Common sense. Every free society should enact similar laws. Would Britain have allowed British Nazis to return home in 1943? It wouldn’t even have been a question. But today, the idea of protecting one’s own citizens is “racist” and “Islamophobic.”
“Removal of British Isil fighters’ citizenship backed in first high court judgement,” by Charles Hymas, Telegraph, August 7, 2019:
British Isil fighters can be legally stripped of their citizenship, the High Court has ruled in the first case of its kind.
Abdullah Islam challenged the decision by former home secretary Amber Rudd to deprive his son, 22-year-old Ashraf Mahmud Islam, of his British nationality.
Mr Islam had wanted is son, who joined Isil aged 18 and is now being held in a Kurdish-run military prison in Syria, brought back to the UK to face justice and to be protected from facing the death penalty.
However, his case was rejected on Wednesday by a High Court judge as having “no merit,” a judgement which could set a precedent for other British Isil fighters and their brides who face or have had their British citizenship…
Jayell says
But all muslims are ipso facto ‘jihadis’. It’s clearly written in their book! And you only have to look into current state of UK prisons to see this proof of this contention borne out in practice.
Michael Copeland says
Jihad, meaning “to war against non-muslims”, is “a communal obligation”
.
Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller”, o9.0, o9.1.
mortimer says
Yes, Mike, and an INDIVIDUAL obligation as well.
According to classical books of Muslim law, jihad becomes an individual duty if Muslims are threatened in their own domain, in their own world. In the way somebody like Qutb looks at the world, Muslims are threatened by non-Muslims from within, i.e. they are threatened by their own governments. This means that jihad becomes an INDIVIDUAL duty. And whenever you come across an attempt to fight a jihad against the Satanic powers, then you are more or less obliged to join that movement, you do need to wait until your parents give their approval. By the way, the New Testament contains similar rules: you should not wait for your parents’ approval in order to join the movement which brings the world salvation. – Dr. Johannes Jansen, PhD, Arabist
In Islam, ALL BASES ARE COVERED to support JIHADISM.
gravenimage says
True, Jayell–but this is surely a good start.
Francis Weber says
Quran 8:12 Allah the self confessed TERRORIST!
gravenimage says
And the “perfect man” Muhammed–whom all Muslims are supposed to emulate–was a Jihad terrorist.
I L Roth says
They leave the UK to fight against all we stand for and then have the cheek to want to return to inflict terror on us. Let them rot in Syria or wherever they end up. It is not an innocent mistake they wanted to go in the first place. If things had turned out differently they would have made our lives hell.
James Lincoln says
I L Roth,
I see your point, but the Muslims in the UK who did not leave to join ISIS in Syria are still making the lives of non-Muslims in the UK hell…
jca reid says
UK “Jihadis” should be legally shot!
Savvy Kafir says
It seems so obvious, doesn’t it?
“You’re a jihadi engaged in a holy war to advance the Islamization of the world?” BANG! Problem solved. “Next!”
In war, you need to eliminate your enemies as quickly & efficiently as possible, or YOU LOSE.
I wonder how long Muslims can continue to engage in World War III before Western politicians & bureaucrats wake up to the fact that there’s a war on — not a mental health crisis, or a failure on our part to make nice to poor, downtrodden Muslims. (Anne Marie Waters, Geert Wilders, & a few others excepted; they clearly get it.)
Corgi says
I’m afraid Western politicians, bureaucrats and officials suffer so much from a combination of Stockholm Syndrome and Cognitive Dissonance, that they are in complete denial of the threat to our freedom, culture and way of life from this mysoginistic and totalitarian cult. They are incapable of facing reality. When Fusilier Lee Rigby was butchered in broad daylight on the street in Woolwich, I thought that our “elite” might wake up. Instead we had the usual nonsense that the murder was a “betrayal of a great religion”, not an atrocity sanctioned by the Qur’an! What was it General Melchet in Blackadder said? Oh, yes, “If nothing else works, then a total pig headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through”.
John Musgrove says
The British are always slow to recognise a war and that gives them a big disadvantage when it actually kicks off. It happened in WW2 and it’s happening all over again now.
Francis Weber says
That means 100% of them given Quran 2:216
Paul says
Errr Britain did.
Go through Wikipedia and there was a small number of Brits that joined an Nazi army unit but they were totally useless and spent their time drinking and fighting, anybody.
Nobody mentions the Spanish civil war and the International Brigade. I suppose the difference is Jihadis want to carry on the war whilst safe in the west.
Its a problem created by Islam. Lets look at their Qoran and decide how they want to be treated.
Beheading is nasty. Decapitation has a medical edge to it. How are my PR skills improving ?
beyondculturewars says
See British Free Corps and their history
mortimer says
Response to Paul: Jihadists are different from the other groups that you mentioned. They are ultimately vigilantes, rather than soldiers. The purpose of their attacks is to terrorize in the way (cause) of Allah according to a religious mandate in Islamic texts. They are responsible not to a government, but to Allah directly for their vigilantism. Islam authorizes those attacks in its primary texts, as well as in Sharia law.
Hitler and Stalin had no ‘sacred text’ that encouraged such vigilantism. Islam makes every Muslim a potential vigilante who may slay apostates and blasphemers with impunity.
gravenimage says
British Nazis–the few that there were–were not just allowed to waltz back in.
mortimer says
This ruling by UK’s supreme court will be an important precedent in all Commonwealth countries and will hopefully close very many doors to jihad-terrorists.
The UK’s top judges made a valid decision reinforcing the right of a country to defend itself from dangerous criminals by refusing them to live there! It does indeed seem like common sense.
Jihadists are dangerous, vigilante criminals.
I AM THE INFIDEL YOUR IMAM WARNED YOU ABOUT says
Mortimer…. this will not take any precedence in Canada under Justin Trudeau (Tru-doper the Groper) as long as he’s PM…. well…. until October 2019. Trudeau is a muslim arse licker.
Jhn1 says
An OK start, but only a small start. All active (not just militarily active) Islamic Supremacists should lose whatever rights or bestowed privileges they have to reside within a non-Muslim majority country enjoying whatever rights or bestowed privileges they have been granted within that country.
Yes, kick them out.
It is only in living memory that countries could not revoke (or withhold) citizenship from people from a country based on illegal activities or ongoing blatant activities (violent at some stage) against that country.
Pirates as a long standing example.
Confederate troops that did not accept the armistice of Appomattox for a US specific example.
Anything less should be recognized as the government of as country wanting to replace the control of that country from the existing population to Islamic Supremacists of whatever stripe.
Clearsighted says
CAUTION: This appears to be a decision of only a High Court trial judge. For those not familiar, the U.K High Court is the third highest court in England and Wales. Decisions of the High Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeals and decisions of the Court of Appeals can be further appealed to the Supreme Court of England (formerly known as the House of Lords). Also, unless and until Brexit is achieved, even the Supreme Court of England is not actually the supreme court of England because the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg has jurisdiction to overrule any law of any European Union member if it deems such law to contravene the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
In 2012, ECtHR ruled that the U.K. could NOT lawfully deport a terrorist to Jordan because it would violate his rights under the ECHR. In 2016, the ECt.HR declared that a U.K. law which required the automatic deportation of criminal foreigners contravened the human rights of a convicted criminal who was the sole caretaker of a child because it effectively would deport the criminal’s child and thus threatened the human rights of the CHILD to remain in the U.K. These decisions and others like them brought home the fact that the U.K. was no longer a sovereign country with the power to make and enforce its own laws and lent substantial fuel to the Brexit movement.
So, while this High Court judge’s decision is a great first step on the part of one enlightened judge, the jihadis still have many more rounds left in this fight and, of late in the UK and the West, enlightened judges are a critically endangered species.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the background.
Clearsighted says
You are most welcome gravenimage.
Mary says
I thought muslims loved death more than we love life. So what’s the problem? He wants death he might get it in Syria.
Tom says
Well it’s about time that the UK used some common sense to go along with common law.
A beacon of light in a dark sea of political correctness, this decision may be a turning point in how the British government deals with terrorists and those found to be planning or facilitating terror activities.
Although I don’t hold much hope that such a precedent setting decision will prompt the Brits to remove citizenship and deport immigrants who support terror or violence against the British people. THAT would make way too much sense.
Angemon says
Can this decision be appealed to a higher court?
Clearsighted says
Angemon, the short answer is yes; to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court of England and then to the European Court of Human Rights. Some cases can also be directly filed with the European court.
Angemon says
The ECHR should have no saying on the matter.
gravenimage says
UK: High Court rules that Islamic State jihadis can be legally stripped of their citizenship
………………….
*excellent* news–especially welcome from the UK.
tim gallagher says
Did this man have dual citizenship? In Australia, there has been plenty of discussion about whether we have to take back Muslims, who have Australian citizenship, or not, and you hear it said by commentators that we can’t leave people stateless. I don’t know whether this is true or not. So, what is being said is that, if people, who have gone to fight for ISIS have dual citizenship, then we can tell them to bugger off to Iraq or Iran or wherever they have their second citizenship, but, if they are Australian citizens alone, then we’re stuck with them. This decision in the UK is good news and, as I think the UK legal system has a lot to do with what goes on in Australia, it could have some useful effect in Australia as well.
Jhn1 says
The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is a 1961 United Nations multilateral treaty whereby sovereign states agree to reduce the incidence of statelessness. It has been reinterpreted as banning stateless persons as a revision to the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
As treaties, nations could withdraw from those treaties subject to whatever punitive conditions are constraining the nations from doing so.
If nations cannot get those treaties or their interpretations revised to cease protecting what the Geneva Conventions called unlawful combatants then nations that want to exist need to withdraw from that treaty.
Jhn1 says
Sorry, that first sentence was meant to be cited as a Wiki block quote
tim gallagher says
Thanks for that information, Jhn1. That argument that we have to take back people who left Australia to support the ISIS barbarians because they would be stateless doesn’t seem to be challenged. So I figured that it must game, set and match and we’re stuck with them. I think we probably are stuck with them because Australia is a western country and it won’t go against the UN treaty that you mention. Since I wrote what I wrote up above, I did think about how Burma threw out its Muslims. I think those people were Muslims from Bangladesh. Whether they still had Bangladeshi citizenship or not I don’t know, but I guess Burma couldn’t care less about the UN treaty and couldn’t care less about whether the Muslims ended up stateless. It does seem to be a very strange notion that anyone could be stateless. I think all our countries need to be more careful about who we give citizenship to. We certainly seem to have given citizenship to some loathsome people and now seem to be stuck with them. You are right to say we should withdraw from those treaties if we want to continue to exist.
Clearsighted says
Under current Australian law, any person who holds only Australian citizenship and has no substantial contact with any foreign country is protected by the Australian Constitution from having their citizenship stripped. Such persons, in my opinion, will still be protected even if the new 2018 proposed amendments to the Australia Citizenship Act 2007 are passed. However, if the new law is passed, a person will no longer have to be definitively shown to be a dual citizen before their Australian citizenship can be stripped. For example, even if a person holds only Australian citizenship and has never been outside the country, but their parents are foreign-born, that person may be entitled to derivative citizenship in the countries of their parent’s birth. Such persons might well fall within the ambit of the proposed amendments if they become law.
tim gallagher says
Clearsighted, thanks for that information. I know little about these laws. It is a damned shame that we are almost certainly going end up with most of these people who went to fight with ISIS back in Australia and many other countries. The protection of the people living in Australia should be far and away the main consideration. Apart from the danger that these ISIS returnees will pose, the cost to the taxpayer of keeping them under surveillance will be huge. You seem to know a lot about the law, so maybe you can explain what the situation is with people who are stateless. Are there actually many people who are stateless? What happens to such people? Do they live in a refugee camp forever? As I said above, I find the idea of a person being stateless strange. It seems that every person must have some country that they belong to. I think the people who went to join ISIS deserve to be stateless and I couldn’t give a damn about them, and I’m sure most Australians (and most citizens of other countries) would feel the same, but I was wondering if there are lots of people who are, in fact, stateless in the world. I suppose some country might take pity on such people and let them in.
infidel says
Wants his son to be saved from death penalty by the British so that his son can return and orchestrate the mass murder of the same British that extricated this vile creature,
Tom says
There didn’t appear to be the same concern from the father while his son was involved with the execution of those being terrorized by ISIS.
Telh says
Maybe there is some hope for the UK after all
patriotliz says
To protect indigenous Europeans from Muslims practicing their faith to kill infidels wherever they find them is racist and Islamophobic. The Leftist leaders who allowed the invasion of Islam into the West did so to specifically destroy Western Civilization. The UK may not want this particular UK militaristic jihadist in their country but it nonetheless has plenty of devout Muslims walking around the UK who are a threat. All Muslims are worse than and more cunning than Nazis and they will grow and flourish in Europe and other Western countries until they eventually take over and, that will include killing off their useful infidel idiot Leftist allies.
E. Maria says
You mean the U.K. is finally waking up !
Michael says
The high court judgement is welcomed. It is time to implement treason charges for individuals who placed themselves in enmity to the countries who have them and their parents refuge when they cried for safety. The real fact is that many see these countries as cows for milking in the animosity to it is bread in the house by parents who hate the societies of their refuge. Did his father ever condemn his actions? Did he bleed to him to come to common sense and stop killing and raping “kufar” ? Did his father report him to authorities as killer and rapist ? Or he was happy for his son to execute the Islamic shareia
when he was unable to execute it himself.
It all start at home