Halal Certification Authority funding Terror? You decide.

This is an article written by Chrissy Clarke, it can be found on her blog here

Tuesday, 18 August 2015

Halal Certification Authority funding Terror? You decide.

Many regular Australians from different walks of life are opposed to Halal Certification. Why? It doesn’t make the food taste any different and it brings money into our economy. It allows our businesses to export to Islamic countries and anyone who dares oppose it must have Islamophobia, right? These seem to be the main reasons why some don’t see an issue with this. So what about the other side of this coin? The side that is kept in the shadows? The side that no one is allowed to talk about? The side that has been reported to support Islamic terror groups, substantial size groups that are hurting, killing, subduing and quietening millions of innocent people for what they believe to be Islam’s ultimate goal, world domination. Sounds like a cartoon plot. But it’s not a cartoon, this is what people are living, what humanity is facing. This is the very real threat of violence that we are now facing from the Muslim world. Muslims who have fled the violence are now facing it again alongside Westerners who have never encountered this sort of violence and have no idea how to stop it. We all need to stand together on these issues. Muslims and Non Muslims alike, side by side to stop the violence and persecution in our secular countries where we do have a say.

Mohamed El Mouelhy freely bandies around the term ‘bigot’ and directs it at any person who is concerned about these issues, it’s not hard to understand why. It’s how he makes his rather comfortable lifestyle. Is he concerned that if too many people ask questions, he won’t be quite so comfortable so he needs to place ugly labels on people to keep them quiet? I don’t agree that those who are concerned are bigots, I believe we need more people like them. More people concerned about where that money is actually going. Is that money being used to fund his goals? Or is it being used to further Islam’s goal?

So for the moment, I’m going to be a ‘bigot’ and ask questions. I’m going to tell you what I have found out from a couple of news stories that we all seem to be ignoring about this particular business and its rogue mouthpiece, El Mouelhy. What is the kingpin of Halal certification saying to the Australian people? The following are statements taken from his public facebook page and directed at the Australian people, his customers. His customers who, for the most part are non muslims and have no choice but to support his business, last I checked we had a choice on which businesses we supported. Not anymore in this climate of Islamophobia.

“Thank you for funding my lifestyle, and my wife’s shoes”.

“Muslims don’t buy from Supermarkets, they buy from Halal Certified butchers”. 
(So why are the major supermarkets paying this certification? So that we can buy your wife shoes? I thought the Certification was to tell Muslims what is safe for their consumption?)

“I receive a fee for certifying pork products haram” 
(But don’t Muslims already know they can’t eat pork? Oh that’s right. It’s for your wife’s shoes. Whether or not this is a true statement is yet to be discovered, what I see it as, is a deliberate taunt to non muslims).

“Stopping certification is like stopping a Mack truck with a pebble”. 
(Mr El Mouthy, a truck can indeed be flipped with many pebbles of the right size. You cannot take them all to court).

“I control your diet and there is no escaping”. 
(No Mr Mouthy, you don’t control our diet. What you do is make yourself responsible for companies like Cadbury going out of business. Because people don’t think it is right that Easter Eggs are certified for those who don’t celebrate this Christian custom. The lifestyle you are funding is destroying businesses and lives, but I’m glad your wife has pretty shoes).

“My charity is for Muslims only, because Australians can support themselves”. 
(How charitable)

So lets have a look at the charities that this business supports (you can find them tucked away nicely on his website here http://www.halal-australia.com.au/recognition-and-affiliation/).

Muslim Aid – a charity established by activists from Jamaat-e-Islami, the sub-continental cousin of the Muslim Brotherhood. Founding members included Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, the British Muslim community leader recently convicted by the Bangladesh war crimes tribunal for his involvement in the mass-murder of teachers and intellectuals during the 1971 Liberation War. In 2010, The Daily Telegraph reported that Muslim Aid had funded charities connected to Palestinian terror groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. These funds included a grant of £13,998 to the al-Ihsan Charitable Society, designated by the U.S. government as a “sponsor of terrorism.”

Islamic Relief – an enormous British charity, which, in 2012, raised over £100 million [over $160 million]. Islamic Relief has received donations from terror-connected Yemeni charities, such as the Charitable Society for Social Welfare, which was established by the US-designated terrorist and “Bin Laden loyalist” Abdul Majeed Al-Zindani. In Gaza, Islamic Relief’s branches have supported Hamas-run institutions, including the Islamic University of Gaza and the Al Falah Benevolent Society. Islamic Relief’s Directors have included Ahmed Al-Rawi, the former President of the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief lobby group in Britain, who, in 2004, signed a declaration in support of jihad against British and American forces in Iraq.

Human Appeal International – a UK-registered charity accused by the CIA and FBI of being “a fundraiser for Hamas.” The charity is a proscribed “Hamas-affiliated” organisation in Israel, and both the US Internal Revenue Service and State Department consider it to be a terror-funding entity. Human Appeal International has often promoted extremist preachers in Britain. In 2011, for instance, the charity hosted an event with Haitham al-Haddad, an Islamist preacher who regards Jews as “enemies of god, and the descendants of apes and pigs” and has stated that, “Allah’s law [will] govern the whole earth, and for no other law to remain.” Human Appeal (Australia) raises much of its funds through an annual concert called ‘Sounds of Light’, held at the end of each year at Flemington Racecourse Melbourne, Olympic Park Sydney, Adelaide Town Hall and Riverside Theatre, Perth. A major ‘Gold’ sponsor of Sounds of Light is Halal Helpline (www.halalhelpline.org). An annual Gold sponsorship is $20,000. Halal Helpline is owned and run by, wait for it, none other than Mohamed El Mouelhy of the Halal Certification Authority Pty Ltd. Funding terrorism attracts a ten year jail term Mr El Mouelhy, so you’d better grab your toothbrush and a cake of soap.

Al-Imdaad Foundation – a South African charity, the British branch of which has previously partnered with Viva Palestina, the pro-Hamas charity established by George Galloway and that included Hamas activists among its staff. One of Al-Imdaad’s trustees, Qari Ziyaad Patel, has written and sung a nasheed  [Islamic song] in praise of the Taliban. In 2012-13, Al-Imdaad’s British branch raised over £400,000 for the IHH, a Turkish charity widely accused of funding terrorism and that publicly supports Hamas. Al-Imdaad UK has also given over £50,000 (over $80,000) to the Zamzam Foundation, a Somali charity run by the Saudi funded Somali Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, events organized by Al-Imdaad UK have included speakers such as Maulana Sulaimaan Ravat, a South African preacher who has propagated conspiracy theories that Jews overthrew Libya’s dictator, Colonel Gaddafi, in order to steal Libya’s oil reserves.

The questions that need to be asked are, is Mr El Mouelhy aware that he is supporting radical charities? Or has he spent too much time taunting the Australian people and tying them up in court to investigate where the money may be going? Does Mr Mouthy sound like a man who wants his business to prosper? A man who wants to put the minds of the public at ease? A generous, peaceful charitable man? A man that you want to support?

Now I’m not privy to all the details that our authorities have, but it seems to me that if we are serious about stopping Islamic terror from reaching our shores, then we need to look at where these ‘businesses’ are sending their money and what they are supporting. Political Correctness is good for issues that hurt another person but when it becomes a danger to humanity it is no longer political correctness, but rather ignorance. A very dangerous ignorance indeed.

Chrissy Clarke











Is Islam winning? You bet they are!


There is no doubt whatsoever that we in Australia have a problem with Islam and it would be folly to say or think otherwise. The problem is not only with radical Islam.  Self-proclaimed ‘moderate Muslims’ exacerbate the situation. Those who firstly fail to speak out in any meaningful way against what we know as ‘radical Islam’ and secondly the ‘moderate Muslims’ insist that the radicals have nothing to do with Islam.

Further confusion arises in the suggestion that Muslim youths are being radicalised and that radicalisation has resulted in a number of youths leaving Australia to join Islamic terrorists ISIL.

There exists reluctance from Islamic leaders to accept that radicalisation of their youth is taking place inside their own Mosques and Muslim bookshops. Some of these Islamic leaders state quite clearly that it is our fault that their youths are running off the rails.

Our government, ASIO, ASIS, our Defence Minister and his hapless Assistant Defence Minister, ADF leaders and defence bureaucrats should be getting together to formulate a logical and credible plan to recognise all aspects of the problems and take coordinated actions to correct them. What we see instead is a gaggle of politicians, bureaucrats, security agents and defence leaders who are all over the place, a veritable dogs breakfast. In the middle of that confusion there is Gillian Triggs, who, with her version of a Human Rights Commission believes we should be compensating Muslim criminals with taxpayers’ money.

So what has the government come up with to combat the problems associated with Islam in Australia? It planned to toughen up the laws on hate speech and anti-discrimination. It planned to introduce new anti-terror laws with the cooperation of the Islamic leaders. Those Islamic leaders immediately told Abbott to shove his new laws up his jumper. Goodness, after all we can’t have laws outlawing the promotion of Jihad—can we?

Toughening hate speech laws and failing to scrap 18C is really mindless and does little more than empower an army of “Thought Police” who will happily hound anyone with the temerity to call out the antics of Muslims here and overseas.

We should be asking why they are not toughening up the laws of treason and applying them to the many Islamic radicals who are seemingly allowed open slather in promoting terrorism and radicalising Muslim youth in their Mosques with a view to sending them to join overseas terrorist groups such as ISIS. There has never been a whole lot of common sense out of Inspector Clouseau and Schmidt the Spy.

It is mind boggling that the ADF now has an Islamic Imam who is sympathetic with Hizb ut-Tahrir, a banned terrorist organisation in a number of countries.  Hizb ut-Tahrir is the Islamic organisation that recently called for an Islamic army to be formed in Australia to force Sharia Law upon all Australians.

It doesn’t stop there. The Chief of our Navy in March 2013 appointed a Muslim Captain, Mona Shindy, to be the Strategic Advisor on Islamic Cultural Affairs. There were 15 Muslims serving in Navy and 88 employed across the ADF.

Some of the stuff that is coming from Captain Shindy is worrying and all Australians should view her words with utmost concern, if not alarm

Captain Shindy begins by telling us, “Why then have Muslims been linked to terrorism? Terrorism is an unjustifiable, abhorrent act that has nothing to do with Islam.”  There it is right from the start – Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

Some readers may not realise that our Navy has introduced a special uniform for Muslim women now serving within its ranks. That’s nothing to worry about you may think. Well, think about this; the introduction of the Hijab into official Australia Navy dress is in order to comply with the dress code required by the Quran and that now makes our Navy compliant with Sharia Law. Sharia Law is being surreptitiously introduced little by little in the hope we won’t notice. How many other ideologies are given that concession within the ADF?

Captain Shindy says that, “There is no way that Muslim women are oppressed.”  She goes on to contradict herself by saying that the exception is in certain Islamic countries (all of them). Confusing isn’t she?

Then comes a real doozy. According to Shindy, there is nothing wrong with Islam; it is our Western values that are the problem. Yep, there it is again – it is our fault. Here is what Shindy has to say about that,“Continuing to assess Muslim behaviour and lifestyle through a Western lens, shaped through Western historical experiences and understanding (which is very different to Islamic history and tradition), is fraught with danger and is perhaps the main reason for incorrect conclusions and views being reached.”

Yes, of course we reached incorrect conclusions that 99.9 % of terrorists throughout the world are Islamic. Gee, any fool can see how silly we are. So if we all change our way of thinking to fall into line with Islam then there won’t be a problem.

There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of Islamic terrorist acts perpetrated every single day right throughout the world. There are hundreds of Islamic terrorist groups active across the planet and we know that is a fact because all of them tell us that they are Muslims.

According to Captain Shindy, we need to stop using the word Islam when discussing Islamic terrorists. The Captain says, “Indeed, the word ‘Islam’ needs to be removed from reporting on ISIS/ISIL or Daesh. The barbaric nature and ideology of these groups has nothing to do with Islam and we should work to limit their appeal to vulnerable Muslims, preventing the use and advertising of ‘Islam’ in their name.  

Captain Shindy doesn’t appear to understand that Muslims are their own enemies possessed of a victim mentality that leads them to believe that it is not they who are at fault but everyone else. The woman doesn’t make any reference to Muslims taking actions to clean up their own mess and that is probably because she firmly believes Islam has nothing to answer for.

They move into our world and expect us to change our lifestyle, our culture and our laws to suit them.  They make little if any effort to integrate and cite imaginary oppression that, if it exists, is brought upon them.

Written by Jack Cade, source



The Dangers of Legitimizing Muslim Grievances

There is no surer path to Muslim violence than through the legitimization of Muslim grievance. And once you accept the legitimacy of the grievance, then you are also bound to accept the legitimacy of the violence that follows.

16/10/09 TODAY Picture by Tal Cohen -   Muslims protest outside Geert Wilders press conference in central London 16 October 2009,  Wilders who faces prosecution in the Netherlands for anti-Islam remarks pays visit to the capital.  The Freedom Party leader said 'Lord Malcolm Pearson has invited me to come to the House of Lords to discuss our future plans to show Fitna the movie.' Wilders won an appeal on October 13 against a ban, enforced in February, from entering Britain. Ministers felt his presence would threaten public safety and lead to interfaith violence. (Photo by Tal Cohen)  All Rights Reserved – Tal Cohen - T: +44 (0) 7852 485 415 www.talcohen.net    Email: tal.c.photo@gmail.com  Local copyright law applies to all print & online usage. Fees charged will comply with standard space rates and usage for that country, region or state.

Violence begins with grievance. Grievance is the pretext for violence and the narrative for the violence. Liberals make a fetish of separating the grievance from the violence, emphasizing constructive means of resolving the grievance. But what do you do when the grievance and the violence are inseparable? Grievance is the stories that Muslims tell themselves to justify their violence. To explain why they kill children and why they murder the innocent. The list of grievances is an endless as the violence. Every act of violence carries its own narrative.

The endless Muslim conflicts throughout the world all carry their burden of history. But it isn’t a history that can be resolved with a tolerance session. Muslim grievances are the frustration of conquerors, the broken teeth of predators who weren’t allowed to feed on the world until their stomachs burst. All the lands they couldn’t conqueror, the peoples who rebelled against their rule, the inferior civilizations that pushed them back and drove them off. The swine who build skyscrapers and enjoy the fine things in life.  The civil rights model of social conflict resolution accepts grievances as legitimate and then tries to ‘heal’ through them through social justice. And when that model is applied to Muslims, it turns into empty appeasement because the conflicts at the heart of Muslim violence cannot be resolved through integration or representation.

Applying the word “justice” in any form to a conflict involving Muslims is wasted ink. The problem begins with a clash of definitions. To a citizen of a secular Western state, “injustice” means a lack of representation. To a Muslim, “injustice” means a lack of Islamic jurisprudence. A Non-Muslim state is always unjust simply because it is not ruled by Islamic law. The fundamental Muslim grievance is that they are not in power, not just in Israel where the world has accepted their demand to be in power as a wholly moral and legitimate demand, or throughout the Muslim world where Western governments have helped bring the Islamists to power with bombs and political pressure. The fundamental grievance is that they are not in power… everywhere. If you believe that Islam is the fundamental law of mankind, that all mankind at one time were Muslims and that there is no true justice except through Islamic law– then it follows naturally that Muslims have been cheated of their rightful power, that they are forced to live under “atheistic” regimes and that “justice” demands that the world “revert” to Islamic rule. It’s why the rhetoric of democracy falls notoriously flat when it comes to Islam.

Muslims are not out for representation except as a preliminary stage to absolute power. They may route the guardianship of that absolute power power in various ways, through a dictator or some form of popular democracy, but these are only vehicles for the imposition of Islamic law. The absolute power of Islamic law is justified by its origin in Allah and the unjust nature of non-Muslim law is equally proven by its lack of divine origin. If you take Islamic assumptions at face value, then this makes perfect sense. Therefore a devout Muslim cannot view a non-Muslim society as just. Equating an infidel code with Sharia is blasphemy. And so the logic of Islam dictates that Western Muslims must view themselves as oppressed. Like the struggle with the left, this is a clash between the ideal and the real.

Totalitarian idealists are always outraged because compared to their ideal every system is rotten, corrupt and unjust. Whether it’s the ideal of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or the Guardianship of the Jurists, it all comes down to the tyranny of the ideal against the immorality of the real. The representational compromises that make the modern Republic work are anathema to people who believe that they have the perfect system which will be absolutely just… because it is perfect. Muslim grievances justify endless war against the real, in the name of the ideal, without ever having to deal with the shortcomings of the ideal. The collectivism of the ideal disdains the individual except as a foot soldier, a martyr in bringing about the ideal. The infidels are unworthy of life because they are immersed in the grossness of the real. And the suicide bomber rejects the real for the ideal by disdaining his own life, much as he disdains the despised earthly women, but the demon virgins of paradise who represent another ideal. The common denominator of the cartoon controversies, Muslim wars around the world and just about every other grievance, from their claim to Spain to their demand for more mosques, is an insistence on power at the expense of others. Everyone has to keep paying a price for Muslim grievance– either in rights and freedoms, or in blood.

Muslim violence is already a self-perpetuating grievance engine. If Muslims win a war, then they’re heroes. If they lose a war, then they were betrayed, undermined from within and had what was theirs stolen from them. The grudges will fester for a thousand years and touch off endless wars until they get what they want or they lose the ability to fight those wars. The purpose of war is conquest. Islam treats Muslim conquest as a form of justice. A failed conquest is an injustice. Try applying social justice to a mindset like that and what you’re left with is Europe today. Since no Muslim should ever have to live under the unjust rule of infidels, there is always a cause for war and a fifth column waiting to rise up and demand their right to rule over everyone else. And the war is endless– its origins written in blood on the pages of Islamic scripture. Innocence is the root of grievance, the “I was minding my own business until he came up and hit me and then I had to burn his village, rape his daughters and spend a thousand years enslaving his descendants” narrative of Islam. First comes the innocence and then comes the genocide.


Legitimizing Muslim grievance means accepting their narrative of innocence. Their “I was minding my own business until this cartoon offended me, until I was hauled off to Gitmo for absolutely no reason, until people give me dirty looks on the street for absolutely no reason and then I just had to kill as many of them as I could” narrative. That narrative of innocence is a lie. People are not innocent, and the conquerors and oppressors of much of the world are certainly a long way from innocent. Historical Islam was a brutal conquering ideology that fed off blood and human misery. No amount of revisionist history will make that go away and the revisionist history is a disgusting insult to the millions killed and the cultures wiped out for the greater glory of Islam. A religion that has never stopped practicing genocide, slavery and repression as religious mandates is the worst positioned to act out the charade of innocence, to pretend that everything was fine until the Ottoman Empire fell and the British and French colonialists replaced the Muslim colonialists and gave the local minorities civil rights instead of a spiked boot in the face. Legitimizing Islamic grievance is dangerous not only because it feeds the self-righteous violence of Muslims, but because it convinces well-meaning Westerners that maybe they have a point.

Once we accept the grievance, then it becomes hard to resist the violence, except by calling for more peaceful means of resolution. And if those peaceful means of resolution fail… then the violence is justified. The Israeli peace process is a case study of how this process operates, how the legitimization of Muslim grievance comes to justify its violence, and how its own obstruction of negotiations disproves the peaceful means of resolution, which then doubly justifies the violence. Rejecting the grievance also rejects the violence, it prevents the narrative from getting its foot in the door, the mosquito whine that pitifully pleads even as it’s sinking its stinger into your neck. Fighting that narrative requires pulling back to see the sweep of history, the conquering armies of the Caliphs bringing slavery, destroying cultures, burning books and oppressing millions. And it requires that we see history repeating itself again. Grievance was at the root of Mohammed’s conquests. His “I was minding my own business, preaching a totalitarian ideology that said non-Muslims are inferior dogs when someone made fun of me, so of course I had them killed and fought a war and enslaved their descendants for all time” narrative. Poor innocent me.

Muslims must believe themselves to be moral, or accept that they are mass murderers fighting wars and destroying civilizations. And they need us to accept their narrative, to view them as moral actors resisting oppression and injustice– rather than monsters spreading pain, hate and fear in formerly peaceful places. While we may not be able to prevent them from believing their lies, accepting their lies deludes us and them… and directly feeds violence. When Americans keep repeating that Islamophobia is a major problem, Muslims treat this as an admission of guilt and a justification for violence. When Europeans accept that freedom of speech should take a back seat to Muslim sensitivities, then Muslims hold it up as proof that they don’t really believe in freedom of speech and that those who insist on it are not following principles, but are deliberately agitating against Muslims. Everyone who shouts “Blood for Oil”, denounces Gitmo, rants about Israeli occupation and all the rest of it is legitimizing Muslim violence, whether or not they mean to do so. And when they perpetuate a myth of Islamic innocence, they are denying Muslims the opportunity to make a moral reckoning without which they cannot improve or change. Wars begin as stories and end as stories. The Muslims have been telling their story for a long time. And these days we’re telling their story too.


Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog source