Friday 28 May 2010



 

Muslims try to remove Zionism from Jewish UK schools

From TheJC:

A Muslim campaign group has written to the new Education Secretary Michael Gove to object to state-aided Jewish schools promoting Zionism.

Mohammed Asif, the chief executive of Engage (not to be confused with the antisemitism monitoring group of the same name), said he was "more than a little surprised" to see Zionism included as part of the ethos of several Jewish schools.

Mr Asif cited a number of Jewish schools professing explicit support for Zionism, including Manchester's King David High School, Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Primary in Salford, and Simon Marks Jewish Primary School in Hackney, north London.

He wrote that he understood the Jewish nature of the schools, but that he would "contest the place of Zionism in the school's governing ethos".

A spokesman for the Department of Education said it had not yet had time to respond to the letter. Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies, commented: "There is nothing at all remarkable or contentious in a Jewish school stressing the spiritual and historical connection of Jews to the land of Israel, and the centrality of those connections to our faith. It is those who attempt to characterise Zionism as an anathema to Judaism who are trying to score political points."

King David's website, explaining the aims of its Jewish studies programme, states that the school has "a strong Zionist ethos and all students are given the opportunity to visit Israel. A love and appreciation of Israel is woven into the curriculum."
Asif's organization is trying to make Gove look like a hypocrite, because Gove is on the record as being against giving public funds to Hizb ut-Tahrir schools in Britain that preach for the establishment of a unified Islamic state. Asif is facetiously claiming that support for the liberal, democratic Jewish state is equivalent to support for a pan-Islamic state that would institutionalize discrimination against women, discrimination against non-Muslims, and would severely restrict freedom of religion, the press and assembly.

I am a little concerned that the King David school site is down at the moment. The Google cache shows how its Zionist ethos is described:

See how offensive that is?

Speaking of how awful Zionist Jewish schools are in England, there is another Jewish, Zionist school called the King David Primary School in Birmingham - and, according to an Independent article from 2007, half of the students are Muslim!
King David is a strictly Jewish school. Judaism is the only religion taught. There's a synagogue on site. The children learn modern Hebrew - Ivrit - the language of Israel. And they celebrate Israeli independence day.

But half the 247 pupils at the 40-year-old local authority-supported school are Muslim, and apparently the Muslim parents go through all sorts of hoops, including moving into the school's catchment area, to get their children into King David to learn Hebrew, wave Israeli flags on independence day and hang out with the people some would have us believe that they hate more than anyone in the world.

The Muslim parents, mostly devout and many of the women wearing the hijab, say they love the ethos of the school, and even the kosher school lunches, which are suitable because halal and kosher dietary rules are virtually identical. The school is also respectful to Islam, setting aside a prayer room for the children and supplying Muslim teachers during Ramadan. At Eid, the Muslim children are wished Eid Mubarak in assembly, and all year round, if they wish, can wear a kufi (hat). Amazingly, dozens of the Muslim children choose instead to wear the Jewish kipah.

At the prize morning Carol Cooper, the RE teacher, says: "Boker tov," (Ivrit for "Good morning").

"Good morning Mrs Cooper," the children chant in reply. The entire school, Muslims, Jews, plus the handful of Christians and Sikhs then say the Shema, the holiest Jewish prayer, all together
.That must really upset Mr. Asif!


....................................





Dutch doctors call for circumcision ban

Something that Jews and Muslims can agree on:

Dutch doctors' group calls for circumcision ban

AMSTERDAM (Reuters Life!) - The Royal Dutch Medical Association on Thursday suggested a possible ban on elective circumcisions for young boys, saying they were medically unnecessary and violated children's rights.

The 161-year-old organization, which represents more than 46,000 doctors and students, called the procedure "a violation of the integrity of the body."

The group, known by its Dutch initials KNMG, proposed a dialogue between doctors and religious groups on the issue.

"KNMG sees good reasons for a legal ban on non-therapeutic circumcisions, but fears that this will lead to the operation going underground," it said in a statement.
Notice that the doctors are not claiming that circumcision has any adverse medical effects. They are just using their medical credentials to give a political opinion that the rights of parents to do something religiously imperative is not as important as the rights of the children.

Of course, adult circumcision is a much more dangerous and painful procedure, something that these doctors are counting on in order to eradicate a completely safe religious practice.

This is not ethics, and this is not medicine. This is hatred of religion clothed in the fig-leaf of "human rights."

And there is a simple proof that this is true.

The KNMG did not issue a similar opinion against ear piercings for children - a procedure that also has no medical benefit, is often done by amateurs and which often results in complications. "In one study, up to 35 percent of persons with pierced ears had one or more complications (e.g., minor infection [77 percent], allergic reaction [43 percent], keloid formation [2.5 percent], and traumatic tearing [2.5 percent])." 


If KNMG didn't ask to issue a similar ban on children's piercings, then I think we can safely conclude that protecting children's rights is not their major concern.

(The analogy isn't perfect, I know, but the fact that the holes in ears can close up is irrelevant to the issue of children's rights, which is what the doctors were basing their proposed ban on.)

.................................

 

Obama’s top adviser on counter-terrorism – John Brennan – is in the news today for his description of how the Obama Administration is approaching the Islamic Jihadist enemy America faces today. Basically, they are pretending the real enemy does not exist. Here is what Brennan said:

“Our enemy is not terrorism, because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror, because terror is a state of mind – and as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘Islamists’ or ‘Jihadists,’ because ‘Jihad’ is a ‘Holy Struggle,’ a legitimate tenet of Islam.”

This is not the first time Brennan has made this argument. Back in August of last year, Brennan made an extensive speech laying out the radical worldview of President Obama and his administration. It was this speech in which they essentially declared that the “War on Terror” does not exist. Below is a link to the full speech Brennan delivered last August.

Obama Administration Says We Are Not in a “Global War” Against “Jihadists” – Complete Video 8/6/09

 
 

Posted by therightscoop     May 27th, 2010       http://www.therightscoop.com/john-brennan-we-are-not-at-war-with-islamic-jihadists

We’re doomed:

 
There’s a shorter clip floating around, but this is the entire clip of his comments on Islam, which shows how far they take this idea that Islam is a wonderful and peaceful religion.
 
 
 
 
Obama's counterterror chief: jihad is "legitimate tenet of Islam"

Willful blindness. "Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam,'" from FOXNews.com, May 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

Why not? That's how they describe themselves. Wouldn't it be better to understand how they perceive themselves and what their motives and goals, rather than dismissing such study a priori?

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

Why not? That's how they themselves describe them.

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.

Terrorism is indeed a tactic, not an opponent. I've been saying that for years. But then Brennan falls off the edge of sanity:

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

Brennan should study the Qur'an and Sunnah in order to discover just how Muslims understand what it means to purify "one's community," and what the Islamic understanding is of the term "innocent." He would find, of course, that a community that is fully purified is one in which non-Muslims live as subjugated dhimmis, and that non-Muslims are never understood in the Qur'an and Sunnah as being "innocent." But he will not undertake such a study, and will never find these things out.

The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims. However, jihad frequently connotes images of military combat or warfare, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists including Usama bin Laden commonly use the word to call for war against the West.

It doesn't just "connote" warfare. It juridically means warfare, according to Islamic texts and teachings. There is not a single traditional school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach, as part of the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

Shafi'i school: A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, says that "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.0).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law emphasizes that jihad is a religious war against non-believers. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, "because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith." It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam "the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war."

However, "if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do." (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that "since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought."

But no, for Brennan it's just al-Qaeda:

Brennan defined the enemy as members of bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and "its terrorist affiliates."

But Brennan argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."

Al-Azhar University, Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Taymiyya: Misunderstanders of Islam.

"Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam," he said.

The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.

"In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU.

Shame on Brennan for calling it "Al-Quds," the name given it by...Islamic jihadists.

 
 
 

Posted by Britannia Radio at 15:46