The same group on whose TV program Obama adviser Dalia Mogahed recently defended Sharia. "Islamists who want to destroy the state get £100,000 funding," by Andrew Gilligan for the Telegraph, October 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Leading members of a group that wants to bring down the British state and replace it with a dictatorship under Islamic law have secured more than £100,000 of taxpayers' money for a chain of schools.Accounts filed at the Charity Commission show that the Government paid a total of £113,411 last year to a foundation run by senior members and activists of Hizb ut-Tahrir -- a notorious Islamic extremist group that ministers promised to ban.
The public money helped run a nursery school and two Islamic primary schools where children are taught key elements of Hizb's ideology from the age of five....
Hizb regards integration as "dangerous" and says that British Muslims should "fight assimilation" into British society. It wants to create a global Islamic superstate, or "caliphate", initially in Muslim-majority countries and then across the rest of the world.
It says that "those [Muslims] who believe in democracy are Kafir", or apostates. It orders all Muslims to keep apart from non-believers and boycott "corrupt" British elections and political processes. It has a tiny following and its views are rejected by most British Muslims.
Hizb, which operates worldwide, insists it is non-violent and condemned the London bombings.
However its website previously displayed a leaflet urging Muslims to "kill [Jews] wherever you find them" and at a rally in London earlier this year, Imran Waheed, its chief media adviser in Britain, said that there could be "no peace" with Israel, calling on Muslims to "fight" a "jihad... in the way of Allah" against it.
Its anti-Semitism has resulted in the group being banned in Germany and on some British university campuses....
It says that "those [Muslims] who believe in democracy are Kafir", or apostates.
This fits the Baghdad bombings as well...In Islam the value of your life lays in your 'belief'...or disbelief...
Kufr is mentioned eleven times in Bukhari hadith...Once it is described as 'heathenism', twice as a land, and eight times as 'disbelief'...Kufr is automatic apostasy...Dar al-harb...inhabited by heatenistic disbeleivers...The best thing to do with that is to destroy it...
There is no real democracy in Islam...nor is it wanted...
"It has a tiny following and its views are rejected by most British Muslims."
I don't buy this...
Hizb ut-tahrir is a international group committed to Re-establishing a Caliphate and pushing for sharia law everywhere.
This is the group who openly held a conference in a Chicago Hilton Hotel this past summer calling for "The fall of Capitalism and the rise of Islam":
Interestingly that we should have a President from Chicago Politics who is reflecting socialist values.
This group blamed both WWI and WWII on capitalism. One speaker even went as far as to say that capitalism made the late Michael Jackson bleach his skin white.
Surprisingly though there was frustration expressed at the conference that men and women where made to sit in separate areas (did US Muslims Forget that requirement?). At one point, an unidentified Hizb ut-Tahrir speaker became flustered from questions about the sexes being separated line of questioning."Men and women," he blurted out, must be kept separate "to prevent people from behaving like animals.
" it should also be noted that some of their alumni included the 9-11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the late Iraqi Terrorist Leader Abu Musab Zarqawi.
One of the panelist suggested that modern industrial powers could fall to Muslims the way Mecca fell to Mohammed nearly 1,400 years ago.
The Hizb ut-tahrir is open in saying that they are determined to get rid of the US Constitution and replace it with sharia law.
Even though they are incubator for Islamic terrorism they still remain off the State Departments list of terrorist groups.
I don't buy it either, pulsar182. What's being put forth is accepted, more or less, by a hell of a lot of British Muslims and by Muslims across the world. Moreover, what this group is spouting is standard Islamic doctrine which, for pointing out that it is, opens one up to the charge of being "Islamophobic." Hell, if one isn't repulsed by (and fearful of) Islam there's something the matter with you. You're either woefully ignorant or impenetrably foolish or just plain complicit.
“Men and women," he blurted out, must be kept separate "to prevent people from behaving like animals.”
Well, if anyone should know about acting like animals. After all, aren’t women nothing more than just uncovered meat? Much in the same way you look at a cow and see a walking steak, or a yew and see lamb chops exercising mobility.
What islam needs is a massive porn assault that’ll make their heads explode. I would’ve said “stark raving mad,” but if you subscribe to islam, you’re already there.
It wants to create a global Islamic superstate, or "caliphate", initially in Muslim-majority countries and then across the rest of the world.
Come now, all you knuckle-dragging grass rooters. Surely you are sophisticated enough to understand that they really don't mean all that stuff. They are simply using that language to express their frustration at being disenfranchised and pilloried by the corporate capitalist juggernaut. We simply must be sensitive to their plight and build their self-esteem by enfolding them into the global community.
--ear hair-growing sociology professor to lecture hall full of wide-eyed freshmen
'UK: Sharia supremacist group gets $165,000 in taxpayer funding'
I guess if you are planning your own funeral you have to pay for it...
I want my money back!!!
“Men and women," he blurted out, must be kept separate "to prevent people from behaving like animals.”
Men and women are bad, but ... men and little kids?
"Thighing" is an Islamic practice still followed today even in Muslim communities in the U.S. and Britain:
Regarding the practice of "thighing", the masterbating between the legs of a female infant or actually sodomizing her, Islamic clerics have this to say:
Pedophilia decrees from www.islamic-fatwa.net
Question 1809
After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question forwarded by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/5/1453 and 7/5/1421 (Islamic calendar)
Question: ‘It has become widespread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa’khathat of the children. (mufa’khathat - literally translated, it means “placing between the thighs” which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child).
What is the opinion of scholars, knowing full well that the prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her ?
Answer: After studying the issue, the committee has answered as follows:
As for the prophet, his thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship was due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:
"A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."
Khomeini, "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990
“It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”
Ayatu Allah Al Khumaini's "Tahrir Al wasila" p. 241, issue number 12
"Young boys or girls in full sexual effervescence are kept from getting married before they reach the legal age of majority. This is against the intention of divine laws. Why should the marriage of pubescent girls and boys be forbidden because they are still minors, when they are allowed to listen to the radio and to sexually arousing music?"
"The Little Green Book" "Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini", Bantam Books
MUHAMMAD, THE PROPHET OF ISLAM
PART 1 MECCA
An Arab is regarded as an old man, a sheik, when he is fifty.
Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old in Mecca and she joined him in Medina three years later when he was 53. He began having sex with Aisha when she was nine years old and still playing with dolls.
This is the original story told by the ONLY valid biographers of Muhammad and Islam, Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, and the hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim. Refer also to the works of the Qur’an commentators Ibn Kathir and Ibn Qayyim. (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume II, translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Limited, UK. The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 2000. pp. 93-94)
(Ibn Qayyim Al-Juaziyyah, Zad-ul Ma’ad fi Hadyi Khairi-l ‘Ibad (Provisions for the Hereafter, From the Guidance of Allah’s Best Worshipper) translated by Jalal Abualrub, [Madinah Publishers & Distributors, December 2000] Volume I, pp. 157-158)
Muhammad said that he had dreamed of Aisha before demanding her from her father, and his own brother in Islam, Abu Bakr, claiming special ‘prophets rights’ when Abu Bakr was reluctant to give her to him.
Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 235: Narrated 'Aisha: That the Prophet said to her, "You have been shown to me twice in my dreams. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said to me, 'This is your wife.' When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, 'If this is from Allah, it will be done."
Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18: Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother!"
The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."
Marriage to a female already offered to another was illegal in Arab law. Abu Bakr had already arranged for Aisha to marry Djubayr Mutim.
Muhammad married ‘A’isha in Mecca when she was a child of six and lived with her in Medina when she was nine or ten. She was the only virgin that he married. Her father, Abu Bakr, married her to him and the apostle gave her four hundred dirhams. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad) translated by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, p. 792)
Tabari VII:7 “The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six.”
Tabari IX:128 “When the Prophet married Aisha, she was very young and not yet ready for consummation.” [The History of Al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community] translated by M.V. McDonald annotated by W. Montgomery Watt [State University of New York Press, Albany 1987], Volume VII, pp. 6-7) (The History of Al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala [State University of New York Press, Albany 1990], Volume IX, pp. 129-130)
Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236: Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.
Source(s):
http://islam-the-monster-unchained.blogs…
Is that "hate" speech, or "free" speech?
I honestly think there is a larger monster at work here ... think why Ford moved Muslims into Deerbornistan? I think the elites are just tired of us pesky, question asking, reasoning, beer drinking, proletariat.
You Brits can borrow this if you like, we may have to use it again in the near future ... on this side of the pond.
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Now that this news is out:
Daily Telegraph Article
...it is easy to see why they got this money. The article by the Daily Telegraph demonstrates once and for all what the Labout Govt's motives have truly been - the virtual replacement of the native UK (more so the English) population by another one. Apparently this news is not being run by the TV news outlets, for some reason, but it is certainly available online and in the papers. It is political dynamite and people are absolutely furious about it. And I mean genuinely so. Tjhe Govt has been, to all intents and purposes committing treason, and now we know why one of the first things the Labour party did when they got into power was alter the laws on treason.
The implications of this are quite astounding, and this has exploded over here. It is political dynamite. People are furious (Well, as furious as we tend to get. "Down with that sort of thing" lol).
All the accusations of racism (or should that be 'raaaaacist', lol), all the lies and obfuscation, just to cover up the fact that the socialist Labour (Liebour) Party were conducting social engineering on a massive scale. The eradication, virtually, of the native Christian population. Suddenly it starts to make a lot of sense. E.g. Why the police were told to arrest white British for supposed 'hate speech' but told to leave the muslims alone. pushing, against the wishes of the majority of the population, constant concessions to fundamentalist Islam. Comments by Jack Straw about eradicating the English people. The Govt funding of the Unite Against Fascism mob which are just a bunch of thugs that violently suppress free speech. Similar I suppose to Hitler's Brownshirts. The supposed incompetence of the Govt in handling immigration issues. Doesn't look so incompetent now does it? The implications just go on really. Long time suspected, but never had proof. Well now we do. One thing the Americans need to understand is that it is not easy trying to oppose this over here you know. Not when the Govt. the law, the police, and generally speaking, the MSM such as the BBC are against you. And then throw the UAF into the mix.
We face an uphill struggle and need all the moral support we can get.
And people are surprised that a growing number of Britons support extremist groups like the BNP....
Kaffirchick, I would argue that on present standing the present UK government is more extremist than the BNP.
Ethoman wrote, citing the findings of the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs:
As for the prophet, his thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship was due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men.
....................
Only devout Muslims would consider molesting a first-grader to be evidence of sexual control. I suppose if "the Prophet" hadn't had such perfect "control of his male member" that he just would have raped or sodomized Aisha outright.
What a paragon of sexual continence, and model for all time the "Prophet Mohammed" is! Anyone who is sickened by this must be nothing but a dirty kufr--or perhaps a normal person with a sense of moral decency.
Ginro
The Fifth of November fast approaches...
Ginro,
Yeah you are right ... it is getting much more difficult to deny that this is a massive social experiment. It really is hard to blame the Muslims for being what they are, but it is clear our elites have determined an Islamisized populace would be more easily manipulated through a totalitarian state. It is treason.
Guy Fawkes - the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions....
jhe Govt has been, to all intents and purposes committing treason, and now we know why one of the first things the Labour party did when they got into power was alter the laws on treason.
A few years ago when Tony Blair was still PM, I used to turn on C-Span when I went to bed and listen to his passionate speeches to Parliament. I loved to hear him speak until I actually started hearing his message. Many of his dialogues were related to the war in Iraq and he waxed fervently about the necessity and justification for the war. The members of Parliament were obviously not convinced despite Mr. Blair's exquisite rhetorical skills.
When he wasn't promoting the Iraq war, he was ardently exalting "change". The first few times I heard him talk about "changes" that had already occurred and the need for more radical "changes", I didn't pay much attention. But after about the sixth speech in which he obsessed about "change", albeit in very vague terms, I realized the man wanted to change everything about the U.K. He used terms like "antiquated", "archaic", "outmoded", "antique", "retrograde", "eighteenth century". Anything and everything steeped in historical tradition was anathema to him and had to be "changed". He was eloquent, earnest, and sometimes quite convincing. Mr. Blair seemed to loathe the U.K. that centuries of Western Civilization had created and argued that it must be torn down, one institution at a time, and "modernized". He was emphatic about the need to eradicate the old and bring in the new as quickly as possible.
Despite his ambiguity, it became undeniable that Mr. Blair had a very radical agenda for his country. Fast forward to the incredible election of Barak Obama, something I still cannot believe actually happened. He spoke of little else other than "hope" and "change" and is in the process of "fundamentally transforming" America. There are certainly some interesting similarities and although Blair is gone, Brown might be more of a nihilist than he was. I can't imagine what they are trying to do, or why. The U.K. is overrun with fanatical, manipulative, free loading muslims who never stop coming and are a burden in every conceivable way to the country and taxpayers. The U.S. is overrun with illiterate, unskilled Mexicans and refugees from every place on earth. The Mexicans will work if they can find it but after they're here for years and work runs out, they become a burden also. The refugees from everywhere are a burden from day one. Of course, we have much more space than the U.K. but we're out of money, thanks to Washington. Yet they keep coming.
It would appear that the global elite intend to transform the entire Western world into a miserable, contentious dump of diversity teeming with illegal aliens, ersatz refugees, radical muslims, and the third world's excess peasants.
Listen to this guy ... he sums it all up rather nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX5wS1-GQmo
When Britain first, at heaven's command,
Aro-o-o-ose from out the a-a-a-zure main,
Arose, arose, arose from out the a-azure main,
This was the charter, the charter of the land,
And guardian A-a-angels sang this strain:
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
The nations, no-o-o-o-ot so blest as thee,
Must i-i-i-i-in their turn, to ty-y--yrants fall,
Must in, must in, must in their turn, to ty-y-rants fall,
While thou shalt flourish, shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and e-e-e-e-nvy of them all.
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
Things like this make me refuse to vote for a Socialist--oops, Democratic--candidate unless the Republicans and Libertarians run a thieving pedophile. Muslim organizations should get their funding from fellow Muslims, not the non-Muslim taxpayers.
As for Jizya, it only shows that Islam encourages looting and robbery.
Tanstaafl:
When Britain really ruled the waves in good Queen Vickie's time,
The House of Peers was quite prepared
To have wild Muslims peeled and pared
When they got out of line.
Yes, Britain really ruled the waves in Good Queen Vickie's glorious days;
Yes, Britain really ruled the waves in Good Queen Vickie's glorious days!
(apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan)