faith of a christian (or any religion) in a nut(shell):

If I can't answer it then why bother even trying, my big invisble beardy friend in the sky done it. Evidence? Proof? Nah, not me, I don't need any of that.

Please don't even try to defend your nonsense by suggesting that scentific evidence, theory and experiment are even slightly similar to your blind faith. It does nothing for your position.

29 November 2009 at 00:26  
Anonymous l;en said...

Evolution is believed in by its adherents, in spite of the fact that to believe in evolution you have to have incredible faith.“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Sir Arthur Keith as quoted in Criswell, W.A. (1972), Did Man Just Happen?, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, p. 73.

( I could carry on for some time but I think it might try his Grace`s patience)

29 November 2009 at 08:31  
Anonymous Tabatha said...

Hizbut Tahrir was banned years back in many Arab countries, due to its extremism.

Sadly, it's predictable that here in Britain, the group has been allowed to flourish. Anyone interested in reading more about this should look at 'Londonistan' by Melanie Phillips. It makes for alarming reading.

There is also a good site radical Islam and how to try and counter it:

29 November 2009 at 10:46  
Anonymous Sarah said...

Assallamu alaikum
Choosing to cite the unquestionably unIslamic opinions of two who consider themselves Islamic scholars is most unhelpful and calls into question why you chose these two recruiting agents for the BNP as representative or even desirable when speaking of Muslims and Islam.
Could it be that this would knowingly evoke even more hatred and prejudice? Surely not for that is not the Christian way is it?
Perhaps though, the outrage caused by the provocative comments of Mssrs Bakri and Choudary can be compared to what can be felt by those Muslims whose lives have been destroyed by the freedom loving democratic West?
Flashback to US soldier planting US flag on face of Saddam in staged photo op 'liberation' of Iraq or is the same old double standards?

St Bruno, @ 00.02 & 00.04, your views on Islam contains so many errors and distortions it pained me to read it. Clearly you are not a Muslim neither an Islamic scholar yet consider yourself sufficiently knowledgable to pontificate on what Islam is and isn't. Non Muslims will read your unfair portrayal and become alarmed and hostile towards Islam. Afraid of them knowing the truth or what?

2 December 2009 at 02:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Labour controlled Tower Hamlets council have been giving tax-payers money to the local mosques for years

4 December 2009 at 15:00  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older