Sharia Law and the betrayal of past and present British Governments to protect our principles
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
On the 23rd April, many of us marked Saint George's Day, an occasion to reflect on our Country’s history, it being ‘the feast day of Saint George’ as celebrated by the majority Britain’s Christian Churches and by the several nations, kingdoms, countries, and cities of which Saint George is the patron Saint including of course England, and even certain regions of Portugal and Spain.
Saint George's Day is also known as ‘the Feast of Saint George’.
In a letter published to the Daily Telegraph of London written by a Mark Hudson of Ashford, Kent, he very rightly pointed out that it was understandable that “British architects of secularism”, the most guilty of whom always was and has been Tony Blair, were concerned about the then Prime Minister David Cameron’s claim that Britain is a Christian country and that the reappearance of Christianity in public life would be very inconvenient for them though they admit that Britain is constitutionally Christian.
Mr. Hudson further pointed out that “The Coronation service and the Coronation oath are shot through with Christian beliefs and values, without which they would make no sense. So is that other great pillar of our liberties: the Magna Carta. Parliament convenes with prayer, and bishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords. National and civic occasions are marked by Christian ceremonies, and the calendar remains unabashedly Christian.”
Her Majesty the Queen has in the past explained her role as ‘Defender of the Faith’, and having an established Church in the Church of England, meant that the freedom of everyone to practise their faith as they wished was protected.
However, how corrupted by Arab money, have successive British governments been, both Labour and Conservative?
Particularly money from extremist and subversive group such as The Muslim Brotherhood notably via their main benefactor, the tiny island State of Qatar? Instead of pontificating at length on all the common sense reasons why what you are reading its fact, its existence, is wrong, all that needs be added is that the vast majority of British people will think this revelation, revealed for the first time for many, is abhorrent.
But the fact is historic buildings such as Admiralty House and at least four other Whitehall buildings are now operating in accordance with Sharia rules – including a ban on alcohol.
These properties must comply with some aspects of Sharia under the terms of special bonds known as ‘sukuk’, announced by then Chancellor George Osborne, two years ago, with minimal publicity, when the UK became the first Western country to issue them.
What is also not commonly known is more than £200m of Sharia compliant ‘sukuk’ bonds have been sold to Muslim investors in the UK and to major Islamic finance centres in the Middle East and Asia.
Under Sharia law, charging interest, or usury, is forbidden. So to allow Islamic investors to receive rent, the ‘sukuk’ bonds pay them the rental income on certain buildings instead. Semantics about the words ‘financial interest payments’!
One newspaper that did report it, two years ago, the MailOnline stated merely that certain landmark Whitehall buildings were now owned by people bent on enforcing Sharia law in our Country.
No wonder our London Mayor is a Muslim.
Andrew Bridgen, the Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire has been quoted as saying: “I do find it unbelievable government buildings are governed by Sharia law. I don’t see the bars as being an essential part of Parliament but it’s the principle that matters. Most of our constituents will be absolutely amazed that the principle could ever have been authorised.”
The Government buildings in question, those known about, are Richmond House, and Wellington House. “The sukuk is issued under, and governed by, English law which applies at all times.” a spokesman for the UK Treasury commented.
Other than banning alcohol use in such buildings, it is unclear which other aspects of Sharia are being adhered to by the managers of the buildings concerned, but a government source further added it had been agreed that serving pork in Richmond House would not affect the Sharia compliance of the sukuk. “Alcohol being served hasn’t arisen, as you would expect for a government building,” a spokesperson added.
In January, The Times reported that a plan to relocate MPs to Richmond House to allow refurbishment work at Westminster was meeting resistance because Richmond House was ‘dry’ under the terms of the sukuk agreement.
Can any Christian Briton think this acceptable?
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons