One hopes that Pope Francis, that most learned of imams, will hurry to Britain to explain to Mohiussunnath Chowdhury that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”
“Buckingham Palace sword attacker said killing pregnant women is ‘fair game’ if they weren’t Muslim, court hears,” by Lizzie Dearden, Independent, January 27, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
The Buckingham Palace sword attacker told his sister he was about to launch “another attack” months after being acquitted of a terror offence, the court has heard.
Mohiussunnath Chowdhury allegedly trained for an attack on potential targets including a gay Pride parade and Madame Tussauds after being freed from custody at the end of a retrial.
Woolwich Crown Court heard that the 28-year-old told undercover police officers of his intentions and said that any non-Muslims were “fair game”.
On 20 June – six months after his release from prison – a covert recording showed him telling his sister, Sneha Chowdhury, that he was quitting his job at a chicken shop in Luton.
“I’m doing another attack bruv,” Mr Chowdhury said. “I’m serious bro, it’s about time now.”
But giving evidence at his trial, he claimed he made the comment “for attention” and did not mean it….
At trial, he claimed that he drove to London with a large sword and drew it on police while shouting “Allahu akbar” because he felt suicidal and wanted to be shot dead.
After his release, Mr Chowdhury was recorded telling undercover police, his cousin and a friend that his real intention had been to kill the officers in a terror attack.
But being questioned by prosecutor Duncan Atkinson QC on Monday, he claimed his original defence was true.
“I said what I said to impress [the undercover officers],” he said. “The defence was entirely true.”…
When the friend said that he could not condone the murder of a pregnant woman or children, he replied: “Allah answers it very clearly in the Quran.”
Mr Chowdhury added: “It’s halal [permissible] because it is not sacred. if they’re not Muslim then they’re fair game.”…
barbaracvm1 says
When will the queen speak up and defend the British people from the cult that believes it is okay to murder all none muslim. She is supposed to have the backbone to defend the people
Her grandfather and father spoke up in defense of England
gravenimage says
I wish she would. So far as I know, the Queen has only just touched on Jihad terror on one occasion–her Christmas address in 2017–and then never again since. Just shameful.
Wellington says
Agreed, gravenimage. Any respect I once had for the Queen, and the Royal Family in general, is long gone since none of them have spoken out against the twin enemies within that are in the process of destroying the UK. The twin enemies are Islam and Leftism.
What good are constitutional “proprieties” if observing them as opposed to not observing them will result in the eradication of your nation as a free nation? And this is why any argument to the effect that the Queen is bound by all kinds of constitutional precedents which she MUST observe above all else is a bogus, wretched, stupid, selfish and suicidal argument in the extreme.
Just as Christianity and the American Constitution, as two examples, are not suicide pacts, so should it be the case that the largely unwritten British Constitution also not be.
The UK is dying from within and the Queen has essentially done nothing, said nothing, about this. Shame on her forever. As for Prince Charles, don’t even get me started here.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
An excellent and accurate post, my compliments.
The Royals will continue to say or do essentially nothing regarding the islamic threat – a clear and present danger.
At the rate that the UK is dying, muslims will eventually take over Buckingham palace.
And the queen will NOT be saved…
mortimer says
Wellington, The British Royals most resemble the American ‘First Lady’ who like them does not discuss politics, but shows up to smile, wave, shake hands and cut ribbons. But unlike the First Lady, they are embedded in the military system.
Many Americans do not understand the British Royals’ place in British politics. British Royals are NOT the equivalent of the US president who makes national policy. The British Royals do not make policy and do NOT comment in public on politics (things like jihad terrorism or trade), unless the PM asks them to do so. They are expected almost entirely to avoid discussing politics, but they do so discreetly in private and off the record.
The constitutional reason they are non-political is this: If the British Royals spoke about politics in public it would create an unelected political party and that would cause CHAOS for the elected government, so the Royals have to remain silent on almost contentious issues.
If you want the explanation for the UK subservience to Islam, it’s oil. UK politicians are kowtowing to Arab oil. The UK economy runs on it. That is the hidden factor that is not admitted by anyone in the UK government.
(You’re welcome.)
Wellington says
mortimer: With respect, I NEVER in any way stated or implied that the British Royals are even remotely comparable to the American President so that it is a non-starter.
As for any constitutional crisis that might occur, call it chaos if you like, if the Queen and members of the Royal Family spoke out about how their nation is in the process of being permanently changed for the worse, I would argue this would be a good thing, even a great thing. The UK needs a constitutional crisis because nothing else seems to be working. The Queen could lead here and millions would support her. Would she risk everything if she did this? You bet she would but it is a risk that should be taken.
Finally, subservience to Islam is partly about oil but much else as well, including moronic political correctness, multiculturalism and overall ignorance and stupidity.
Caroline Rausch says
Prince Charles after attending the Holocaust Memorial in Israel, and reading words that had been written for him, on the next night met with Abbas. Prince Charles is loathsome, and so is his bitch of a wife. I hope the Queen will not name him to succeed her — the English would never accept Camilla as Queen. I hope William and Kate will be the next king and queen — especially Kate is desirable as she is the daughter of a yeoman and loves Israel. I think William has been somewhat contaminated by Muslim sympathy, but Kate can cure him.
mortimer says
GI, The Royals don’t make political speeches generally and definitely not without running them past a number of people, even more so in the matter of Islamic terrorism. They are already targets for various jihadists. If they mentioned Islamic terrorism even in passing, it would further endanger the royal staff and also members of the public who were innocently trying to get a closer look at them.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, the Queen’s father famously spoke out against the threat of the Nazis. Would you condemn this, as well? Never mind that his speech was a great source of pride and comfort for Britons like my mother and aunt, who joined the British army as young women and served during WWII.
If the Royal family cannot even serve as symbols of British freedom, then they have no purpose whatsoever.
And the implication that Britons and visitors to the UK are safer if the Royals quietly submit to the threat of Islam is *quite* mistaken.
mortimer says
Barb, George VI was not the president of the UK. He read speeches written for him by Winston Churchill and other prime ministers. The British monarch doesn’t make government policy for the people, but is allowed to announce what the people’s elected government decides. The elected PM and the cabinet make the national policies. The British Royals are not an unelected government.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, the idea that King George was just a mouthpiece for others is quite mistaken. He may not have written the whole of this speech, but the implication that he didn’t want to oppose the Fascists but was forced to pretend that he did is just wrong.
Rufolino says
Yes, the Queen’s Father and Grandfather both “spoke up” in defence of the United Kingdom. But this only occurred after the Declaration.of War.
Before any outbreak of war, in peacetime, the Sovereign must represent goodwill between nations, and internal unity. (He has to do this whatever his private opinions.)
Before war broke out in 1939, King George VI (acting on advice) sent friendly birthday greetings to Adolf Hitler in a futile attempt to maintain good relations.
Until the last moment the Sovereign had to act on the side of peace. A state of war changes all that.
But if the United Kingdom ends up with a civil war, as opposed to a foreign war, this puts the Monarchy in an extremely vulnerable and potentially dangerous position as was seen in Spain in the 1930’s.
Westman says
“Fair game” on humans, the words of a Muslim predator.
And the UK leaders, with their itching ears, can only hear what they must to retain their delusional fantasy that the Islam infected can provide cheap labor and prop up industry without a fatal cost to the UK.
mortimer says
QUOTE FROM ISLAMIC CLERIC:
“If a kafir person (disbeliever) goes in a Muslim country, he is a cow. Anybody can take him. That is the Islamic law…If a kafir is walking by and you catch him, he’s booty. You can sell him in the market. Most of them are spies. And even if they don’t do anything, if Muslims cannot take them and sell them in the market, you just kill them. It’s OK…I say the reality that’s in the Muslim books anyway. Whether I say it or not, it’s in the books.”
– Abu Hamza al-Masri of Egypt, ‘Captain Hook’, an imprisoned Muslim cleric (58 year sentence)
James Lincoln says
Westman says,
I never could understand the idea of importing muslims to provide cheap labor. Instead, what the UK has imported is:
Muslims with few skills and marginal IQs.
A low percentage of muslims that actually join the workforce.
Muslims who accept more in public benefits than they provide back in taxes, etc.
A sharp uptick in crime and terrorist attacks.
Muslims whose ultimate goal is to take over the society and impose islamic sharia law.
Clear thinking leaders, as found in countries like Poland and Hungary, would NEVER import muslims into their country.
All downside, no upside.
gravenimage says
UK: Islamic jihadi says it’s clear in Qur’an that pregnant women are “fair game” “if they’re not Muslim”
………………….
More Muslim “morality”. God, I hate Islam.
mortimer says
Dear GI, Sharia law requires jihadis to WAIT for a full month before raping their slaves to make sure they are not pregnant, but if they are pregnant, the baby becomes a slave of Muslims.
Mohammed, however, did not wait one month and nor did his immediate jihadic ‘companions’. This Sharia ‘verdict’ came about after Mohammed’s death.
Koran 4.23-24 is a ‘DECREE’ directly from Allah that commands jihadists to take MARRIED captives as their sex slaves and not worry that they are married or the mothers of children. Islam conveniently ‘annuls’ the marriage of married captives, rather than restore these vulnerable women unharmed to their families as civilized soldiers would do.
Islam is thus seen to be inconsistent and barbaric in its treatment of captives.
There is no punishment if Muslims abuse a kafir woman, except when she is the slave-property of another Muslim. The Muslim ‘owner’ of the slave he can sue the Muslim abuser for lessening the value of his property.
gravenimage says
+1
gravenimage says
And Mortimer, the rule telling Muslims to wait before raping their captives mostly has to do with making sure that Muslims don’t consider an Infidel’s baby to be one of their own.
Wellington says
“Fair game?”
Actually, quite accurate respecting what Islam in its appalling holy book condones, to be found in Suras 4, 23, 33 and 70—“captives of the right hand” and all that malevolent, indefensible rot.
Just one more example of how sick Islam is and why all those defending it, Muslim or non-Muslim, are aligning themselves with evil (examples being not only Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser and Irshad Manji but also a total fool like Bernie Sanders who, though Jewish, has referred to Mo’s deluded followers as his “Muslim brothers and sisters”).
There’s no good Islam. There are a multitude of Muslims who will not implement many of Islam’s sick directives, another example being death for apostasy as found in Sura 4:89 and the Bukhari Hadith 9.84.57, but this is something far different from averring that Islam is itself OK. It is not. It is about as far from being OK as is Nazism (many adherents of which also themselves did not personally want to implement many of its warped ideas). Indeed, a good case can be made that Islam anticipated Nazism by some 1400 years. One has preached a master faith and the other a master race. Whichever, such preaching is sick to its core and there is no getting around this.
mortimer says
Yes, Wellington, the word ‘MUBAA’ may be translated as ‘licit’ or ‘fair game’. The property, persons and the honor of a KAFIR HARBI (a non-Muslim who criticizes or resists Islam) may be ‘taken’ by the Muslim. They are MUBAA (licit) for the jihadist.
mortimer says
Wellington, the verses you referred to (Suras 4, 23, 33 and 70) were quoted to a woman who had proudly converted to Islam. Once they were fully explained to her, she was shocked by the outrageous barbarity of raping married captives. She left Islam.
Wellington says
“She left Islam.”
Is she still alive?
FYI says
“allah answers it very clearly in the koran”:and if it is written in allah’s “perfect” book it must be true and cannot be denied,right?
“The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain”
koran 54:1
The moon was split in two?When?well if you say so allah.That’s pretty clear.
How is it possible that al lah misunderstands theology?
There is a 1,400 epic theology fail in koran 5;116:what according to allah,constitutes the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity?
allah,Jesus and ….MARY!
“allah answers it very clearly in the koran”
I guess Mary must be in the Trinity;”allah answers it very clearly in the koran” doesn’t he?Christians must have it wrong.
But hey,it’s in the koran ,so if allah tells us MARY is part of the Trinity who can argue with that?And to make it all even clearer,allah the linguistically-challenged ARAB god of islam writes in classical Arabic ..
“And in truth WE have made the koran easy to understand”
koran 54:22
{…except for those who don’t speak or read Classical Arabic…}
al lah the god of clarity.
mortimer says
The Arabic word MUBAA means ‘licit’ or ‘fair game’ in English.
The property, person and honor of a ‘kafir harbi’ are ‘mubaa’ or licit to the jihadist. It is in other words ‘permitted’ or ‘licit’ to dishonor a ‘kafir harbi’. Non-Muslim women who are not submitted to Islam would fit the description of ‘kafir harbi’, so they may be raped freely.
– Mohammed promises women as a fringe-benefit to Allah’s warriors:
“You see, Allah will soon make you inherit their land, their treasures and MAKE YOU SLEEP with their women”. Sira, Ibn Hisham, page 182 Vol. II, “Al Rod Al Anf”
notnolib says
Any word from the terrorists at the terror organization CAIR and its terrorists? Do they condemn their co-religionist for having a “defective” view of the gutter-cult of islam?