Recently in United Kingdom Category

Yet another convert to Islam misunderstands her new, peaceful religion, and still no mosque or Islamic school in the U.K. has any program to teach against this understanding of Islam they supposedly reject. "Terror link of 7/7 widow and 'bomb factory,'" by Ted Jeory for the Express, May 19 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Suspicions have grown that Muslim convert Samantha Lewthwaite, now known as the White Widow due to her fugitive status in East Africa, was actually one of the masterminds behind the killings in 2005. Immediately after the explosions which murdered 52 people on the London transport system, she said she "abhorred" the actions of her dead husband Jermaine Lindsay, whose bomb detonated near King's Cross on the Piccadilly Line.

However, the middle-class Muslim convert from Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, has since risen to a senior status in the Al Shabaab movement in Kenya and Somalia, a terror group affiliated to Al Qaeda.

Believed to be behind its funding and propaganda, the 29-year-old has assumed cult status among her jihadi followers for her characteristic street-slang rants at non-Muslim "kuffar".

An arrest warrant was issued for her last May after she failed to appear in court in Kenya to face bomb-making charges.

Her alleged co-conspirators are two other Britons, her second husband Habib Saleh Ghani, from Hounslow, west London and Jermaine Grant, from east London, who remains in custody in Kenya after his arrest in December 2011.

At the time of Grant's arrest, he reportedly told police that Lewthwaite was "the boss".

They are all accused of possessing chemicals and "conspiring to improvise an explosive device with the intent to cause harm to innocent civilians"....

He says it is because they preach contempt for women and the concept of women as chattel, which (pace Hargey) is certainly found in Islam, with its polygamy (Qur'an 4:3), wife-beating (Qur'an 4:34), devaluing of a woman's testimony (Qur'an 2:282), etc. This is compounded, he says, by the further contempt of and hatred for Infidels, which is also certainly Islamic (cf. Qur'an 48:29, 98:6, etc.). He doesn't mention the permissibility in Islamic law of taking Infidel women as sex slaves, which is also a key motivating factor for these sex slavery gangs.

"‘Imams promote grooming rings’, Muslim leader claims," by Hayley Dixon in the Telegraph, May 16 (thanks to Twostellas):

The Oxford grooming ring was promoted by imams who encourage followers to think white women deserve to be “punished”, an Islamic leader has claimed.

Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, said race and religion were inextricably linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls.

Earlier this week seven members of a child sex ring from Oxford were found guilty of forcing under age girls to commit acts of "extreme depravity".

Their victims, aged between 11 and 15, were groomed and plied with alcohol and drugs before being sexually assaulted and forced into prostitution. They targeted "out of control" teenagers.

Dr Hargey said that the case brought shame on the city and the community and is a set back for cross community harmony.

But worse still is the refusal to face up to its realities, he wrote in the Daily Mail.

The activities of the Oxford sex ring are “bound up with religion and race” because all the men - though of different nationalities - were Muslim and they “deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as 'easy meat', to use one of their revealing, racist phrases”, Dr Hargey said.

That attitude has been promoted by religious leaders, he believes. “On one level, most imams in the UK are simply using their puritanical sermons to promote the wearing of the hijab and even the burka among their female adherents. But the dire result can be the brutish misogyny we see in the Oxford sex ring.”

People tiptoe around the issues and refuse to discuss the problems exposed by the scandals such as those “from Rochdale to Oxford, and Telford to Derby”, he wrote.

In all cases the perpetrators were Muslim men and the victims were under age white girls.

To pretend it is not a problem is the Islamic community is “ideological denial”, Dr Hargey said.

“But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes.

“Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.”

The men were allowed, he said, to come and go from care homes by the authorities, and if the situation had been reversed with gangs of white men preying on Muslim teenagers ”the state's agencies would have acted with greater alacrity.”

True Islam preaches respect for women but in mosques across the country a different doctrine is preached - “one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt,” the Imam said.

The men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority," he claims in the column.

“The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers.

“Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.”

Such cases can only be prevented in the future if Britain abandons the blinkers of political correctness, he concludes.

Indeed.

Because it was used during the Crusades, you see. Eleanor Jackson, like so many others in England and the U.S., is ashamed of her heritage and history. No wonder they are throwing it away with both hands. "Council vetoes flag of St George after concerns raised about links to Crusades," by Victoria Ward for the Telegraph, May 15 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A local council decided against flying the flag of St George after concerns were raised that it would offend the town’s 16 Muslim residents.

Eleanor Jackson, a university lecturer, said the red and white symbol could cause upset in Radstock, Somerset, because it was used during the Crusades 1,000 years ago.

The Labour councillor voiced her concerns at a meeting called to discuss which flag should be purchased to fly atop the town's repaired civic flagpole.

She said: “My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims, but even more so that it has been hijacked by the far right.

"My thoughts are we ought to drop it for 20 years."

Radstock Town Council, which serves a local population of more than 5,600 residents, eventually decided to purchase a Union flag to fly on Armistice Day.

The rainbow flag of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride movement will be flown at “appropriate” times of the year while an In Bloom flag will celebrate the town's achievements in the gardening competition.

The objections raised about the flag of St George were branded “oversensitive” by the local Muslim community while the Muslim Council of Britain said England's patron saint should not be associated with “any hatred of Muslims”.

Spokeswoman Nasima Begum said: "St George needs to take his rightful place as a national symbol of inclusivity rather than a symbol of hatred.”

Rizwan Ahmed, spokesman for the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society said: "I think they are going a bit far here.

"It is political correctness going a bit too far.

"Use by the far right is one thing, but to say that Muslims are offended I don't think is correct. We understand the flag is part of this country's heritage, and in fact many many Muslims will identify as being British themselves.

"In actual fact we are normal people. We have a sense of humour and have the same concerns as everyone else – we are not just some single group."...

So we're constantly told, until there comes the next time to take offense over some ridiculous thing. And "we are not just some single group," and yet there is still no significant anti-jihad or anti-terror movement among Muslims in the U.K. or U.S. Now, why is that?

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph – an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels….Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

...A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth….I brought up (this man’s) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?” 

The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

“Is this forbidden by Islam?,” I asked.

“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not--she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

An update on this story. "UK: 7 men convicted of sex crimes against girls," by Gregory Katz for the Associated Press, May 14 (thanks to all who sent this in):

LONDON (AP) — Seven men were convicted in London on Tuesday for sexually abusing underage girls, including one who was just 11, by plying them with alcohol and drugs before forcing them to commit sex acts.

The guilty verdict followed five months of testimony indicating the pedophile sex ring exploited girls between 2004 and 2012 in the Oxford area, some 60 miles (95 kilometers) northwest of London. Charges include rape, trafficking and child prostitution.

The case follows several other high-profile ones of sex rings that took advantage of underage girls.

Chief prosecutor Baljit Ubhey said the girls were subjected to "truly appalling" abuse by a network of perpetrators.

"No one, let alone a child, should ever be exploited as these young victims were," she said. "The men who have been convicted have still failed to accept any responsibility for their crimes. They are nothing less than vicious sexual predators."

Prosecutors said seven of the men on trial were of Pakistani descent and two had family roots in North Africa. Other recent high profile cases, including one in Rochdale that involved a similar sex ring, have also involved Pakistani men convicted of abusing young white girls, in some cases sparking ethnic tensions and protests.

On Tuesday, Judge Peter Rook told the men that long prison sentences are "inevitable" because of the serious nature of the offenses.

This case was slightly different in that it involved many instances of child prostitution. The girls were taken to various parts of Britain and forced to have sex with men who paid the convicted men for access to the girls. But as in the Rochdale case, it appeared the police missed opportunities to stop the cycle of abuse.

Most of the victims — whose names cannot be released for legal reasons — gave evidence from behind a curtain at the five-month trial, describing forced encounters, physical abuse and intimidation.

One described how she was even threatened with arrest for wasting police time when she tried to report the abuse. She wept as she recounted how the gang threatened to burn her brother alive unless she had sex with them, saying that nothing happened after she went to police when she had decided to break away from her abusers.

"They threatened on a number of occasions to arrest me for wasting police time for turning up at a police station in a state after running away," she told the court. "Any self-respecting police officer would have seen something was wrong. If you pick up a child who is covered in cigarette burns and bruises, something is fundamentally wrong."

One victim said she was "branded" with a hairpin after it was heated up to show that she was the property of one of the abusers.

Another victim said the men told her she would be shot if she did not have sex with them. She was 14 at the time.

The girls were generally from troubled families and many were living in "care homes" where administrators ignored their frequent absences and their substance related problems.

Oxford County Council chief executive Joanna Simons said she was "incredibly sorry" authorities were not able to stop the abuse earlier.

One teenager who said she was groomed at the age of 11 and turned into a sex slave described being followed into a bathroom and raped by one of the men convicted Tuesday. Her rapist later introduced her to other men and told her to perform sex acts on them. At the age of 12, she told the court, she was forced to undergo an illegal abortion on a living room floor.

The men convicted include Akhtar Dogar, 32, who was found guilty of five counts of rape and other charges and his brother Anjum, 31, who was convicted of three counts of rape and other charges.

Another set of brothers, Mohammed Karrar, 38, and his brother, Bassam, 33, were also convicted of rape involving a child under 13 and other charges, including facilitating child prostitution.

Kamar Jamil, 27, was convicted of multiple rape charges and other crimes; Assad Hussain, 32, was convicted of two counts of sexual activity with a child; and Zeeshan Ahmed, 27, was also convicted of two counts of sexual activity with a child....

Temporary marriage, or mut'a, is the practice of entering into a marriage with a time limit: the couple is married only for a night, or a week, or whatever time period their agreement specifies. So in other words, it is prostitution under the guise of morality. Temporary wives are found in large numbers in seminary towns where young clerics-in-training are away from home and lonely.

This is a Shi'ite concept that mainstream Sunnis ostensibly reject; the Shi'ites point out that Muhammad allowed it, while the Sunnis maintain that he later abolished the practice. Shi'ites also justify it by reference to Qur'an 4:24, which says: "And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done)." They see in that reference to "what ye do by mutual agreement" the allowance of a time limit.

"I do... for now. UK Muslims revive temporary marriages," by Shabnam Mahmood and Catrin Nye for the BBC, May 13:

The temporary marriage, or nikah mut'ah, is an ancient Islamic practice that unites man and woman as husband and wife for a limited time. Historically it was used so that a man could have a wife for a short while when travelling long distances. So why are young British Muslims adopting the practice now?

"It allowed us to meet without breaking the bounds of Sharia [Islamic law]. We both wanted to date, to go out for dinner or go shopping and just get to know each other better before getting married, which we wouldn't have been able to do otherwise," says Sara.

She is a 30-year-old pharmacist from Birmingham, a Shia Muslim of Pakistani heritage.

'It's basically a contract'

Sara was temporarily married for six months before committing to a full marriage to her partner.

"It's basically a contract. You sit down and stipulate your conditions - for a girl who hasn't been previously married, you do need the father's permission," she said.

"We stipulated the duration, my father's conditions, and I requested what you would call a dowry where the guy gives a gift to the girl. It's simple, straightforward and doesn't take long at all," Sara added.

She is one of a significant number of young British Muslims using a temporary marriage as a way of balancing their religious beliefs with their modern Western lifestyle.

Because of the informal nature of the union there are no official statistics to show how many temporary marriages there are in the UK. But a number of senior Shia Muslim scholars and Muslim student organisations told BBC Asian Network there is something of a revival.

'Taboo subject'

There is a sectarian divide among Muslims on temporary marriage. The mut'ah is practised by Shia Muslims while Sunni Muslims generally consider it haram - forbidden.

The mut'ah is particularly popular on university campuses and, according to Omar Farooq Khan, president of the Ahlul Bayt Islamic Society at Bradford University, the practice is on the increase among Shia students.

"Definitely nikah mut'ah is on the rise now due to students becoming more aware about it. Students are educated people so obviously they look around for a solution to their problems from an Islamic perspective," said Mr Khan.

"What else are they going to do? They can't just have a cold shower because it doesn't work and otherwise they just end up doing the haram thing and having a girlfriend or boyfriend. Many people won't talk about it though, because it is still a taboo subject," he added.

'Strictly not allowed'

Khola Hassan, a Sunni Muslim and spokesperson for the UK Islamic Sharia Council, says the practice is strictly not allowed. She says it is equal to prostitution because of the time limit applied to the union.

"I have never come across a Sunni scholar, throughout history, who declares mut'ah marriage to be halal," said Mrs Hassan.

"There is no difference between mut'ah marriage and prostitution. There is a time limit on the marriage, and the mahr given as a gift [from the man to the woman] is the equivalent as a payment to a prostitute," she added.

The nikah mut'ah consists of a verbal or written contract in which both parties agree the length of time and conditions for the marriage.

The union can last for a few hours, days, months or years and when the contract ends so does the marriage.

It can include stipulations such as "no physical contact" - or "no funny business", as one parent put it - and the procedure is completed with the mahr.

Sayyad Fadhil Milani, spiritual leader at the Al-Khoei Centre in Brent, north-west London, is widely regarded as the UK's most senior Shia Islamic scholar and has written about the mut'ah marriage in his book Islamic Family Law.

Sectarian divide

"At the time of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, it was practised widely, especially when men were travelling away from home on business or at war," he said.

Ayatollah Milani said: "Islam does not permit relationships like those between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. So a nikah mut'ah gives them an opportunity to get to know each other before committing themselves to a full marriage."

He admits there is a sectarian divide over the issue: "Umar [ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph of Islam], himself said that the mut'ah was lawful at the time of the Prophet but he banned it and said he would punish everyone who does it.

"So some Muslims [in this case Sunni Muslims] are against it because they follow the interpretation and the suggestion made by the second Caliph. The Shias say that we stick to the Koran and the practices of the Prophet."

Although nikah mut'ah is a Shia concept, other types of informal marriages are practised by Sunni Muslims, such as misyar and urfi.

Misyar allows a couple to live separately through mutual agreement while urfi is done without the public approval of the bride's guardians. Neither of these, however, has time limits as with nikah mut'ah.

Way of legitimising sex

Critics of these informal marriages, both Sunni and Shia, argue they allow a person to have multiple sexual partners and are used as an "Islamic cover" for prostitution or the exploitation of women, with men taking on multiple "wives" for a number of hours....

Indeed.

This article never gets around to explaining what kind of extremists are preaching on UK campuses, and which group would want gender-segregated seating at events, except to note way down in the story that one of the offenders is the Islamic Education and Research Academy -- but in fact, Muslim groups are the only ones who would be involved in either of these things. "Preaching by extremists and discrimination through segregation has become widespread trend at UK universities equality group claims," by Dominic Harris for the Independent, May 13:

Preaching by extremists and discrimination through segregation at student events has become a widespread trend at many UK universities, a student equality group claims.

Radical preachers spoke at nearly 200 events at universities including Cardiff and University College London (UCL) over the last year.

Research found that segregated seating for men and women was promoted or implied at more than a quarter of the events, at 21 separate institutions, despite university rules forbidding it.

Student Rights, which was set up to tackle extremism on campuses and carried out the research, said universities were failing to provide students with work and study environments that are free from discrimination and harassment.

In its study of events promoted to students by union-affiliated societies between March 2012 and March 2013, Student Rights found 180 that featured "speakers with a history of extreme or intolerant views".

Of these, 46 (25.5%) explicitly promoted segregation by gender, or implied that it would be the case through promotional material or by providing separate contact details for men and women.

Six of the events were subsequently cancelled. Two institutions, UCL and the University of Leicester, have sine announced investigations into the segregated meetings.

Among the events highlighted was a gender-segregated at UCL on March 9, Student Rights said.

A lecture, Islam vs Atheism, was organised by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA), and pitted writer Hamza Tzortzis against Prof Laurence Krauss in a debate.

A policy of segregation was suggested by the IERA in a statement before the event, which said: "As for seating, it is according to when the ticket was booked and gender."

Students raised the issue with UCL, which gave assurances that segregation would not be allowed.

But the sexual segregation policy was enforced at the event, with separate entrances for men and women - although couples were allowed to enter together - and segregated seating.

Organisers' security tried to physically remove members of the audience who would not comply, Student Rights said.

Speaking of its findings, Student Rights said in a statement: "The fact that such a large percentage of the events logged by Student Rights during this time period either explicitly advertised events as segregated by gender or implied that this would be the case underlines claims that events highlighted are not 'isolated incidents', but rather form a part of a wider, discriminatory trend on UK university campuses."...

Ahdel, Mubarek, Mohammed, Tanveer, Mohammed, and Mohammed

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph – an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels….Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

...A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth….I brought up (this man’s) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?” 

The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

“Is this forbidden by Islam?,” I asked.

“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not--she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

"Telford gang is jailed for sexually abusing girls," from the Shropshire Star, May 10 (thanks to Alan of England):

Seven men were jailed after a series of complex court cases, the reporting of which has been banned until now while legal battles raged on.

We can reveal details of those court cases following a hearing in the High Court today in which a judge upheld a decision that another man accused of child sex abuse offences was not mentally fit to be retried.

The man, Noshad Hussain, 23, was cleared of trafficking a girl, 14, at a trial last year, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on four charges of engaging in sexual activity with her.

Today’s High Court ruling brings to an end a three-year investigation into a child prostitution ring in Telford.

Youth workers first raised the alarm when teenage girls in Wellington, some as young as 13, started telling them the same stories about men they were seeing.

The subsequent police investigation, dubbed Operation Chalice, revealed details of a network of men from the Muslim community who targeted young and vulnerable teenage girls.

After West Mercia Police’s investigation into suspected under-age sex and child prostitution, seven men were finally convicted in cases stretching over two years.

Four experienced judges have heard distressing evidence from four young women, who were aged 13 to 16 when they were abused during a two-year period between 2007 and 2009.

The leading players in the abuse were brothers, Ahdel and Mubarek Ali, of Regent Street, Wellington, who received long jail sentences after an eight-week trial.

Ahdel Ali, 25, known as Eddie, was given a 26-year extended sentence – 18 years’ immediate custody with an additional eight-year period on licence after release.

His 29-year-old brother, Mubarek Ali, known as Max, was given 22 years, 14 years’ immediate custody and eight years on licence, for seven offences – four of controlling child prostitution, causing child prostitution and two offences of trafficking in the UK for the purpose of prostitution, involving two of the victims. Both men were made the subject of lifelong Sexual Offences Prevention Orders.

Also convicted were Mohammed Ali Sultan, 26, of Victoria Avenue, Wellington; Tanveer Ahmed, 40, of Urban Gardens, Wellington; Mohammed Islam Choudhrey, 53, of Solway Drive, Sutton Hill; Mahroof Khan, 35, of Caradoc Flats, Kingshaye Road, Wellington, and Mohammed Younis, 60, of Kingsland, Arleston....

This "Arab Spring" thing is working out almost as well as "interfaith dialogue." Here, the UK takes official, albeit tacit, recognition of the ongoing jihad in Libya: "UK withdraws some embassy staff from Libya," from the BBC, May 10 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

Britain has withdrawn some staff from its embassy in Libya in response to the "ongoing political uncertainty" in the country, the Foreign Office says.

It said: "The British Embassy is temporarily withdrawing a small number of staff, mainly those who work in support of government ministries which have been affected by recent developments."

However, it added that the mission in the Libyan capital of Tripoli remained "open as usual", including for consular and visa services.

Heavily armed militias have been besieging government buildings in Tripoli over the past month, blocking access to ministries to push their political demands.

Last month a car bomb exploded outside the French embassy in Tripoli, wounding two French guards and several residents.

It was the first major attack on a foreign embassy in the Libyan capital.

In the mainstream media, of course, it is all the EDL's fault. Jihad is fine; it is resistance to jihad that is verboten. "Six admit planning to bomb English Defence League rally," from the BBC, April 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Six men from the West Midlands have pleaded guilty to planning to bomb an English Defence League rally.

Omar Mohammed Khan, Mohammed Hasseen, Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed and Jewel Uddin admitted preparing an act of terrorism. All six will be sentenced on 6 June.

Five of them took a homemade bomb to an EDL rally in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, last June but arrived after it ended.

They were caught after their car was stopped and found to have no insurance.

Police and security services had no intelligence about the planned attack, although one of the would-be killers, Jewel Uddin, was under surveillance in relation to another terror plan.

After the hearing at Woolwich Crown Court, Assistant Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Marcus Beale said: "Their capability was clear.

"They created devices that would have certainly maimed and possibly killed people depending on how close they were.

"Their intent was very, very clear. In my view they were very dangerous."

'Female devil'

On 30 June 2012, the EDL, an anti-Islamic group that says it supports peaceful protest, held a rally in Dewsbury, despite attempts by the Muslim community in the town to have it stopped.

Police estimated there could have been as many as 750 EDL supporters in attendance, as well as dozens of police officers and passers-by.

As the rally was taking place, the five men travelled there in two cars, one of which was carrying a homemade bomb constructed out of a modified firework and containing 359 nails and 93 ball bearings.

They also had two sawn-off shot guns, parts of other explosive devices, knives and a long printed message, dated the same day, describing their motivation and calling the Queen a "female devil".

It said: "To the EDL (English Drunkards League). O enemies of Allah! We have heard and seen you openly insulting the final Messenger of Allah... you should know that for every action there is a reaction....

They view Wales as a safe haven in comparison to London, which is itself a hotbed of Islamic supremacism. "Schools threat as Wales is 'target for extremists,'" by Marco Giannangeli and James Fielding for the Express, April 28:

COUNTER terror experts are targeting schools feared to have been ­infiltrated by Islamic fundamentalists using Wales as a base for recruitment.

The move comes after the country was identified as having a “very real” threat of terrorist activity.

Experts fear that extremists view Wales as a safe haven compared with London for would-be terrorists.

A leaked “restricted report” called the Wales Contest plan exposes ­growing radicalisation in Cardiff and proposes extra training in how to spot extremism for staff at schools “identified as having increased risks” of radicalism.

In December 2010, Cardiff brothers Abdul Miah, 25, and Gurukanth Desai, 30, along with Omar Sharif Latif, were arrested after planning a Mumbai-style attack on the London Stock Exchange. They were eventually jailed for a total of 40 years.

Last year Idris Faridi, 32, of Roath, Cardiff, was jailed for nine months after a “terrorist’s manual” called 39 Ways To Serve And Proceed In Jihad was discovered on his computer’s hard drive. He had applied to work at the Millennium Stadium during the Olympic Games.

A Welsh Government spokesman said last night: “In Wales, we work with a wide range of partners from across the public sector to raise awareness of issues relating to extremism and to improve community cohesion.

“As in England, this work includes education sessions for teachers and staff, undertaken by police ‘engagement officers’, which enables any potential issues to be identified and dealt with quickly.”

Last week a new report by Europol found that the number of terrorist acts and related arrests rose across Europe in 2012, bucking a downward trend in previous years.

The report revealed there were 219 terrorist attacks across Europe in 2012, compared with 174 in 2011.

The number of people arrested for terror-related offences also rose to 537, from 484 in the previous year.

Meanwhile Europol director Rob Wainwright revealed that increasing numbers of radicalised EU citizens have travelled to regions of conflict to take part in terrorist activities.

He said: “There is growing concern about the threat posed by these people, given the possibility of their returning to the European Union intent on committing acts of terrorism.”

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph – an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels….Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

...A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth….I brought up (this man’s) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?” 

The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

“Is this forbidden by Islam?,” I asked.

“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not--she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

"'You treated her like a piece of meat': Judge's fury as he jails trio of men who abducted girl, 13, and forced her to be their sex slave," by Steve Robson for the Daily Mail, April 26:

Three men who abducted a vulnerable 13-year-old girl from the streets of London and forced her to become their sex slave have been jailed.

The girl, who was described as being from a broken and troubled family, was subjected to sexual abuse over four days after being persuaded to travel with the men to Ipswich in Suffolk in July last year.

Mohammed Sheikh, Hamza Ali and Suran Uddin were all convicted of trafficking and sex offences following a trial.

Today at Norwich Crown Court, Judge Nicholas Coleman said the girl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had been left traumatised by the ordeal.

'Instead of helping this girl find refuge, you were all intent on sexually exploiting her for your own ends,' he added.

'She was taken to a town she'd never visited, a house she had never been to, in the company of men she had never met.

'All three of you treated her like a piece of meat and passed her about. This happened over four days until she was finally rescued by police.'

Uddin was jailed for 15 years, Sheikh will serve eight years and Ali five years.

All three were placed on the sex offenders register and Sheikh and Ali could face deportation to Somalia, their home country.

Jurors heard how the men took advantage of the girl's 'youth and naivety' to persuade her to get into a van, driven by Uddin.

They took her to a house in Chevallier Street, Ipswich.

Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones said: 'They plied her with drugs and alcohol and made promises that they would take care of her and give her anything she wanted.

'She was treated as little more than a skivvy and she was raped over the course of four days.'

Maria Denine, mitigating for Sheikh said the defendants had not been aware of her background or how vulnerable she was.

Mitigating for Uddin, Scott Ivill said his client was married with two children, aged eight and one, and any custodial sentence would cause his family to suffer.

Lindsay Cox, for Ali, said his client was also a married man.

Uddin, 26, of Bethnal Green, London; Sheikh, 32, of Hackney, London; and Ali, 39, of Waltham Forest, London, were all found guilty of conspiracy to traffic in the UK.

Uddin was also convicted of two counts of rape and supplying a class B drug to the victim.

Sheikh was convicted of causing a child to engage in sexual activity and supplying a class B drug.

Ali was found guilty of a sexual assault.

A fourth defendant, Abdul Hammed, 46, of Wellington Street, Ipswich, was cleared of supplying a class B drug, two counts of rape and trafficking.

He used to spend his time on the taxpayer's dime watching jihad porn at work. "Council worker, 48, jailed after being found with hate rants by convicted terrorist and footage of beheadings on 352 discs," by Jaymi Mccann for the Daily Mail, April 26:

A council worker who was found with 352 computer discs containing terrorist material, including footage of executions and the 9/11 attacks, was today jailed for two years.

London Borough of Hackney revenue officer Khalid Baqa, 48, also used his work computer to watch the footage and trawl Islamic websites.

He stashed the discs - which contained 26 hours of speeches by the hate preacher Anwar al-Awlaki - in his car and his children’s bedroom.

One disk was found inside a laptop provided for him by the council, where he worked for 22 years before being sacked after his arrest..

Baqa, who work colleagues said underwent a transformation in 1996 by growing a long beard, wearing traditional Muslim dress and shunning everyone, said he was storing the discs for someone else.

London’s Old Bailey today heard the material contained footage of beheadings and executions, the explosions of improvised explosive devices, the last will and testament of one of the London bombers, footage of the 9/11 attacks and jihadi fighters in combat.

Sentencing Baqa, from Barking, east London, Judge Christopher Moss QC said: ‘It is quite clear to me - and you accept - that you well knew the generality of what these discs contained, namely encouragement of, and indeed instruction in, violent acts of terrorism.

‘It is from such material that those who are already radicalised or about to become so derive their knowledge, instruction and involvement in the ways of violent terrorism.

‘That is why it is so dangerous and that is why the courts must deal with it so severely.’

The father-of-six had pleaded guilty to two offences of disseminating terrorist publications earlier this month.

A further seven offences of having material likely to be useful in terrorism were ordered to lie on file....

The three Misunderstanders of Islam; Irfan is on the left

The ringleader, Irfan Naseer, won't be around until 2031, by which time he will have a good shot at being made President of the Islamic Republic of Britain. But the others will be able to slap burqinis on the wives and hit the beaches this summer.

"Jailed jihad terrorists to be set free in weeks," by Tom Whitehead for the Telegraph, April 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The ringleader of a Birmingham terror cell who plotted a suicide bombing campaign in the UK may never be released, a judge warned on Friday.

Four members of the group, who travelled to Pakistan for training in terrorism, will be free within three months after being jailed for 40 months.

The 11-strong al-Qaeda inspired gang from Birmingham wanted to use eight suicide bombers in attacks that could have left thousands dead. The ringleader, Irfan Naseer, 31, was given five life sentences for the plot. A judge said he may never be released. However, his followers were treated more leniently. Naseer’s group wanted to cause more damage than the 7/7 London bombings and threatened to carry out “another 9/11”.

Naseer sent Shahid Khan, 21, Khobaib Hussain, 21, Ishaaq Hussain, 21, and Naweed Ali, 25, to Pakistan for terrorism training. But they returned without receiving any.

At Woolwich Crown Court yesterday, the four men were sentenced to 40 months, of which they will serve only half, after admitting an offence of travelling overseas for terrorism training.

They have been on remand since November 2011. So they will be back on the streets by July.

The al-Qaeda inspired gang wanted to cause mass murder and carnage on the streets. They even criticised the 7/7 attacks for not “doing enough damage”.

Mr Justice Henriques, sitting at Woolwich Crown Court, said Naseer, a pharmacy graduate, from Sparkhill, Birmingham, was a “highly trained terrorist” and the “driving force” behind the plot. He said Naseer, also known as “Chubbs”, was a “highly skilful bombmaker”. The judge gave him five life sentences for a series of terrorism offences connected to the bombing campaign. He will serve at least 18 years before being eligible for parole.

The judge told him: “Your plot had the blessing of al-Qaeda and you intended to further the aims of al-Qaeda.

“Clearly nothing was going to stop you, short of intervention of the authorities.”

The three central figures Naseer, Irfan Khalid, 28, and Ashik Ali, 28, were convicted of planning a terrorism campaign in February after a four and a half month trial. Naseer and Khalid had undertaken terrorism training in Pakistan, where they made martyrdom videos to be released by al-Qaeda.

Although no target was settled on, Ali told police they planned to attack soldiers but also talked of turning a Birmingham street into a “little war zone”.

The men were secretly recorded by MI5 and police before their arrests in 2011.

Khalid, who is in the bottom 2 to 5 per cent of cognitive ability, boasted that the attack would be “another 9/11”.

He was jailed for 18 years after which he will spend an extra five years on licence. Ali was jailed for 15 years with a five-year extended licence period.

The gang funded its plot by raising up to £30,000 in bogus charity collections but lost large parts of it after investing in the foreign exchange markets.

Rahin Ahmed, 28, the group’s chief fundraiser who lost the money, was jailed for 12 years.

Of the rest of the group, Ali’s older brother Bahader Ali, 29, was jailed for six years, Mohammed Rizwan, 34, got four years and Mujahid Hussain, 21, was given four years for varying roles.

These plots keep on being uncovered. Sometimes they succeed, as in Boston. But as their number continues to rise, the official unreality continues: jihad? What jihad? Ultimately, it's suicidal.

"UK trio jailed for preparing acts of terrorism," from the BBC, April 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Three British men, including an ex-police community support officer and a Muslim convert, have been jailed for preparing acts of terrorism.

Richard Dart was jailed for six years, Imran Mahmood received nine years and nine months and Jahangir Alom was jailed for four years and six months.

The London-based trio, who pleaded guilty in March, discussed targeting the town of Royal Wootton Bassett.

The judge said the three were "committed to acts of terrorism".

They were arrested in the capital city weeks before the Olympic Games.

'For Allah'

Dart, 30, of Broadway, Ealing, west London, and Mahmood, 22, from Dabbs Hill Lane, Northolt, west London, were both born in the UK. Alom, 26, of Abbey Road, Stratford, was born in Bangladesh but is a British citizen.

Mr Justice Simon told them they held "radical Islamist beliefs and have shown yourselves to be committed to acts of terrorism".

Dart refused to stand when he was sentenced, and said: "I don't wish to stand up, I believe ruling and judging is only for Allah."

The judge said that they were all "committed fundamentalists" who would have been prepared to kill.

Mahmood and Dart were both given extended sentences, meaning that they will serve two-thirds of their prison terms rather than half, and they will spend five years on licence.

He told Dart and Mahmood: "I'm satisfied to the required criminal standard that neither of you had ruled out an attack in the United Kingdom, and that you, Mahmood, were looking at arming yourself with a bomb."

After the sentencing, the Metropolitan Police said the convictions followed a painstaking investigation by the Met's counter-terrorism command and security services that had uncovered secret conversations about potential attacks in the UK and abroad.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne, head of the Met's counter-terrorism command, said the investigation had involved a "mixture of dedicated, diligent traditional detective work combined with the latest technology and computer techniques".

He said the trio were "dangerous men".

"This case serves as a classic example of how terrorists live in our midst while preparing their acts and their determination to travel overseas to train before returning to the UK," he said.

Terror training

The three men admitted carrying out the offence between July 2010 and July last year at a previous hearing last month.

Dart and Alom travelled to Pakistan to try to get terrorist training, and took advice from Mahmood who had already visited the country.

Former BBC security guard Dart also discussed bomb making with Mahmood, and spoke of targeting the Wiltshire town of Royal Wootton Bassett - which became a focal point for the repatriation of UK soldiers from Afghanistan.

Police discovered fragments of text on Dart's laptop that revealed that the pair had used the computer to have a "silent conversation" to avoid possible surveillance bugs.

They would open a word processor document and take it in turns to type, before deleting the text and mistakenly assuming none of it would be stored on the machine.

However forensic experts were able to plough through 2,000 pages of computer code to decipher fragments of what was said.

These included Mahmood making a reference to Royal Wootton Bassett and then adding "if it comes down to it it's that or even just to deal with a few MI5 MI6 heads".

Counter-terrorism teams also believe that the pair used the same tactic walking down the street with a mobile phone.
'Object of suspicion'

All three had been stopped at airports while travelling to and from Pakistan.

When Mahmood was stopped at Manchester in 2010, traces of explosives were found on two rucksacks that he had with him.

He later admitted that he had received rudimentary training in explosives while in Pakistan.

Dart, who changed his name to Salahuddin al-Britani, became involved in extremism after moving from his home town of Weymouth, Dorset, to east London and fraternising with radical Muslim Anjem Choudary.

His beliefs were brought into the spotlight as part of a BBC television documentary My Brother The Islamist, by his stepbrother Robb Leech....

Behold the future of Great Britain. And worst of all are the Western journalists such as Eric Posner, Sarah Chayes, and Nathan Lean (aka "Garibaldi") who would happily accommodate them in their quest to destroy the freedom of speech and make Muslims a protected class, immune from criticism.

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: "Thousands rally in UK to demand end to anti-Islam speeches," by Murtaza Ali Shah for The News International, April 23 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

BIRMINGHAM: Up to 25,000 British Pakistani men, women and children from across the UK gathered in Aston Park here to express their love for Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) and to call on the British government to introduce legislation that bars Islamophobes from insulting Islam under the garb of the freedom of speech.

The participants, who also travelled from several parts of European cities, were led in a peaceful and colourful mile-long march by Hazrat Peer Alauddin Siddiqui. This is the fourth consecutive gathering for the biggest Melaad-un-Nabi (PBUH) of British Pakistanis in Britain but this year it was dedicated to “protect the honour and legacy of Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH)”. Speakers included interfaith leaders from Christian, Hindu, Sikh, and Jewish religions and parliamentarians from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats. Sardar Attique Khan, former Azad Kashmir prime minister, was the chief guest of the rally.

Hazrat Peer Alauddin Siddiqui, who is a renowned Sufi scholar, told Geo News: “Thousands have come together to show peacefully to the western world that the production and promotion of a recent film insulting Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has caused hurt to Muslims all over the world. We are a peaceful community and we will do everything to protect peace and respect for all on equal basis. It’s not fair that some people insult Islam everyday and preach hatred through their actions and words but the lack of legislation encourages such elements. We want to tell our government that we welcome debate and constructive criticism of our religion but insults are unacceptable and inflammatory language is contributing to the rise of extremism amongst youth in western countries where youth mistakenly believe that the West hates Islam and Muslims.”

He announced that a rally of tens of thousands of Muslims will be held soon in Hyde Park to profess loyalty to Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) as well as to condemn the crudely made “Innocence of Muslims” movie which was recently released in the US and caused outrage in the Islamic world, including leading to a ban on Youtube in Pakistan.

Peer Siddiqui told the audience that relations between Islamic and Western countries have improved in recent years and these years need to be strengthened but that is possible if all religions are respected and there should be law in place to ensure that Islam and Muslims are not singled out.

“There is resentment amongst Muslims over the continuing failure of the western government for not doing enough to protect Muslims. Attacks on Muslims have increased and while we are law-abiding and peace-loving citizens of this country, we want our government to take our concern into account,” he added and appealed to Muslims to stay peaceful against provocations.

Speakers said that freedom of speech was a cherished value but abusing Islam is not freedom of speech. They said the best way forward is to engage constructively with Muslims about their religion. They said Muslims were making a great contribution towards everyday life in western countries and it is important that their contribution is recognized.

Yet another convert to Islam misunderstands his new, peaceful religion -- or at least that is what those who buy the mainstream media line about Islam would have us believe. And yet not a single mosque or Islamic school in the Western world has any program to teach young Muslims why they should reject this alleged misunderstanding of Islam. No one ever examines the implications of that.

"White Muslim convert faces prison after terrorism charge," from Al Arabiya, April 25:

A white British male who converted to Islam was sentenced to jail early Thursday after he pleaded guilty to taking part in planning terror attacks on the heads of MI5 and MI6.

According to The Times newspaper, Thirty-year-old Richard Dart, who is “entirely committed to acts of terrorism,” also planned to attack the small town of Royal Wootton Bassett.

He will be sentenced to jail at the Old Bailey after admitting his intention to perpetrate a mass-killing and his intention to travel to Pakistan to receive the necessary training.

Dart is on trial with his two team members, Imran Mahmood, 22, and former Metropolitan Police community support officer, Jahangir Alom, 26.

Mahmood and Alom will also be sentenced after pleading guilty to preparing for an act of terrorism, reported The Times on Thursday.

As part of their “commitment to fighting Jihad,” Dart and Alom had planned to travel to Pakistan to receive terrorist training but were stopped by airport police in Nov. 2011.

They were not, however, arrested until July 2012.

Mahmood, who previously obtained training from Pakistan, acted as an advisor to Alom and Dart.

Queen’s Council for the prosecution, Jonathan Laidlaw, said Dart and Mahmood, to avoid surveillance, carried out “silent conversations” by typing into a Microsoft Word document and deleting the conversation. However, the text was recovered by Scotland Yard detectives.

One of the written exchanges that was recovered read: “If it comes down to this, it is that or even to just deal with a few MI5 or MI6 heads.”...

Four British men

How could these British men have gotten the crazy idea that they should get involved in terrorism? The BBC gives no hint, beyond noting that they were connected to al-Qaeda.

"Four 'planned to bomb Territorial Army base' with toy car," from the BBC, April 15 (thanks to Alan of England):

Four British men discussed bombing a Territorial Army base in Luton by driving a toy car beneath its gate, a court has heard.

Zahid Iqbal, 31, Mohammed Sharfaraz Ahmed, 25, Syed Farhan Hassain, 21, and Umar Arshad, 24, from Luton, pleaded guilty to terror offences in March.

They also arranged terrorism training, fundraising, and discussed the use of homemade bombs.

They are due to be sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court in London.

BBC home affairs correspondent Matt Prodger, who was at the hearing, reported that the four men smiled and giggled as the court was played recordings of conversations in which they discussed travelling to Pakistan for terror training, buying guns and making explosives, [sic]

They were also recorded talking about attaching an improvised explosive device to a toy remote-controlled car, driving it through a gap beneath the gate of the TA base, and detonating it beneath a military vehicle.

Iqbal was recorded telling Ahmed: "I was looking and drove past like the TA centre, Marsh Road. At the bottom of their gate there's quite a big gap. If you had a little toy car it drives underneath one of their vehicles or something."

Max Hill QC, for the prosecution, told the court the men had carried out physical training exercises in Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons in preparation for travelling to Pakistan - where they expected to join groups linked to al-Qaeda.

He said the men were subjects of an investigation by counter-terrorism police and MI5 into the movement of individuals from the UK to Pakistan "for extremist purposes linked to al-Qaeda".

"They discussed making an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) following instructions from an Inspire magazine which they planned to adapt," he told the court.

"They also identified a target for such an attack, namely a Territorial Army base in their locality, although they also discussed targeting multiple sites at one time."

Iqbal was the ringleader who organised travel and training, and Ahmed was actively involved in the radicalisation and recruitment of others - organising physical training for the men and the purchase of survival equipment, the court heard.

In a recording from 15 January 2011, Iqbal said: "At least you'll get to meet the brothers and then it's up to them.

"They might even use you for something else in the meantime, cos there's lots of different other things, innit. There's people making weapons there, helping them making the bombs and stuff, other people transporting - maybe they will use you for something like that… you will be checked out and stuff."

"A systematic catalogue of intimidation." Why, who ever heard of Islamic supremacists trafficking in intimidation? "Christian airport worker vows to take Muslim bullying case to Luxembourg after being granted right to appeal against sacking," from the Daily Mail, April 13 (thanks to Kenneth):

A Christian worker who claims she was sacked from her job at Heathrow following a 'race hate' campaign by 'Muslim extremists' today vowed to take her unfair dismissal case 'all the way to Luxembourg' to the European Court of Justice.

Nohad Halawi allegedly weathered cruel rumours that she was 'anti-Islamist,' on top of a systematic catalogue of intimidation that included telling the 48-year-old that she would go to Hell if she did not convert to Islam.

Halawi, previously a beauty consultant for luxury cosmetics brand Shiseido, was then booted out of her 13-year-long job in Heathrow Airport's World Duty Free shop, after going to her seniors with concerns about the verbal tirades she was subjected to.

She also claims 'extremist' colleagues brought the Koran to work to try and convert people to Islam and even handed out leaflets promoting terrorism, as well as declaring that it was 'a shame' the failed July 21 London bombings did not go off.

Having taken her tribunal case to the courts in 2011, Halawi lost after it was ruled that as a part time and commissioned-based freelance she was not a staff employee.

Today, however, she won the right to appeal.

Speaking outside court, the mum-of-two from Weybridge, Surrey, told how the abuse started after she stuck up for a Christian colleague who was left in tears after Muslim staff made fun of her for wearing a cross necklace.

She said: 'At first, because I am from Lebanon, they assumed I was Muslim but when they found out I wasn't they started bullying me.'

Halawi, who came to Britain from Lebanon in 1977, continued: 'They used to say about 9/11 that it serves the American's right and that it was a shame the failed London bombings did not go off. When I asked them why they did not go back and live in their own country if they didn't like the UK, they said 'we came to the West to try and convert as many people to Islam as we can.'

She also revealed insider knowledge on life within Heathrow: 'They keep coming to the airport and many of them work in security. It is terrible there. If they see that you are a Muslim they wave you through. One time they thought my husband was Muslim and said 'don't worry he is one of us' and let him through without checking him. And you're telling me this is safe security.'

Mrs Halawi said she once found extremist leaflets in one of her Muslim colleague's drawers but the airport turned a blind eye. She said: "Management told him to throw them away. I later found out he had been sacked from other terminals for handing them out and inciting religious hatred, but duty free covered it up as they are scared of labelled Islamophobic."

She was fired in July 2011 after five Muslim colleagues complained she was anti-Islamic followed a heated conversation in the store....

Recently a Sharia court in Britain told an abused wife to stay with her abusive husband and "correct" herself. Britain will see much, much more of that sort of thing (and worse) if Hopkins is not heeded, as he probably won't be. "Ilkley MP speaks out against Mosques’ Sharia law bid," from the Wharfedale Observer, April 13:

Keighley and Ilkley MP Kris Hopkins has written to the Justice Secretary stating his opposition to the establishment of Sharia courts.

He was speaking after Bradford Council for Mosques issued a statement calling on the Government to “recognise” the work of Sharia courts, and for them to be “better resourced with an agreed framework”.

However, in his letter to Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, Mr Hopkins said he was “absolutely opposed to any proposal for the establishment of a state-sponsored, alternative judicial process in any part of the United Kingdom”.

“There can only be one set of laws in this country, and we must not countenance the concept of different ethnic groups setting up their own court rooms of convenience,” he said. “As the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for our judicial system, I trust you will use your offices to protect its integrity by rejecting any approaches to recognise or give any credence to Sharia courts which have neither jurisdiction nor legitimacy in this country.”

Love is a many-splendored thing. "Terrorist's wife 'kept plot to rival 9/11 secret because she wanted to rekindle their romance,'" by Chris Greenwood for the Daily Mail, April 10 (thanks to Phil):

The lovelorn wife of a would- be suicide bomber begged her estranged husband to father her child as he finalised plans to kill himself in a murderous attack.

Salma Kabal, 23, knew of her husband’s ambitions to blow himself up but refused to believe the pair did not have a future together, a court was told.

She told Ashik Ali she wanted him back in her life and even joked about his deadly terrorist ambitions.

In March, the 27-year-old Islamic extremist was convicted alongside two close friends of plotting a string of attacks to rival 9/11 or the London 7/7 bombings.

Yesterday, Kabal went on trial accused of failing to inform the police about the conspiracy which could have killed dozens.

Woolwich Crown Court heard a huge counter-terrorism police and MI5 operation captured the couple’s conversations on a hidden bug.

Prosecutor Stuart Baker said Ali ‘couldn’t have made his intention’ to commit an act of terrorism ‘much clearer’.

He said: ‘Ashik Ali felt able to talk openly with Salma Kabal about his intentions to commit terrorist acts in the future and other related matters.

‘The conversation only really works between two people if both have some understanding of what is being referred to, and each are aware of what the other knows and understands.’

Kabal was arrested during co-ordinated raids on members of the terrorist cell across Birmingham in September 2011.

Ali and his accomplices Irfan Naseer and Irfan Khalid face long prison sentences after they were convicted of masterminding the plot. Several others admitted their roles.

Naseer and Khalid secretly travelled to Pakistan twice to train alongside members of Al Qaeda, returning to Britain to pass on their knowledge.

Mr Baker said: ‘They were committed to committing acts of terrorism, although the finer details of the plot had not been finally agreed.

‘They discussed ways of killing people and discussed their martyrdom.’

The court heard Kabal became estranged from Ali as he dedicated himself to the conspiracy and started to raise money through bogus charity collections.

When she was arrested, she told police, ‘I haven’t done anything wrong’, and refused to answer any questions in interview.

She had not known that her conversations with Ali were recorded when she travelled to his flat – the terror gang’s bomb factory – to try to rekindle their romance.

The jury were given details of three conversations that took place in the four days before the plot was dramatically foiled.

She asked him to father a child with her, having suffered a miscarriage with his first baby, and refused to accept his plan for her to marry someone else.

Mr Baker said she indicated she knew of the terror plot by replying ‘I understand’ when Ali suggested the next Ramadan may be his last.

Ali told her the bombings would be outside the UK ‘to protect her from the truth or protect himself and others from loose talk’, the court heard.

In another conversation, Kabal joked about the film Four Lions, a parody movie of bungling British jihadists, and texted him about it before it was shown on Channel 4, the court heard.

Kabal said she wanted to be the ‘lioness’ when Ali joked that she considered his terrorist aspirations as similar to the hapless bombers.

‘Oh, you think this is a flipping Four Lions’, Ali told his wife.

‘We’re one man short, there’s three of us. We ain’t Four Lions yet.’ Kabal replied: ‘I’ll be your fourth one’, before adding ‘Lioness’ when Ali says she cannot join their cell.

She was also recorded saying: ‘Kiss you goodbye in five months innit?’ to which Ali replied: ‘Hopefully before that.’

Mr Baker said Kabal may have known about the bomb plot for as long as two years but did nothing to stop it.

He said: ‘She had information she should have told police about in order to prevent acts of terrorism that she believed were going to take place.

‘Salma Kabal was married to Ashik Ali but at the time we are concerned with, she was separated from him. But it is clear that she was trying to get back together with him.’

Kabal, of Alum Rock, Birmingham, who sat alone in the dock wearing a purple headscarf having removed her veil, denies having information about acts of terrorism.

The maximum penalty on conviction is five years’ imprisonment....