Non-Muslims paying for the upkeep of Muslims is a Qur’anic dictate:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
The caliph Umar said the jizya payments from the dhimmis were the source of the Muslims’ livelihood:
“Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama at-Tamimi: We said to `Umar bin Al-Khattab, ‘O Chief of the believers! Advise us.’ He said, ‘I advise you to fulfill Allah’s Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.)’” (Bukhari 4.53.388)
Anjem Choudary said in February 2013:
“We are on Jihad Seekers Allowance, We take the Jizya (protection money paid to Muslims by non-Muslims) which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the Kafir (non-Muslim), isn’t it? So this is normal situation. They give us the money. You work, give us the money. Allah Akbar, we take the money. Hopefully there is no one from the DSS (Department of Social Security) listening. Ah, but you see people will say you are not working. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the Kuffar (non-Muslim) So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.”
But why must the British government endorse and underwrite this perspective? Is there no low to which it will not stoop in order to appease and accommodate Muslims?
“Shamima Begum is on legal aid despite being stripped of UK citizenship: Fury as jihadi bride’s legal fees are paid by taxpayers,” by Rebecca Camber, Daily Mail, April 16, 2019 (thanks to the Geller Report):
Jihadi bride Shamima Begum has been granted legal aid to fight the decision to remove her citizenship, the Mail can reveal today.
In a decision blasted as ‘disgusting’ and ‘ridiculous’ by MPs, lawyers have successfully asked for taxpayers’ cash on her behalf, arguing that Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s decision was unfair on the 19-year-old Islamic State acolyte.
It means taxpayers face a legal bill which could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds to fund the former London schoolgirl’s fight to come back to the UK. She is currently in a refugee camp in Syria.
Last night there was fury at the decision by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), which emerged on the day it was alleged that Begum had stitched suicide bombers into explosive vests. It was also claimed she carried a Kalashnikov rifle and served in a senior role in the IS’s ‘morality police’ as an enforcer of its laws.
The British-born schoolgirl left her family in East London to join IS the age of 15 in February 2015. She lived in the Syrian city of Raqqa and married a Dutch jihadi named Yago Riedijk with whom she had three children, all of whom died as infants.
After being missing for four years, the teenager resurfaced at a refugee camp earlier this year saying she wanted to come home and pleading to be allowed back.
In a dramatic move, Mr Javid ordered that she be stripped of her citizenship ‘in order to protect this country’.
However, the Mail has now learnt that British taxpayers will help pay for her court battle to return, even though Begum has not applied for legal aid herself, nor formally instructed lawyers.
Although lawyers have not been able to speak to her in the refugee camp, the LAA has apparently accepted that her family can initiate an appeal and apply for funding on her behalf. In an extraordinary twist, two law firms applied for the cash on her behalf, with one claiming it had instructions through a third party, but the LAA agreed to grant the funding only to lawyers instructed by her family.
Begum will not be able to attend the case – which will be decided by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) – because she has been barred from returning to Britain….
mortimer says
Shamima Begum burned her British passport which had allowed her to travel to Turkey and thence enter the Islamic State. Now she repents having done so, because she has trouble returning to her soft life in England. Will there be no consequences for this traitor? There must be consequences for breaking the laws of one’s country as well as international law regarding crimes against humanity.
Christian Indeed says
Although the sentiment still applies, it was actually her sister’s passport this traitor stole and used.
I cannot believe her sister, her friends and her family weren’t aware of what was going on!
jayell says
It wasn’t her passport, it was her sister’s. And, according to another report, she stole money to pay for the plane tickets. So that’s two criminal offences on top of the rest. Apparently, her latest line is that ‘the UK has let 400 other jihadis return, so it’s her right to be allowed to return as well’ (quote) – not, you notice, ‘please forgive me and let me come back’, because that would clearly be beneath the dignity of this arrogant, nasty little islamic thug-ette. And, notice that she no longer tries to pretend that she was just the harmless little housewife now that she’s obviously been made aware that everyone in the UK now knows that she’s been stitching suicide belts and throwing her weight around as a rather nasty ‘officer’ in the IS Morality Police. Can’t get much worse than that, can it? I can think of two ways of dealing with this little problem that would satisfy at least 96% of the UK population and save them quite a lot on their tax bills in the future, but unfortunately they would both probably involve the use of thermo-nuclear devices and they would definitely be illegal. What a shame.
Frederick King says
If she carried a rifle , she murdered. Hang her.
brane pilot says
In America she would move to a predominantly Muslim district, run for Congress on a platform of hatred of the USA, and win.
Kepha says
So, due to her British birth, a court probably decided she was a UK subject and citizen by birth and allowed back in, no matter what. We Americans have a similar understanding of citizenship. You may be a Pol Pot-style Communist-cum-militant Jihadi carrying a dozen pathogens, penniless, and wanted for the rape-murders of twenty underage boys and girls, but if you’re born in the USA, we have to take you back. Then again, we can also have a quarantine truck and law enforcement waiting for you on the tarmac and might never again issue you a passport as long as you live…but an American lowlife deserves an American prison cell or an American lethal injection administered on an American death row.
He is an ENglishman!
For he himself has said it.,
And it’s greatly to his credit…
Apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan.
Kepha says
Come to think of it, I am not a big fan of stripping people of citizenship, save in the rare cases our country has worked out and codified in law. For example, when it comes to people we like, the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, born in Cambridge Mass, lost US citizenship by becoming a foreign head of state (of course, Thai law re birth to a Thai father and mother, made him Thai as well). We can also revoke naturalization in the cases of some naturalized citizens who turn out to be pretty odious.
One of the things that disgusted me about the Soviet system was how it stripped people of citizenship for dissenting against the Communist vision; the notable example being the late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who didn’t get his citizenship back until the Communist system was on the way out.
Further, when it comes to opinions, I’d be very careful about revoking naturalization save in some very extreme cases. I’d do it with members of the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq to send a message that we still remember the egregious violation of diplomatic norms back in 1979. I’d do it with identified and proven Nazi war criminals; and if the books on China are ever opened, there are probably a few old geezers who got in as parents of US citizens whose citizenship should be revoked if some deeds done during the Cultural Revolution and other Maoist atrocities got into the clear light of day. Revoke citizenship on Triad members and Mafiosi as well. But for holding bad opinions and nothing else, no.
gravenimage says
I take your point–but becoming a Jihad terrorist for a Jihad Staste would seem to be grounds for revoking of citizenship.
Hindu American says
Ever notice that all these muslimas have the same smirk/smug looks on their faces – full of scorn and contempt?
Isabellathecrusader says
Yes, and someone needs to slap it right off their faces. Sorry but if you don’t have a clitoris you shouldn’t be supported in your delusion that you are better than everybody else.
Jay says
England is lost! I hope they wake up before it’s too late! Pm Churchill is not resting easy today!
How can the British tax paying citizens not be outraged by this blatant misuse of government money!
They are losing their soverignity a little at a time and don’t seem to realize it! The unfettered invasion by Muslims doesn’t seem to matter. There is no acclimation only invasion!! The USA will not save
England again! Pm May is certainly not supporting the people that elected her. She is getting as useless as Merkel is in Germany!
God save them.
Trump,2020. Our only hope in the USA!????????
elee says
Call her innocent, call her guilty, call her insane…..lodge her at taxpayer expense forever with all the special meals she can eat……..let her practise her foul dawa……just don’t let her spawn any more nasty little martyrs.
Crusades Were Right says
Why doesn’t the UK government just cut to the chase, and elevate her to the House of Lords?
“Baroness Shamima of Raqqa”
She could be (yet another) “Spokesperson for Islamic Affairs” or something. Apart from (Fake) Brexit, there seems to be little else people speak about in the UK these days.
jayell says
For God’s sake don’t tell THEM that! They’ll probably do it!
Crusades Were Right says
Oops!
; ¬)
gravenimage says
UK: ISIS bride who carried rifle to enforce Sharia is on taxpayer-funded legal aid despite being barred from country
……………….
Suicidal insanity.
Tom says
Exactly; Lemmings rushing over the cliff following those who have gone before, for no other reason than to be seen as being politically correct.
The UK has a strange class system in which some try to “keep up with the Jones’s” in an attempt to be seen as above their social status. This accommodation of Islam is yet another way of conforming ones opinion with the elites in an effort by some to be raised above their station in life.
TruthHonestReality says
Why does this woman and the woman that carried out the San Bernadino massacre both look exactly like E.T. ? Is it because of all the inbreeding that muslime s love to commit?
Ivan says
am looking for 5 people to support a petition to the uk government to stop Shamima Begum receiving legal aid from the uk