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….