This is no surprise. 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)
UK jihad preacher 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.”
“KILLER BILL Jihadi killer who avoided deportation five times wins £107,000 in legal aid,” by Tom Wells, The Sun, September 4, 2021:
A JIHADI who murdered three people after avoiding deportation five times cost £107,000 in legal aid.
Libyan refugee and former child soldier Khairi Saadallah, 26, fatally stabbed three men and left three more seriously injured during a park knife rampage last year.
He arrived in the UK in 2012 and already had convictions for violence, criminal damage and offensive weapons when granted asylum in 2018.
He was released from jail for other crimes just 15 days before his terrorist attack.
David Spencer, of the Centre for Crime Prevention, said: “It is wrong that a vast amount of taxpayers’ money should end up in pockets of lawyers defending a terrorist whose guilt was never in doubt.”
Figures released under freedom of information laws show Saadallah’s solicitors filed for £5,340 in taxpayer-funded legal aid just for representing him at police stations between 2015 and 2020.
Magistrates’ court appearances cost the public another £6,452. Crown court showings racked up another £94,219.
His lawyers also got £1,000 for a successful Court of Appeal case which saw him freed from jail 15 days before his murderous rampage in Reading in June 2020….
mortimer says
Muslims may not hear sermons on jizzya in most mosques, they will learn from videos and CDs passed around among those interested in jihad.
One such sermon (“The Ruling on Dispossessing the Disbelievers wealth in Dar al-Harb”) by Anwar Awlaki says: “The best and purest form of income is booty. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “…and the spoils of war are made halal for me.”
The hadiths and Sharia law approve of Muslims taking the wealth of the dirty kufaar for the purpose of financing the jihad against them. Jihadists want to finance jihad with money they steal from us, their future victims!
gravenimage says
Mortimer, I wojld not assume that most Mosques fail to teach Islam.
bill says
Of course as noted it is really a form of wealth transfer from the low paid tax payers to the very well paid legal ‘profession’, who have life styles the majority can only dream of.
I have always said that lawyers should get a regular fixed salary like everybody else not be allowed to charge for so called ‘billable hours’. The legal profession is nothing more than con racket.
Giacomo Latta says
If there are a lot of experienced, competent lawyers lining up for legal aid jobs instead of the expected inexperienced newbies then you know there’s a racket in progress.
Frank Anderson says
Something to consider: It is certainly different in the UK. In the US it takes 7 years plus of college and law school, a character and fitness investigation, a bar exam or more, (many need more than one try to pass) and all kinds of taxes, fees, and licenses to start practicing law. Here that is an investment of a million dollars or more of lost earnings, time and labor and cash. It takes years of practice to learn what is not taught in law school through experience in practice. Only then is someone reasonably prepared and qualified to defend a high level criminal defendant. The lawyers appointed and paid by the government to defend Adolf Eichmann were the best defense lawyers in Israel.
In the US, appointed lawyers are not paid until AFTER the case is over. In my first and only appointed case, quite reasonably because of my inexperience, my part ended at the first stage, district court arraignment. My fee request sat in the presiding circuit judge’s office for over a year. It then sat in the state financial office another 6 months, until they demanded that I re-bill. Then, a year later and more than double the number of billed hours, that were not billed, I got paid less than 1000 dollars for representing 4 people on 12 felonies. That taught me I needed other work.
If the legal system does not provide competent, experienced defense lawyers in the US or UK, any conviction obtained will not survive an appeal. Ineffective assistance of counsel is a common reason for appeals and is successful often enough to keep the claim coming. As long as terrorism is treated as an ordinary crime instead of the act of war it really is, these legal burdens and expenses will grow to the point the economy and legal system collapse. This damage is just one more shot at a society terrorists wish to destroy.
In my opinion, terrorism is nothing more than piracy on land or in the air. Under the law for centuries, pirates had no legal rights, as “enemies of all mankind”. Our “civilized” delusion that piracy is a crime instead of an act of war and war crime, is being used to destroy us, our society and future.
Giacomo Latta says
Frank,
I agree wholeheartedly with your declaration that a lot of litigants are really enemies of the state and that, my implication, such individuals should be tried by another level of court or arbitrarily declared unfit to receive the legal protection that all normal citizens have.
Frank Anderson says
G.L., you miss the point. Pirates were not entitled to any trial. As “enemies of all mankind” they forfeited any rights to due process. Illegal, un-uniformed armed combat takes away the rights of those who conduct it. They may be executed on the spot. The fact that these illegal combatants out of uniform conduct their war crimes a few at a time, far apart, does not change the war crime status of the crime and remove their claim to trials and due process. The present rules are designed and intended to let them win and destroy our society by abuse of its own rules.
Kashyap says
What a tragedy!
Frank Anderson says
As long as terrorism is treated as an ordinary crime, the terrorist who survives the attack and is arrested will receive at the public’s expense, the best legal defense that can be provided. That is different from countries ruled by islam. I argue and believe that terrorism is nothing more than piracy on land or in the air. Pirates until recently were treated as “enemies of all mankind” deserving no trials, legal protection or “due process” before being executed on sight. Law that served well for centuries now protects those who would destroy that law and the fools who wish to see it end, so their lawless rules can be applied. This is a betrayal of the social contract that has promoted civilization and progress for centuries.
Wellington says
An excellent legal argument attended by an ethical component, which decent law should always be attended by. My complements, Frank.
Frank Anderson says
w., very humbly, thank you.
gravenimage says
Yes–a big part of the problem, Frank.
Check Burry says
An opportunity to lock up some lawyers
Wellington says
Jizya in thin disguise as mortimer has already indicated in his post above.
tim gallagher says
There must be a lot of very angry taxpayers in the UK when they get the news about this money being spent of this Muslim maggot. This sort of thing seems to happen everywhere. I know that people appealing against deportation in Australia have run up huge bills for the appeals they have made and the taxpayers pay for it all. Our countries are far, far too nice and far too soft. As for this murdering Muslim in this report, no money should be spent on this oxygen thief. As is said in the report, this maggot’s guilt was never in doubt, so what a waste of taxpayers’ money to try and defend him.
Wellington says
+1. Oh yeah, tim, no disagreement here.
tim gallagher says
Thanks, Wellington. It is good for our western countries to be civilised and decent in the way they treat their citizens, but, whenever i read these types of reports, I keep thinking that our countries are just too bloody nice and way too soft on these scum. The taxpayers should be outraged, and, no doubt, many are, at the way they pay for the defence of scum like this guy, and many others like him.
gravenimage says
UK: Jihad murderer receives $148,000 in taxpayer-funded legal aid
………………..
Suicidal madness. And he never should have been granted asylum in the UK in the first place.
OLD GUY says
No surprise infidels are supposed to pay for everything for islamic followers. You idiot slaves should know that we must feed them, house them, provide legal services, sex slaves, child brides the list just goes on and on. Funny our political and religious leaders fail to see this side of islam, they only see the loving and peaceful islam?