An update to a troubling story that Jihad Watch covered about veteran medical doctor, Keith Wolverson. A brief background: He is facing an inquiry and possible dismissal for “discrimination” after asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil so he could hear her better, while treating her son in the walk-in centre at Royal Stoke University Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire. After Dr. Wolverson’s polite request, she willingly complied, but her supremacist husband later raised a stink about it about it, resulting in an inquiry. The ordeal lead to Wolverson planning to quit “and retrain as a cosmetic practitioner.” He stated:
I feel a major injustice has taken place. This is why you are waiting so long to see your GP and doctors are leaving in droves. This country will have no doctors left if we continue to treat them in this manner. I’m deeply upset.
More than 11,000 people have rallied behind Dr. Wolverson. 11,000 signatures flowed in to defend and support Dr. Wolverson from this gross injustice in less than 24 hours. The case involving Dr. Wolverson demonstrates just how far one hospital will go to appease Muslims, at the expense of a dedicated employee and of justice.
“Thousands rally to defend doctor ‘forced out’ for asking Muslim woman to lift veil as more than 11,000 sign petition in less than 24 hours”, by James Tozer, Daily Mail, May 21, 2019:
More than 11,000 people have rallied behind a doctor under investigation for asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil during an appointment.
Supporters have signed an online petition in huge numbers demanding Dr Keith Wolverson, 52, keep his job to ‘protect his reputation’.
The petition also called on the General Medical Council (GMC) to ‘treat this man fairly and look at all the evidence’ after it was revealed a complaint had been made to them by the patient following the incident at Royal Stoke University Hospital.
The doctor said he is unable to find work and is planning to quit medicine and retrain as a cosmetic practitioner.
Dr Wolverson claims the woman did not object when he ‘politely’ asked her to remove the face covering, adding he only asked because he was struggling to understand what she was saying about her sick daughter.
But her husband later made a complaint and last week the locum GP was shocked to receive a letter from doctors’ regulator the General Medical Council. It said that he was being investigated over allegations of racial discrimination which could result in him being struck off.
The GMC said it never confirmed whether doctors were under investigation unless they were given conditions or suspended, neither of which has happened to Dr Wolverson at this stage…..
“England’s first Muslim MP today agreed that the Government was right to refuse to enshrine a definition of Islamophobia in law. Labour’s Khalid Mahmood… said the move would only divide the country more and lead to increased segregation of Muslim communities.” He further stated: “I am for equality for all – but I oppose this. We as Muslims should be proud of who we are and try to move away from a victim mentality.”
Jihad Watch covered the rejection of the working definition of ‘Islamophobia’ proposed by an all-party Parliamentary group. The definition, “as put forward by the British Muslims determined that Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. The latter term is undefined and downright ludicrous.
The victimology subterfuge is often used by Islamic supremacists to beat down critics of Islam. MP Khalid Mahmood also warned that “‘Islamophobia’ had been ‘weaponised’ by hardline groups and could be used to stifle the ‘operation of a free media’”. But for fellow Muslim Labor MP Naz Shah, the UK government’s rejection of the term was rather upsetting to her as it was to many Muslim groups. She stated:
If it is down to women to define the experience of feminism, the experiences of people of colour to define racism, the experience of Jews to define anti-Semitism, the experience of the LGBTQ+ communities to define homophobia, I ask the minister how dare he tell the British Muslims that our experiences can not define Islamophobia.
Aside from dislike of “Muslimness” which could be interpreted to mean dislike of the sharia, deemed be divine in Islam, the term “Islamophobia” was also defined in Canada by the National Council of Canadian Muslims to be: “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.”
So, no, it is not up to Muslims to impose the term “Islamophobia” upon Western societies as Naz Shah would have it. If Muslims want to address their experiences of discrimination, then they have every right to do so, and to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry, but “Islamophobia” is a loaded term that has no place in any free democracy.
While Naz Shah is pushing “Islamophobia”, she cares nothing about Muslims victimizing innocents. She retweeted for the young victims of Muslim rape gangs to shut up for the good of diversity.
“MPs rail against plan to define Islamophobia in law that would ‘divide the country’ after the government rejected it and experts warned it would limit free speech”, by Martin Robinson, Daily Mail, May 16, 2019:
England’s first Muslim MP today agreed that the Government was right to refuse to enshrine a definition of Islamophobia in law.
Labour’s Khalid Mahmood, who represents Birmingham Perry Barr, said the move would only divide the country more and lead to increased segregation of Muslim communities.
He told the Commons during a debate on the issue: ‘I am for equality for all – but I oppose this. We as Muslims should be proud of who we are and try to move away from a victim mentality’.
Supporters of the idea including the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims say that formalising the term will help to counter hostility toward Muslims.
But Mr Mahmood said: ‘I have been the victim of hate mail and actions from the far right and the Islamist community as well. I am proud to be a British Pakistani Muslim MP – the first Muslim to be elected in this Parliament from England. I will take no lessons from anyone who says I’m an Islamophobe or too much or a Muslim’.
Mr Mahmood also said the proposed definition focussed too much on what a Muslim man or woman would traditionally wear – rather than protecting British Muslims who choose to dress differently.
He said: ‘How do you protect those Muslims who dress normally in society but have the religion in their heart? The definition of ‘Muslimness’ as it is described in this report categorises people who dress a particular way and those who don’t. By defining it in this way you are excluding those who don’t’.
Yesterday he said the term ‘Islamophobia’ had been ‘weaponised’ by hardline groups and could be used to stifle the ‘operation of a free media’.
Downing Street said last night the suggested definition of Islamophobia had not been broadly accepted, adding: ‘This is a matter that will need further careful consideration.’
More than 40 religious leaders and experts including Mr Mahmood wrote to Home Secretary Sajid Javid yesterday, telling him that the definition could be a ‘backdoor blasphemy law’ and limit free speech.
Naz Shah, who represents Bradford West, said Muslims in Britain were being denied the same rights as other races or religions in the UK.
Proposals for an official definition of Islamophobia were rejected by the Government yesterday after advice from anti-terror police and concerns it could be a ‘back door’ blasphemy law.
What is the UK law on Islamophobia? There is no specific law against Islamophobia in the UK.
However, there are numerous laws which might be used to prosecute offenders.
Stirring up religious hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986.
It can carry a sentence of up to seven years in prison.
Criminals may also be handed longer sentences for other offences if they are found to have been motivated by racial or religious hostility.
There are separate laws covering online abuse.
In addition, the Equality Act 2010 stops discrimination based on ‘protected characteristics’ including religion.
If a new, official definition is adopted, it could be used to block government actions in the courts.
Terror legislation could be subject to such judicial reviews, it is claimed.
An unofficial 1997 wording defined Islamophobia as ‘unfounded hostility towards Muslims’.
The suggested new one says: ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’
Supporters of the idea say that formalising the term will help to counter hostility toward Muslims. ….
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)
“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.”
“Gangsters with links to the 7/7 London bombings stole £8billion from British taxpayers in 20-year fraud before funnelling cash to Pakistan to support Osama Bin Laden,” by Joel Adams, Mailonline, March 31, 2019 (thanks to Mick):
A network of fraudsters stole billions of pounds from taxpayers in a 20-year crime spree on an industrial scale, funneling tens of millions to terrorists including Osama Bin Laden, according to police and intelligence files.
An investigation by The Sunday Times has revealed how a sprawling gang of British Asians infiltrated government departments, associated with Abu Hamza and one of the 7/7 bombers, bought Ferraris with personalised plates and cosied up to politicians including Tony Blair – all while keeping their operations so secretive investigators had to resort to tying a camera to a dog to glean intelligence from inside one of their factories.
The files show four HMRC investigators pleaded with bosses to prosecute the crimelords but were rebuffed – and one claims he was prevented from sharing HMRC data with MI5 because the Revenue wanted to maintain the confidentiality of the terror suspects’ tax records.
HMRC told MailOnline it ‘can, has always, and does’ pass information on to intelligence agencies ‘within minutes if necessary’ and that confidentiality ‘doesn’t come into it’.
An estimated £8bn was stolen from the taxpayer through scams including benefit fraud and a massive VAT swindle. The sum, equivalent to the GDP of Kyrgystan or Kosovo, is three times as much as the Government spends on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ each year.
The gang is alleged to have sent one per cent of the money – £80 million – to al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where it was spent on madrasas and terrorist training camps. MI5 sources say prior to his death in 2011 some of the money had reached Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
The true scale of the gang’s profits, augmented by mortgage fraud, credit card fraud, and investments of the stolen cash, is unknown.
Some members of the syndicate have received and in some cases even finished jail terms – of a combined 100 years for frauds worth £100m – since the crimes first came to light in 1995, but the public has been prevented from hearing about the case or the identities of the wrongdoers by court orders.
The Crown Prosecution Service insists reporting might prejudice potential trials of the gang’s ringleaders – despite the fact the kingpins fled the country years ago and are believed to be in hiding in the Middle East.
A four-year investigation by the Inland Revenue pooled intelligence from tax, customs, police, immigration and trading standards and put suspects under surveillance.
It concluded that the gang was using a network of factories and companies and exploiting their workers for identity and benefit frauds, the sale of counterfeit goods, car crash scams and mortgage and credit card frauds.
HMRC found the gang used ‘hijacked or altered national insurance numbers to create false records’ and exploited ‘illegal immigrant labour’ before laundering the cash ‘through bogus offshore companies’.
An undercover HMRC officer reported that hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza recruited young Muslims to work for the crime syndicate in the late 1990s, years before he became infamous as an al-Qaeda recruiter.
A source said the factories which employed those workers Hamza recruited had extra staff who ‘were ghosts claiming benefits and having car crashes’.
The source added: ‘A factory of 180 workers only had 120 physical workers. The rest were identity frauds with all proceeds going back to the owners of the companies. This generated around £20,000 a week in benefit claims alone.’
But the gang proved extremely difficult to penetrate, the report says. Undercover agents eventually resorted to attaching a camera to a dog and encouraging it to run around inside one of the network’s factories just to find out how many people actually worked there.
The gang’s biggest money-maker was so-called ‘carousel fraud’, a complex and industrial-scale swindle in which four companies, two in the UK and two in the EU, ‘sell’ goods to each other with some of the firms ‘reclaiming’ VAT from the British government, while others never pay the VAT bill they rack up (see box).
This fraud was prolonged and well-financed, and included real factories employing hundreds of staff making thousands of real products.
1. Real factories obtain contracts to make clothes for famous brands
2. They produce perhaps 200,000 garments for the client plus an extra 40,000 to sell in markets at half price
3. Family members then visit stores with half-price items, and exchange them for other full-price goods.
Investigators concluded the gang had gained more than £1 billion from illegitimate VAT rebates in a single postcode area….
In its mad pursuit of Muslim votes, the Theresa May government in Britain has long ago left behind any commitment to basic human decency. The UK Home Office some time ago banned Martin Sellner, Brittany Pettibone, Lauren Southern and Lutz Bachmann from entering, all for the crime of opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression, and thereby made it clear that it is more authoritarian and unwilling to uphold the freedom of speech than ever – at least when it comes to criticism of Islam, Muslim rape gangs, and mass Muslim migration.
The bannings of Sellner, Pettibone, Southern, and Bachmann were just part of a long pattern. Pamela Geller and I were banned in 2013, apparently for life, also for the crime of telling the truth about Islam and jihad. Just days after Geller and I were banned, the British government admittedSaudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. Al-Arefe has said: “Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”
The UK Home Office also admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.”
Why is the May government still in power, despite repeatedly betraying the British people? Yes, Corbyn would be even worse. Why has no sane alternative gained any traction in British politics? Has all the courage and national pride been bred out of the British people by decades of socialist indoctrination?
“Christian family in ‘death fatwa’ plead against UK deportation,” by Alex Williams, Premier, March 30, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
Wilson and Lorina Dallas have made a fresh attempt for asylum after their initial application was rejected – and two appeals were unsuccessful.
The couple, aged 38 and 31 respectively, are receiving support from the Catholic church they attend in the Springburn area of Glasgow.
Fr John McGrath from St Aloysius told Premier: “The whole of the Glasgow community and here in Springburn – people of all faiths and none – are so supportive of the family.
“Everyone wants them here because they feel that the family are already part of the community.”
A religious ordinance issues by Islamic leaders in Pakistan called for their deaths after a row erupted at a wedding Lorina attended in late 2017.
During the ceremony, the mother-of-two was asked why she would not convert to Islam.
The pair were subsequently attacked and even held at gunpoint – prompting them to seek refuge abroad….
In rejecting the claim for asylum of a man who converted from Islam to Christianity, and presumably compelling his return to Iran, the British government is effectively sentencing him to death.
“[O]ut of 4,850 Syrian refugees accepted for resettlement by the Home Office in 2017, only eleven were Christian, representing just 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK.” — Barnabas Fund.
At the same time, the Home Office allowed a Pakistani cleric, Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri, considered so extreme that he is banned even from his native Pakistan, to come and lecture in UK mosques.
“It’s unbelievable that these persecuted Christians who come from the cradle of Christianity are being told there is no room at the inn, when the UK is offering a welcome to Islamists who persecute Christians…. There is a serious systemic problem when Islamist leaders who advocate persecution of Christians are given the green light telling them that their applications for UK visas will be looked on favourably, while visas for short pastoral visits to the UK are denied to Christian leaders whose churches are facing genocide. That is an urgent issue that Home Office ministers need to grasp and correct.” — Dr. Martin Parsons, Barnabas Fund.
In rejecting the claim for asylum of a man who converted from Islam to Christianity, and presumably compelling his return to Iran, the British government is effectively sentencing him to death. (Image source: iStock)
In two unrelated cases, the United Kingdom denied asylum to persecuted Christians by bizarrely citing the Bible and Jesus. Both Christians, a man and a woman, are former Muslims who were separately seeking asylum from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the ninth-worst persecutor of Christians — particularly of those who were Muslims and converted to Christianity.
UK asylum worker Nathan Stevens recently shared their stories. In his rejection letter from the UK’s Home Office, which is in charge of immigration, the Iranian man was told that biblical passages were “inconsistent” with his claim to have converted to Christianity after discovering it was a “peaceful” faith. The letter cited several biblical excerpts, including from Exodus, Leviticus, and Matthew, presumably to show that the Bible is violent; it said Revelation was “filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence.” The governmental letter then concluded:
“These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful’ religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.”
In response, Nathan Stevens, the asylum seeker’s caseworker, tweeted:
“… I’ve seen a lot over the years, but even I was genuinely shocked to read this unbelievably offensive diatribe being used to justify a refusal of asylum.
“Whatever your views on faith, how can a government official arbitrarily pick bits out of a holy book and then use them to trash someone’s heartfelt reason for coming to a personal decision to follow another faith?
There seemed no awareness that, despite occasional verses of violence in the Bible, its main message, in both the Old and New Testaments, is to be found in Leviticus 19:18: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
In rejecting the claim for asylum of this man who converted from Islam to Christianity, and presumably compelling his return to Iran, the British government is effectively sentencing him to death.
In the second case, an Iranian female asylum seeker was informed in her rejection letter:
“You affirmed in your AIR [Asylum Interview Record] that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that He would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime. It is therefore considered that you have no conviction in your faith and your belief in Jesus is half-hearted.”
Recently interviewed on BBC Radio 4, the woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, said:
“When I was in Iran I converted to Christianity and the situation changed and the government were [sic] looking for me and I had to flee from Iran…. In my country if someone converts to Christianity their punishment is death or execution.”
Concerning the asylum process, she said that whenever she responded to her Home Office interviewer, “he was either chuckling or maybe just kind of mocking when he was talking to me…. [H]e asked me why Jesus didn’t help you from the Iranian regime or Iranian authorities.”
These two recently exposed cases appear to be symptomatic not only of a breathtaking lack of logic that flies in the face of history — God obviously did not always save those who believed in Him — but also what increasing appears to be a venomous Home Office bias against Christians. For instance, when Sister Ban Madleen, a Christian nun in Iraq who had fled the Islamic State, applied to the Home Office to visit her sick sister in Britain, she was denied a visa — twice. Another report cites a number of other Christian orderlies who were denied visas, including another nun with a PhD in Biblical Theology from Oxford; a nun denied for not having a personal bank account, and a Catholic priest denied for not being married.
In another case, the Home Office not only denied entry to three heroic Christian leaders — archbishops celebrated for their efforts to aid persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq who had been invited to attend the consecration of the UK’s first Syriac Cathedral, an event attended by Prince Charles — but also mockingly told them there was “no room at the inn.”
Even longtime Christian residents are being deported. Earlier this year, Asher Samson, 41, a Christian man who had been residing in the UK for 15 years and undergoing theological studies, was deported back to Pakistan — where he had earlier been “beaten and threatened by Islamic extremists.” (Such treatment is normative for Christians in Pakistan, the world’s fifth-worst persecutor of Christians.) Samson’s former UK pastor said:
“I’ve received some messages from him. He’s very scared, he’s fearful for his life…. He’s in hiding in Pakistan and his family are terribly worried for him…. At the moment he has no funds to live on — he can’t work …. [T]he UK is sending people back to these countries where their lives are in danger.”
By contrast, a report from the Barnabas Fund found that in offering asylum, the UK “appears to discriminate in favour of Muslims” instead of Christians. Statistics confirm this allegation:
“Figures obtained by Barnabas Fund under a Freedom of Information request show that out of 4,850 Syrian refugees accepted for resettlement by the Home Office in 2017, only eleven were Christian, representing just 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK.”
Statistics from earlier years have shown the same disparity. Although Christians accounted for approximately 10% of Syria’s prewar population, the overwhelming majority of Syrians granted asylum by the Home Office were Sunni Muslims. Such an imbalance appears even more bizarre when one realizes that the Islamic State (ISIS) is itself a Sunni organization that targets non-Sunnis, primarily Yazidis, Christians and Shiite Muslims, all minority groups that the U.S. government acknowledges have been targets of genocide.
As Lord David Alton of Liverpool, a life peer in the House of Lords, wrote to Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who heads the Home Office:
“It is widely accepted that Christians, who constituted around 10 per cent of Syria’s pre-war population, were specifically targeted by jihadi rebels and continue to be at risk…. As last year’s statistics more than amply demonstrate, this [ratio imbalance between Muslim and Christian refugees taken in] is not a statistical blip. It shows a pattern of discrimination that the Government has a legal duty to take concrete steps to address.”
Considering that persecuted Christian minorities — including priests and nuns — are denied visas, one might conclude that perhaps the Home Office just has extremely stringent asylum requirements. This notion is quickly dispelled, however, when one sees that the Home Office regularly grants visas and refugee status to extremist Muslims. One has yet to hear about Muslim asylum seekers being denied visas because the Koran is too violent, or because they do “not have enough faith” in Muhammad.
Ahmed Hassan, despite having no papers — and despite telling the Home Office that “he had been trained as an ISIS soldier” — was still granted asylum two years before he launched a terrorist attack in a London train station that left 30 injured in September 2017.
The Home Office also allowed a foreign Muslim cleric, Hamza Sodagar, to enter and lecture in London, even though he advocates beheading, burning, or throwing homosexuals from cliffs.
In addition, according to another report, “British teenagers are being forced to marry abroad and are raped and impregnated while the Home Office ‘turns a blind eye’ by handing visas to their [mostly Muslim] husbands.”
The case of Asia Bibi — a Christian mother of five who has spent the last decade of her life on death row in Pakistan for challenging the authority of Muhammad— is perhaps emblematic of the immigration situation in the UK. After she was finally acquitted last November, Muslims rioted throughout Pakistan; in one march, more than 11,000 Muslims demanded her instant and public hanging.
As Pakistanis make up the majority of all Muslims in the UK — Sajid Javid the head of the Home Office is himself Pakistani — when they got wind that the UK might offer Asia Bibi asylum, they too rioted. As a result, Prime Minister Theresa May personally blocked Bibi’s asylum application — “despite UK playing host to [Muslim] hijackers, extremists and rapists,” one headline read. The UK, in other words, was openly allowing “asylum policy to be dictated to by a Pakistan mob,” reported the Guardian, “after it was confirmed it urged the Home Office not to grant Asia Bibi political asylum in the UK…”
At the same time, the Home Office allowed a Pakistani cleric, Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri, considered so extreme that he is banned even from his native Pakistan, to come and lecture in UK mosques. Qadri celebrated the slaughter of a politician because he had defended Asia Bibi.
In short, local Muslim opinion apparently plays a major role in the UK’s immigration policy: radical Muslims are welcomed with open arms; Christian “infidels” need not apply.
Commenting on the difficulties Christian minority asylum seekers have with the Home Office, Dr. Martin Parsons, the head of research at the Barnabas Fund, remarking that “visas were granted in July to two Pakistani Islamic leaders who have called for the killing of Christians accused of blasphemy,” summarized the situation:
“It’s unbelievable that these persecuted Christians who come from the cradle of Christianity are being told there is no room at the inn, when the UK is offering a welcome to Islamists who persecute Christians…. There is a serious systemic problem when Islamist leaders who advocate persecution of Christians are given the green light telling them that their applications for UK visas will be looked on favourably, while visas for short pastoral visits to the UK are denied to Christian leaders whose churches are facing genocide. That is an urgent issue that Home Office ministers need to grasp and correct.”
There appears to be a very deep hostility to Christianity among certain officials of the UK Home Office. What might be their background and perspective? They may be Muslims, of course, but they may also be Leftists who despite their own nation and heritage and wouldn’t ever dare say the slightest critical word about Islam.
“‘Your faith is half-hearted’: Second Iranian Christian had his asylum application rejected by the Home Office after saying ‘Jesus could not protect him from the Iranian regime’, lawyer claims,” by Rory Tingle, Mailonline, March 24, 2019:
The Home Office is facing more questions about its attitude towards Christian asylum seekers amid claims it rejected another Iranian man’s application to move to Britain by telling him, ‘your belief in Jesus is half-hearted’.
There was outrage this week after it emerged a convert was refused asylum in 2016 because an official said his conversion from Islam was ‘inconsistent’ with his suggestion Christianity was a peaceful religion – by highlighting violent passages from the Bible.
Now immigration caseworker Nathan Stevens, who exposed the first case, has said another Iranian he worked with had his application rejected after an official criticised him for admitting Jesus could not protect him from his country’s tyrannical regime.
Mr Stevens posted a comment from the refusal on Twitter, which read: ‘You affirmed in your AIR [Asylum Interview Record] that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that He would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime. It is therefore considered that you have no conviction in your faith and your belief in Jesus is half-hearted.’…
“Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this” — Ishaq Akintola, professor of Islamic Eschatology and Director of Muslim Rights Concern, Nigeria
“There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law.” — Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-‘Ubeidi, Iraqi expert on Islamic law
There is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.” — Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council
Few things are more abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:
“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).
Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).
Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.
Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.
Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:
The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.
Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”
According to Amir Taheri in The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution (pp. 90-91), Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.
And why a boy? They are promised in Paradise, along with the houris, the celebrated heavenly virgins:
“Those are the ones brought near in the Gardens of Pleasure, a company of the former peoples and a few of the later peoples, on thrones woven, reclining on them, facing each other. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal with vessels, pitchers and a cup from a flowing spring.” — Qur’an 56:11-18
“And they will be given to drink a cup whose mixture is of ginger, a fountain within Paradise named Salsabeel. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal. When you see them, you would think them scattered pearls. And when you look there, you will see pleasure and great dominion.” — Qur’an 76:17-20
“Lord Ahmed charged with attempted child rape,” by Josh Halliday, Guardian, March 1, 2019:
The former Labour peer Nazir Ahmed has been charged with two counts of attempted rape dating back to the 1970s.
Lord Ahmed, 61, is also charged with one count of indecent assault. His alleged victims were a girl and a boy aged under 13.
The alleged offences are said to have taken place in Rotherham between 1971 and 1974, when Ahmed was a teenager.
He and two other men, Mohammed Farouq, 68, and Mohammed Tariq, 63, both from Rotherham, were charged as part of a South Yorkshire police investigation that began in 2016.
The Crown Prosecution Service said Ahmed was charged with indecently assaulting a boy aged under 13 in 1971-72, when he was aged 14 to 15.
He is alleged to have committed the two attempted rapes, at least one of which was against a girl, in 1973-74 when he was aged 16 to 17.
Ahmed, a married father of three, was born in Pakistan and moved with his family to the UK in 1969 to join his father, who was working in steel factories in Rotherham.
He joined the Labour party in 1975 aged 18 and became Rotherham’s first Asian councillor in 1990, later becoming the town’s youngest magistrate. He was made a made a peer by Tony Blair in 1998 and was one of the first Muslims to be appointed to the Lords….
Yesterday I noted the Western intelligentsia’s seemingly endless “capacity for self-flagellation and self-hatred.” Another manifestation of the same tendency is what we can call the Jefferson’s Qur’an Effect: claiming that public figures of the past who had any interest in Islam for any reason, even if they publicly expressed negative views of the religion, were actually enthralled by the religion and may even have been secret converts.
Here is the reality of what Churchill thought of Islam, whatever “fascination” he may have had, or how often he wore Arabic clothing: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”
But the Express, like the rest of the British media, is trying to make British people love Islam, so that they will complacently accept mass Muslim migration and the increasing presence of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women and others in British society. Only ten paragraphs down in this story do they tell us that “”Churchill never seriously considered converting.” Thanks for the information.
“Winston Churchill BOMBSHELL: War hero’s ‘FASCINATION with Islam’ revealed in lost letter,” by Callum Hoare, Express, January 24, 2019:
WINSTON Churchill was fascinated by the Islamic faith and some of his family believed he might have even converted to the religion after his time in India with the British Army, an uncovered letter reveals.
Although Churchill has become the embodiment of the British bulldog spirit he was also a strong admirer of the Islamic faith – so much so and his relatives believed he was on the verge of becoming a Muslim at the turn of the 20th century. The revelation is buried in a letter to Mr Churchill from his future sister-in-law, Lady Gwendoline Bertie, written in August 1907. In the letter, found by Warren Dockter of Cambridge University, Lady Gwendoline wrote: “Please don’t become converted to Islam.
“I have noticed in your disposition a tendency to orientalise Pasha-like tendencies, I really have.
“If you come into contact with Islam your conversion might be effected with greater ease than you might have supposed, call of the blood, don’t you know what I mean, do fight against it.”…
In a letter written to Lady Constance Georgina Bulwer-Lytton in 1907, Mr Churchill revealed he “wished he were” a Pasha, which was a rank of distinction in the Ottoman Empire at the time.
He also took to dressing in Arabic clothing while with friends, Dr Dockter – author, historian and research fellow at Cambridge University – claims.
He said: “Lady Gwendoline Bertie would have been worried because Churchill was leaving for an African tour and she would have known Churchill had been seeing his friend, Wilfrid S. Blunt – who was a renowned Arabist, anti-imperialist and poet.
“He and Churchill were friends and dressed in Arabian dresses at times for Blunt’s eccentric parties, but they rarely agreed.”
Although Mr Churchill was fascinated with the faith and culture, Dr Dockter claims he would have stopped short at converting to Islam.
He added: “Churchill never seriously considered converting.
”He was more or less an atheist by this time anyway.
“He did, however, have a fascination with Islamic culture which was common among Victorians.”… Follow me on Facebook
France has speedily “built a ten-foot wall at a Total station in Calais used by migrants who attempt to storm lorries and break into Britain.”
The wall is being compared by detractors to the “Trump wall,” and it is just as needed: “there are an estimated 600 mostly male migrants hailing from Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria squatting in makeshift camps around the port town waiting to break into Britain— down from an estimated 10,000 during the heyday of the infamous ‘Calais Jungle.’”
French authorities have built a ten-foot wall at a Total station in Calais used by migrants who attempt to storm lorries and break into Britain.
The barrier is being erected at a petrol station in the Marcel-Doret area where lorries stop to fill up with fuel before heading to the port and onwards to the United Kingdom. It is set to be finished by mid-February.
Local prefect Fabien Sudry told Nord Littoral that “smuggling networks meet there and take advantage of stations near the port to get migrants in trucks.”
“The situation was rather tense at this station. The police regularly had stones thrown at them,” Mr Sudry said.
A Total spokesman confirmed the barrier was built at the request of the Calais prefecture to “protect customers, staff, and migrants,” the Daily Mail reports, with locals comparing it to the wall that U.S. President Donald Trump wants to build along the southern border of the United States to stop mass illegal migration from Central and South America.
Pro-migration aid workers object to the wall, as the barrier between the two spaces is “divisive.”
One Calais-based charity worker who wished to withhold their identity complained: “The wall is ugly and of course divisive.”
“This is very political — it aims to show desperate people that they are not welcome here, and that more and more walls and police will be used to keep them out.
“If you oppose such policies, you can get into a lot of trouble.”
There are an estimated 600 mostly male migrants hailing from Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria squatting in makeshift camps around the port town waiting to break into Britain — down from an estimated 10,000 during the heyday of the infamous “Calais Jungle”.
It is believed to be the first time that a wall has been so quickly erected in a hotspot area for trafficking with the intention of stopping migrants attempting to make the journey to the United Kingdom…..
Islam is a political system with its own body of laws called Sharia. Sharia law is based on entirely different principles than our laws. Many of these laws concern the non-Muslim.
What does Sharia law mean for the citizens of this state? How will this affect us? What are the long-term effects of granting Muslims the right to be ruled by Sharia, instead of our laws? Each and every demand that Muslims make is based on the idea of implementing Sharia law in America. Should we allow any Sharia at all? Why? Why not?
How can any political or legal authority make decisions about Sharia law if they do not know what it is? Is this moral? The answers to all of these questions are found in this book.