When asked if he planned on instructing a barrister, he replied: ‘My legal representative is Allah, but from your side, why would I need any one?’
These words of fervent Islamic faith are critical for understanding the war the West faces against the global jihad, but they will be largely ignored. Khalid Mohammed Omar Ali zealously believes that casting terror into the hearts of believers is a direct legal command from Allah (cf. Qur’an 8:60), and therefore Allah will be his legal defense in court.
“Whitehall terror suspect, 27, accused of having a rucksack full of knives near Downing Street tells court he does not want a lawyer because he is represented by Allah”, by Paddy Dinham, Daily Mail, May 19, 2017:
The terror suspect who was arrested with a backpack full of knives just yards from Downing Street told the Old Bailey he does not need a lawyer because he is represented by Allah.
Khalid Mohammed Omar Ali, 27, is facing terror charges after being arrested by armed officers yards from Downing Street after a stop and search on 27 April.
He appeared at the Old Bailey today in a bright green and yellow jumpsuit, but was without a lawyer.
When asked if he planned on instructing a barrister, he replied: ‘My legal representative is Allah, but from your side, why would I need any one?’
Ali was arrested 100 yards from the spot where Khalid Masood was shot and killed after mowing down bystanders in a hired car driven over Westminster Bridge five weeks before.
He faces two charges under the Explosives Substances Act 1883 on 28 January 2012 and 6 July 2012, and one charge of preparation of terrorist acts on 27 April this year.
Listing his case for trial on 6 November, Mr Justice Holroyd said: ‘It may be in your interests to have a professional lawyer in this case.’
Justice Holroyd relisted the case for a further hearing on 9 June.
Bearded Ali, from Tottenham, north London, is charged with one count of preparation of terrorist acts and two counts of possession of explosive substances.
Ali has previously stated that he does not recognise the charges against him…..
Richard says
“Ali has previously stated that he does not recognise the charges against him…..”
He was fulfilling the will of Allah by carrying out a sacred operation against the Kuffar. Of course he hasn’t committed any offence…
DrSique says
Well, here in reality, he has been charged with a crime and should be allowed to conference with his attorney………………….immediately.
gravenimage says
No one is preventing him from meeting with an attorney–what crap. In fact, the court is urging that he do so.
Nunya Beezwax says
So, at his trial, he will just sit and read the newspaper while those kaffirs decide if he will spend most or all of the rest of his life in Her Majesty’s prison system. Meanwhile, his friends will be plotting to bomb the courthouse.
gravenimage says
I doubt he will sit reading the paper–more likely, he will spend his time there screaming at and threatening the judge and court staff.
Frank Anderson says
This is the kind of uncooperative and suicidal client that I believe most lawyers would prefer to avoid. Only a lawyer who needs money, craves publicity and doesn’t care if it is good or bad would voluntarily take this case. In GB it may be that a lawyer can be forced by the court to represent him; but God help the lawyer.
Bob says
There’re far too many lawyers in the UK who fit the description…”needs money…” and so forth, who’d be happy to defend him, and what’s more, he’ll probably get legal aid paid for by the UK taxpayer!
Frank Anderson says
Bob, most of the lawyers I know need money. Very few have so much that they “live well”. Having represented some difficult clients temporarily, it feels good when they are gone, and especially if the fee is paid. I am certain that the British taxpayer will get a good show from paying the lawyer to make sure there is competent representation if he is convicted. After all he is a “refugee” in spirit or is mentally ill and doesn’t know any better. SARC/
Carolyne says
In the US lawyers can be forced by a judge to take a case. If a judge appoints a lawyer, there had better be a damned good reason the lawyer won’t take the case.
I wonder what law school Allah graduated from and where he took his bar exam. I’d want to see his/her credentials before allowing him/her to represent this nut. It doesn’t make any difference if he recognizes the charges or not. He’s charged, he will be tried, and likely convicted, but since the UK is enamored with Islam, his sentence will probably be light.
Frank Anderson says
Carolyne, according to the rules a lawyer’s conflict of interest and disgust can come into play to excuse representation. I can only guess the difficulty in finding a lawyer in Israel to represent Adolf Eichmann. Also, the economic impact on a lawyer’s office and practice can be considered. Then of course there is the issue of the lawyer’s experience and ability to handle a case that is completely outside his ability to handle competently. Forcing an incompetent lawyer to represent a client is a guarantee of a reversed conviction upon appeal. In theory you are correct. In practice the power of a judge to force a lawyer to represent a client is much less total than theory suggests.
Nunya Beezwax says
He could be offered a Muslim lawyer. There are plenty in Britain, I’m sure.
Frank Anderson says
Very true. But one case could easily destroy a practice.
Anne Smith says
Too many, actually. One of them is now Mayor of London.
gravenimage says
While some lawyers would definitely avoid a client like this, either on moral grounds or just because he’d be a horrible headache, I have no doubt that there are barristers who would take his case.
In addition, I assume that Britain has court appointed defense lawyers for those who cannot afford their own representation.
The problem is not that he is unable to find a lawyer, but that he is refusing one.
ibrahim itace muhammed says
Christine Williams,this is part of your mischievous assumptions that whatever someone attributes to Islam is Islamic even if he is not well learned on Islam or misconceives its concepts.the man misunderstood the verse:” wa kafa billahi wakila( Allah is the best protector)”. this protection is spiritual to protect a devout muslim from satanic temptations.it has nothing to do with physical legal representation before a court of law.In fact the institution of legal representation is originally an islamic concept known as wakalatul khusuma borrowed by common law jurisdictions in the west.See an article written by john maqdisi titled : ISlamic law origin of the common law”,published in the Law Journal of the University of North Carolina.
Beagle says
The jihadist doesn’t respect any secular legal system, only sharia. Williams has merely let the Mohammaden yahoo speak for himself. Not sure why you’re taking issue with her. Actually I am. It’s not as if any devout Muslim would question Islam or their murderous mujahideen.
Your effort to cloud the issue is to be expected. But your chances of success at Jihad Watch are vanishingly small.
Custos Custodum says
It is Khalid Mohammed Omar Ali who “misunderstands” the Qur’an according to Muslim minion IIC.
Christine Williams correctly summarizes Ali’s thinking.
Of course, Tottenham is rivaled only by Al-Azhar University as a world center of Islamic learning, so we must surely accept that Ali’s interpretation of his “deen” is based in a solid consensus of the Tottenham ulama.
gravenimage says
Apologist for Islamic savagery ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Christine Williams,this (sic) is part of your mischievous assumptions that whatever someone attributes to Islam is Islamic even if he is not well learned on Islam or misconceives its concepts.
……………………………….
There is nothing more Islamic than slaughtering Infidels, as the appalling ibrahim itace muhammed has himself confirmed. Such savages are considered “Martyrs” if they die while murdering unbelievers, as he well knows.
More:
the man misunderstood the verse:” wa kafa billahi wakila( Allah is the best protector)”. this protection is spiritual to protect a devout muslim from satanic temptations.
……………………………….
What a bald-faced lie. Does muhammed think we have never read the foul Qur’an?
The above is Qur’an 3:150. Here are the verses leading up to that Ayat:
Qur’an 3:140:
If a wound should touch you – there has already touched the [opposing] people a wound similar to it. And these days [of varying conditions] We alternate among the people so that Allah may make evident those who believe and [may] take to Himself from among you martyrs – and Allah does not like the wrongdoers –
3:141:
And that Allah may purify the believers [through trials] and destroy the disbelievers.
3:142:
Or do you think that you will enter Paradise while Allah has not yet made evident those of you who fight in His cause and made evident those who are steadfast?
3:143:
And you had certainly wished for martyrdom before you encountered it, and you have [now] seen it [before you] while you were looking on.
3:147:
And their words were not but that they said, “Our Lord, forgive us our sins and the excess [committed] in our affairs and plant firmly our feet and give us victory over the disbelieving people.”
In other words, this has nothing to do with avoiding temptation–it has everything to do with relying on Allah to aid in slaughtering Infidels.
More:
it (sic) has nothing to do with physical legal representation before a court of law.In (sic) fact the institution of legal representation is originally an islamic (sic) concept known as wakalatul khusuma borrowed by common law jurisdictions in the west.
……………………………….
The point is that pious Muslims do not recognize civilized courts at all–only Shari’ah courts, where murdering unbelievers is not just condoned, but encouraged.
And the idea that the civilized West took representation from savage Shari’ah courts is ludicrous.
Gates of Vienna shows what bs John Makdisi’s Taqiyya is here:
“Is Sharia the Basis for English Common Law?”
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-sharia-basis-for-english-common-law.html
As the pious Khalid Mohammed Omar Ali shows, pious Muslims have nothing but contempt for civilized law.
Frank Anderson says
GI, I frequently engage in speculation and intellectual stretches: Among other things I have been a fan of wrestling entertainment all my life. I can’t help feeling that Itace is playing the role of bad guy to disturb the readers and really make a fool of himself and his arguments, just like the Soviet/Russian, Iranian and other obnoxious characters have done for decades in wrestling. He does give great opportunities to turn his posts into informative responses; that you most ably provide. He is utterly delusional if he believes his lies will influence, much less change, the opinions of those who follow these articles. With great respect to you always.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Frank–I always look for your posts, as well.
I do believe that ibrahim itace muhammed really believes what he says, though–this is sickening stuff, but it is also mainstream Islam. It is hard to believe anyone can take this vicious insanity seriously, but millions of pious Muslims do.
By the way, I am a fan of pro wrestling, as well. I just wish that the evil of Jihadists was a “work”, just as it is with wrestling heels–instead of an actual and very dangerous threat.
Carolyne says
Allah hasn’t been doing a very good job protecting Muslims, Ibrahim. In Syria they are dying by the dozens, if not hundreds, and ISIS is beheading women and children (See above picture.) When a cartoon of Mohammed is drawn in Denmark, Muslims kill each other in Iran.
Allah, Ibrahim, is a figment of your imagination. He/She doesn’t exist except in the sub normal Islamic mind. But since your parents and their parents ad infinitum probably married first cousins, your brain is defective. And since your brain is defective, one cannot expect you to be rational.
gravenimage says
Muslims have never cared about violence against other Muslims. Another appalling aspect of mainstream Islam.
Ray Sears says
Are you really stupid enough to think you can convince anyone that islamic law is what English Common Law is based on ? I don’t know what the hell you have been smoking, but damm it must be some kick ass stuff ! About the only thing ( it should be proud of inventing is that ) muslims have invented the practice of murdering other muslims in your jihad’s, because anything that leaves a trail of dead muslims in it’s wake is a good thing !
gravenimage says
The irony, of course, is that Muslims *hate* civilized Western law, and want to replace with with brutal Shari’ah.
But if they can convince some foolish Infidels that Islamic law is not only reasonable, but inspired Western law, then fewer will be on the alert for creeping Shari’ah–which is just how Muslims want it.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
He’s right. We’re all represented by Allah. This became true when our societies accepted Moslems for what they are: our predatory enemy. That hasn’t always been the case, like in 732 AD, 1,492 AD and 1,683 AD. We’ve had our moments. But yes, I am represented by Allah through every Moslem in my area, who forces Him upon me.
Berengaria says
By All Means, the UK should allow Ali, with the Beard, to be represented by Allah, the Mythical Potentate, with a taste for Blood.
Ali appears to be just another “Home-Grown” Black, who has found that Islam will allow him to “Act Out” like the savage that he is.
He knows that the UK,like the USA, will play along with him. He really believes that Allah will be his Barrister, but How Long will Civilized Nations out up with Savages like ALI?
Frank Anderson says
Sad to say (observe) that they have been around 1400 years; and still large numbers among us have no clue what they stand for. Instead of dumping the dirty work of truth telling on someone else, what can we do to help expose the evil?
TL says
Frank, why would a worthy civilization have so many oblivious people?
Frank Anderson says
TL, a really good question. I suggest looking at the definition/description of “worthy” in Masonic teaching: The checkered pavement symbolizes the good and the deficient in all of us. Considering the evil that Islam teaches and practices, and has taught and practiced for 1400 years, and comparing that to what most Infidels teach and practice, we have something that is worth protecting in hope that we will get better and closer to the goals of being truly the Children of a Loving, not hating, God. See, e.g. Wafa Sultan’s A God who Hates.
Just because there are no perfect humans alive today does not mean that we should surrender to evil.
Jeanette says
Whatever the reason is, for adults of average or higher intelligence, there is no excuse.
Frank Anderson says
Jeanette, I suggest the time for asking “Why?” has passed. Regardless of the ignorance, deliberate or negligent, and utter stupidity, the question is now, “What are we going to do about it?” Standing around looking for excuses and people to blame wastes the time we have to build resistance, that can ultimately save us from their planned conquest.
gravenimage says
TL wrote:
Frank, why would a worthy civilization have so many oblivious people?
……………………
TL has made it clear in the past that he prefers Fascism.
We were pretty clueless about the threat of Hitler for a long time, too–then we woke up…
Nunya Beezwax says
There will be no “civilized nations” in Europe, and that will be very, very soon.
World@70 says
I read once, I forget where, that Muslim fighters like ISIS, Al Qaida, Boko Haram and other Islamic terror groups did not clean their guns or practice shooting because Allah had control of every bullet and would send it to the target, therefore, cleaning your gun or practice shooting would be apostasy for thinking they could improve on Allah’s will.
gravenimage says
This does not surprise.
gravenimage says
Ali has previously stated that he does not recognise the charges against him…..
……………………
And why would he? Under Shari’ah, slaughtering Infidels is not just Halal, but lauded.
Salome says
I’m sorry, Mr Ali, but Allah does not have the right of audience in this Court.
Carolyne says
I suspect that Ali and Allah, never passed a bar. (Hic.)
Frank Anderson says
Carolyne, a number of states have in their constitutions that a person may represent himself regardless of having a law license. I wonder what GB says about it?
Nunya Beezwax says
Those constitutional or statutory laws are really unnecessary. A judge can’t force a criminal defendant to accept legal counsel because the defendant can’t be forced to consult with legal counsel. Normally, the judge warns the defendant repeatedly. Beyond that, nothing can be done. Sometimes the defendant will play lawyer in hopes of getting a mistrial, but that doesn’t usually work.