Britain – Raising Homegrown Terrorists
by Adrian Morgan
Though his presence has hardly made any impact compared to the Pope, Britain's near-invisible prime minister Gordon Brown has been visiting the United States. Brown's trip to the States happens as his popularity plunges at home, and he faces a rebellion from the ranks of his Labour Party. Once again, Brown quotes Winston Churchill. At home, Brown never quotes Churchill. He would be savaged by the press for hypocrisy.
It is not the first time Brown that has resurrected the ghost of Churchill in a bland attempt to impress America. In July last year on his first visit to America as prime minister, he used words lifted from a famous speech by Churchill. To resurrect Churchill for a second time indicates either a lack of imagination on Brown's part, or he patronizingly thinks Americans are so shallow they can only relate to Churchill as an influential British politician.
In 1975, while rector of Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown wrote fawningly of Antonio Gramsci, founder of the Italian Communist party. For socialist Brown to compare himself to Churchill would make the former Tory statesman turn in his grave.
Gordon Brown was the "right-hand man" of Tony Blair until June 27, 2007, so he cannot be absolved of the messes that Labour has made since it assumed power in May 1997. Ever since July 7, 2005, there have been ample opportunities for Britain to work out a coherent strategy against homegrown terrorism. Sadly, the Labour Party is too dependent upon Muslim votes in inner cities to really produce any strategy of substance.
In the aftermath of 7/7, instead of ensuring that potential extremists were kept under control, the Labour government acted to appease the Muslim "representatives." When Tony Blair wanted to ban the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, his own advisory group, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) refused to support the move, and Hizb is still active in Britain nearly three years later. The MCB claims to be moderate but has a history of relations with Islamists. Indeed, the group was co-founded by Kemal el-Helbawy, a prominent Muslim Brotherhood member.
In 2005, Home Office minister Hazel Blears was sent on a tour of Muslim communities and came back with the anodyne statement: "What we have discussed today is the need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love." The Muslims who killed 52 civilians in London on 7/7 were well-versed in Islam, but were hardly radiating "peace and love" for their fellow citizens when they detonated their explosive rucksacks.
The British government has attempted to deal with Muslim extremism by dishonestly pretending that extremists are not Muslims. They are. They just happen to be extreme Muslims. Such blinkered approaches continue and the current Home Secretary is either naive or dishonest when she maintains that Islamist terrorism is "anti-Islamic activity."
In 2006, the Labour government wasted tax-payers’ money by creating a Muslim website that claims to be moderate, entitled "The Radical Middle Way." Funds are being thrown at Islamic extremism, with little hope of actually doing anything. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office wastes tax-payers' money on sending groups of Muslims abroad to Muslim countries to meet other Muslims to "share their experiences."
The Foreign Office spends much time trying to "reach out" to Islamofascists. In 2005, it approved of the disastrous "Waziristan Accord," a peace deal between the Taliban and the army in northwestern Pakistan. Though that accord was broken by Islamists within days, Gordon Brown appears to approve of similar acts of appeasement. His Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, is currently in Pakistan to encourage more negotiations with terrorists.
In October 2007 the communities secretary Hazel Blears announced that £70 million would be granted to set up websites so that young Muslims in Britain can discuss their "identity." Currently, the government has increased the annual funding of such hare-brained schemes to £90 million ($180 million).
The latest half-baked attempt by the British government to defuse extremism in the Muslim community is a suggestion to import more foreign imams into Britain. These are to come mainly from Pakistan, a country with such a "moderate" approach to Islam that anyone found guilty of blaspheming against the prophet Mohammed receives a mandatory death sentence. Imams brought up in such a climate are hardly going to understand or support the "liberal" customs of Britain, where freedom of speech is meant to trump religious supremacy. Who is going to decide which of these Pakistani imams is "moderate?"
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Britain – Raising Homegrown Terrorists
Showing posts with label Adrian Morgan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adrian Morgan. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Britain – Highs and Lows in the War on Terrorism
by Adrian Morgan
Britain's commitment to the war on terror is certainly less strong under the unelected leadership of Gordon Brown, who became prime minister on June 27, 2007. As soon as he became the premier, Brown ordered his cabinet ministers to avoid the term "War on terror."
A sign of the current administration's lack of realism came in January this year, when Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Islamic terrorism was "anti-Islamic activity." She said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic." Smith's Islamic scholars seem to ignore the evidence of the Hadith of Bukhari, in which Mohammed's last words included the statement: "I have been made victorious with terror."
Despite previous bland statements about terrorism, Brown and Smith are now facing rebellion from Labour party ranks for trying to be "tough" on terror suspects. On November 9, 2005 Tony Blair was defeated when he tried to extend the time that terror suspects could be detained without being charged. Blair wanted suspects detained for 90 days, but Parliament only accepted a compromise of 28 days. Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith want the time to be raised to 42 days in a bill to be discussed next month.
In 1998 the Labour Party introduced the Human Rights Act, which ensured that all of British law had to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights. Already this legislation has proved to be disastrous when dealing with terrorism. It has allowed Afghan terrorists the right to remain in Britain indefinitely.
Control orders were introduced by then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke in 2005. These measures were brought in to monitor and regulate the activities of terror suspects who could not be prosecuted, often in the form of a partial house arrest. In May 2007 it was revealed that three individuals – Cerie Bullivant, Lamine Adam and Ibrahim Adam – had escaped, despite being under "control orders."
A month later, it was revealed that another individual had escaped a control order. Zeeshan Sidique, like the Adam brothers and Bullivant, had connections with the individuals convicted in the Operation Crevice trial of trying to cause explosions in Britain. Sidique had gone to Pakistan to commit "Jihad." He had been admitted to a lunatic asylum while on a control order, but had escaped through a window in September 2006. He has not been found. His diary entries record the rantings of a disturbed individual, desperate to return to "the battlefield" of Jihad for the sake of Allah.
On December 12, 2007, Cerie Bullivant was cleared by a jury on seven counts relating to his breaching his control order. He admitted he had absconded, but claimed that the control order had made his life miserable. He was placed on another control order, but his lawyer announced that he would appeal against the original order on the grounds that it breached Bullivant's human rights.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Britain – Highs and Lows in the War on Terrorism
by Adrian Morgan
Britain's commitment to the war on terror is certainly less strong under the unelected leadership of Gordon Brown, who became prime minister on June 27, 2007. As soon as he became the premier, Brown ordered his cabinet ministers to avoid the term "War on terror."
A sign of the current administration's lack of realism came in January this year, when Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Islamic terrorism was "anti-Islamic activity." She said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic." Smith's Islamic scholars seem to ignore the evidence of the Hadith of Bukhari, in which Mohammed's last words included the statement: "I have been made victorious with terror."
Despite previous bland statements about terrorism, Brown and Smith are now facing rebellion from Labour party ranks for trying to be "tough" on terror suspects. On November 9, 2005 Tony Blair was defeated when he tried to extend the time that terror suspects could be detained without being charged. Blair wanted suspects detained for 90 days, but Parliament only accepted a compromise of 28 days. Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith want the time to be raised to 42 days in a bill to be discussed next month.
In 1998 the Labour Party introduced the Human Rights Act, which ensured that all of British law had to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights. Already this legislation has proved to be disastrous when dealing with terrorism. It has allowed Afghan terrorists the right to remain in Britain indefinitely.
Control orders were introduced by then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke in 2005. These measures were brought in to monitor and regulate the activities of terror suspects who could not be prosecuted, often in the form of a partial house arrest. In May 2007 it was revealed that three individuals – Cerie Bullivant, Lamine Adam and Ibrahim Adam – had escaped, despite being under "control orders."
A month later, it was revealed that another individual had escaped a control order. Zeeshan Sidique, like the Adam brothers and Bullivant, had connections with the individuals convicted in the Operation Crevice trial of trying to cause explosions in Britain. Sidique had gone to Pakistan to commit "Jihad." He had been admitted to a lunatic asylum while on a control order, but had escaped through a window in September 2006. He has not been found. His diary entries record the rantings of a disturbed individual, desperate to return to "the battlefield" of Jihad for the sake of Allah.
On December 12, 2007, Cerie Bullivant was cleared by a jury on seven counts relating to his breaching his control order. He admitted he had absconded, but claimed that the control order had made his life miserable. He was placed on another control order, but his lawyer announced that he would appeal against the original order on the grounds that it breached Bullivant's human rights.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Britain – Highs and Lows in the War on Terrorism
MUST READ: THE PLOT TO ATTACK U.S.-BOUND PLANES FROM BRITAIN
The Plot to Attack US-Bound Planes from Britain
by Adrian Morgan
On Thursday, April 3, a trial began at Woolwich Crown Court in southeast London. Eight men stood accused under Section 1 (1) of Britain's Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiring to murder others. They are also accused under Section 5 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 of preparing acts of terrorism.
The men on trial are: Abdullah Ahmed Ali, (27), Assad Sarwar, (27), Tanvir Hussain, (27), Mohammed Gulzar, (26), Ibrahim Savant (27), Arafat Khan, (26), Waheed Zaman, (25) and Umar Islam aka Brian Young (29).
The men were among 21 who had been arrested on the morning of Thursday, August 10, 2006. The arrests had taken place after an operation that had involved intelligence shared between Britain, Pakistan and the United States. The chief of U.S. Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, announced to a press conference in Washington D.C. that: "This operation is in some respects suggestive of an al-Qaeda plot... They had accumulated and assembled the capabilities that they needed and they were in the final stages of planning for execution."
He said that the plan had been to smuggle explosives on board planes which were bound for North America. These explosives would be disguised as harmless drinks and also electronic apparatus. On board the planes these would be assembled into bombs. Secretary Chertoff said the plan was "really quite close to the execution phase."
Transatlantic flight plans were thrown into chaos as Britain and America raised their security threat levels to their highest. President George W. Bush was on vacation at Crawford, Texas. He made a press announcement, in which he said: "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.... Travelers are going to be inconvenienced as a result of the steps we've taken. I urge their patience and ask them to be vigilant. The inconvenience is – occurs because we will take the steps necessary to protect the American people."
At British airports, the inconvenience was widespread. Flights were delayed, and several outgoing flights were cancelled. Passengers had their shoes examined before boarding planes, and limits were placed on hand luggage. Only items that could be placed in a small clear plastic bag were allowed onto planes. No cans or bottles of drinks were allowed onto flights. Mothers who had babies were asked to take a sample sip from bottles of milk they wished to take on board.
British officials made announcements to inform the public. The arrests took place at three main locations, London, High Wycombe in Buckingamshire and Birmingham. The Bank of England froze the accounts of nineteen of the arrested suspects.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) The Plot to Attack US-Bound Planes from Britain
by Adrian Morgan
On Thursday, April 3, a trial began at Woolwich Crown Court in southeast London. Eight men stood accused under Section 1 (1) of Britain's Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiring to murder others. They are also accused under Section 5 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 of preparing acts of terrorism.
The men on trial are: Abdullah Ahmed Ali, (27), Assad Sarwar, (27), Tanvir Hussain, (27), Mohammed Gulzar, (26), Ibrahim Savant (27), Arafat Khan, (26), Waheed Zaman, (25) and Umar Islam aka Brian Young (29).
The men were among 21 who had been arrested on the morning of Thursday, August 10, 2006. The arrests had taken place after an operation that had involved intelligence shared between Britain, Pakistan and the United States. The chief of U.S. Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, announced to a press conference in Washington D.C. that: "This operation is in some respects suggestive of an al-Qaeda plot... They had accumulated and assembled the capabilities that they needed and they were in the final stages of planning for execution."
He said that the plan had been to smuggle explosives on board planes which were bound for North America. These explosives would be disguised as harmless drinks and also electronic apparatus. On board the planes these would be assembled into bombs. Secretary Chertoff said the plan was "really quite close to the execution phase."
Transatlantic flight plans were thrown into chaos as Britain and America raised their security threat levels to their highest. President George W. Bush was on vacation at Crawford, Texas. He made a press announcement, in which he said: "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.... Travelers are going to be inconvenienced as a result of the steps we've taken. I urge their patience and ask them to be vigilant. The inconvenience is – occurs because we will take the steps necessary to protect the American people."
At British airports, the inconvenience was widespread. Flights were delayed, and several outgoing flights were cancelled. Passengers had their shoes examined before boarding planes, and limits were placed on hand luggage. Only items that could be placed in a small clear plastic bag were allowed onto planes. No cans or bottles of drinks were allowed onto flights. Mothers who had babies were asked to take a sample sip from bottles of milk they wished to take on board.
British officials made announcements to inform the public. The arrests took place at three main locations, London, High Wycombe in Buckingamshire and Birmingham. The Bank of England froze the accounts of nineteen of the arrested suspects.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) The Plot to Attack US-Bound Planes from Britain
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
MUST READ: MALAYSIA'S ELECTIONS - POLITICAL TSUNAMI OR NEW WAVE?!?
Malaysia’s Elections – Political Tsunami or New Wave?
by Adrian Morgan
On Friday, January 25 this year, Malaysia's prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, suggested that he would bring forward the date for national elections. His coalition parliament was not officially obligated to hold general elections until the middle of next year.
He said: "We will call for the election when I think everything is all right and at the moment I think people are ready for the election." He soon set the date for elections for Saturday March 8, 2008.
The elections took place at the weekend, but though the coalition led by Badawi's UMNO party obtained a majority, the results have nonetheless been viewed as disastrous. This coalition, called the Barisan Nasional, comprises 14 parties. UMNO (United National Malays Organization) is the largest party. The coalition has ensured that UMNO has led the country since Malaysia's independence on August 31, 1957.
At the last elections on March 21, 2004, the Barisan Nasional won 196 of the 219 parliamentary seats. Badawi knew that the coalition would not be so successful this time. Two of the Barisan Nasional parties are ethnic - the MIC, or Malaysia Indian Congress and the MCA, or Malaysian Chinese Association. Since 1996, the MCA has been the second largest party in the coalition. Despite having these partners, UMNO has promoted policies which favor Malays over Indians and Chinese in housing, jobs, and government contracts. Recently Indians have felt particularly alienated by UMNO policies, and as Indians comprise only 8% of the electorate, it seems Badawi assumed he did not need Indian support.
The results from Saturday's elections - the 12th since independence - have caused shock within Malaysia. With 222 parliamentary seats being contested this year, the Barisan Nasional won only 140 seats (63 percent of the total). UMNO itself has only 78 seats in the parliament. This was the worst election for the coalition and for UMNO since independence.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Malaysia’s Elections – Political Tsunami or New Wave?
by Adrian Morgan
On Friday, January 25 this year, Malaysia's prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, suggested that he would bring forward the date for national elections. His coalition parliament was not officially obligated to hold general elections until the middle of next year.
He said: "We will call for the election when I think everything is all right and at the moment I think people are ready for the election." He soon set the date for elections for Saturday March 8, 2008.
The elections took place at the weekend, but though the coalition led by Badawi's UMNO party obtained a majority, the results have nonetheless been viewed as disastrous. This coalition, called the Barisan Nasional, comprises 14 parties. UMNO (United National Malays Organization) is the largest party. The coalition has ensured that UMNO has led the country since Malaysia's independence on August 31, 1957.
At the last elections on March 21, 2004, the Barisan Nasional won 196 of the 219 parliamentary seats. Badawi knew that the coalition would not be so successful this time. Two of the Barisan Nasional parties are ethnic - the MIC, or Malaysia Indian Congress and the MCA, or Malaysian Chinese Association. Since 1996, the MCA has been the second largest party in the coalition. Despite having these partners, UMNO has promoted policies which favor Malays over Indians and Chinese in housing, jobs, and government contracts. Recently Indians have felt particularly alienated by UMNO policies, and as Indians comprise only 8% of the electorate, it seems Badawi assumed he did not need Indian support.
The results from Saturday's elections - the 12th since independence - have caused shock within Malaysia. With 222 parliamentary seats being contested this year, the Barisan Nasional won only 140 seats (63 percent of the total). UMNO itself has only 78 seats in the parliament. This was the worst election for the coalition and for UMNO since independence.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Malaysia’s Elections – Political Tsunami or New Wave?
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
British Libel Law – Suppression of Truth in the US and UK?
by Adrian Morgan
In June last year I wrote on the situation of Rachel Ehrenfeld, who was landed with a default libel judgment against her at the High Court in London. Dr. Ehrenfeld had decided not to attend the hearing for libel, pertaining to statements she had made in her book: “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop it". The ruling against her was made by High Court judge, Mr. Justice Eady. As British lawyer Mark Stephens wrote in the London Times, her book was "unobjectionable by American libel standards."
The vast differences between British libel law and American libel law means that several authors and publishers whose work was aimed at an American market have been sued in Britain. Under UK libel law, the defendant is presumed guilty and must prove innocence, a reversal of the tired cliché that one is "innocent until proved guilty." Additionally, under UK law there is no duty to show that the defendant acted "with malice," as there is in the US.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) British Libel Law – Suppression of Truth in the US and UK?
by Adrian Morgan
In June last year I wrote on the situation of Rachel Ehrenfeld, who was landed with a default libel judgment against her at the High Court in London. Dr. Ehrenfeld had decided not to attend the hearing for libel, pertaining to statements she had made in her book: “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop it". The ruling against her was made by High Court judge, Mr. Justice Eady. As British lawyer Mark Stephens wrote in the London Times, her book was "unobjectionable by American libel standards."
The vast differences between British libel law and American libel law means that several authors and publishers whose work was aimed at an American market have been sued in Britain. Under UK libel law, the defendant is presumed guilty and must prove innocence, a reversal of the tired cliché that one is "innocent until proved guilty." Additionally, under UK law there is no duty to show that the defendant acted "with malice," as there is in the US.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) British Libel Law – Suppression of Truth in the US and UK?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Osama bin London and British Terror Training Camps
by Adrian Morgan
On Tuesday February 26th, after a trial lasting more than four months, it was announced that five men were found guilty of partaking in terror training on UK soil. The leader of the group, Mohammed Hamid, called himself "Osama bin London." Before his arrest, Hamid had boasted to his followers that he had been organizing terror training camps in Britain for 13 years.
Hamid was found guilty by a jury at Woolwich Crown Court of three counts of "soliciting to murder" and three counts of providing terrorist training. He was found not guilty on two other counts of soliciting murder and not guilty of providing training in weaponry. He was also found not guilty of possessing a document containing information useful to a terrorist.
Four others were on trial with him. After 22 days of deliberation, a jury found three of these individuals – Kibley Da Costa, Muhammad al-Figari and Kader Ahmed – guilty of attending terror training camps in Britain. 41-year-old property developer Mousa Brown was found not guilty, and was freed from custody.
Reporting restrictions were lifted when the sentences were announced. It was then revealed that two of Osama bin London's followers, Muhammad Kyriacou, 19, and Yassin Mutegombwa, 23, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to attending the training camps at a separate hearing. Under Section 6 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006, receiving training in terrorism is illegal. Kyriacou and Mutegombwa, who both came from south London, were both given a three year and five month jail sentence. Mutegombwa's 18-year-old brother Hassan was convicted at an earlier trial of seeking funds for terrorism training overseas while at one of the camps run by "Osama bin London," and was given a 10-year jail sentence.
45-year-old Muhammad al-Figari from Tottenham, northeast London, was found guilty of two counts of partaking in terrorist training camps and two counts of possession of a record containing information likely to be useful to a terrorist. He was found not guilty of a third count of containing such a record. Figari was born in Trinidad as Roger Michael Figari. He came to London in 1989. He worked as a chauffeur for the BBC, and later became a convicted drug smuggler. He also had convictions for theft and assault.
Somali- born Kader Ahmed of Plaistow, East London, had been found guilty on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 of two counts of attending terror training camps, and was cleared of another similar count. Kader Ahmed had been 17 when arrested. During the trial he said that an undercover officer who had infiltrated the group was "James Bond" and said he had invented his evidence.
24-year-old Kibley da Costa from West Norwood in south London was found guilty of providing terror training, guilty of two counts of attending terrorist training sessions and one count of having a document containing information useful to a terrorist. He was given a jail sentence of four years and eleven months. He had been born in Jamaica to a Christian family and had arrived in Britain in 1995. He had worked as a bus driver, though this employment ended after he ran over a drunken man, who later died.
The trial of Mohammed Hamid aka Osama bin London started on Monday October 10, 2007. On the same day, his accomplice Attila Ahmet had pleaded guilty to three counts of soliciting to murder. Ahmed, aka "Abu Abdullah" had been a close associate of Abu Hamza al-Masri, the firebrand preacher at Finsbury Park Mosque. When Hamza was arrested and placed in custody in 2004, Attila Ahmet had continued to preach at the Finsbury Park Mosque, and in the streets outside when the mosque trustees had prevented their access. He and his followers finally lost control of the mosque on February 8, 2005, when the trustees, accompanied by police, changed the locks on the doors.
Attila Ahmet, Muhammad Al-Figari, Yassin Mutegombwa and (now cleared) Moussa Brown were arrested in London raids that began on September 1, 2006.
Mohammed Hamid, Attila Ahmet, Mohammed al-Figari and Kader Ahmed will be given sentences at a later date. Attila Ahmet has other charges which are to remain on file.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Osama bin London and British Terror Training Camps
by Adrian Morgan
On Tuesday February 26th, after a trial lasting more than four months, it was announced that five men were found guilty of partaking in terror training on UK soil. The leader of the group, Mohammed Hamid, called himself "Osama bin London." Before his arrest, Hamid had boasted to his followers that he had been organizing terror training camps in Britain for 13 years.
Hamid was found guilty by a jury at Woolwich Crown Court of three counts of "soliciting to murder" and three counts of providing terrorist training. He was found not guilty on two other counts of soliciting murder and not guilty of providing training in weaponry. He was also found not guilty of possessing a document containing information useful to a terrorist.
Four others were on trial with him. After 22 days of deliberation, a jury found three of these individuals – Kibley Da Costa, Muhammad al-Figari and Kader Ahmed – guilty of attending terror training camps in Britain. 41-year-old property developer Mousa Brown was found not guilty, and was freed from custody.
Reporting restrictions were lifted when the sentences were announced. It was then revealed that two of Osama bin London's followers, Muhammad Kyriacou, 19, and Yassin Mutegombwa, 23, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to attending the training camps at a separate hearing. Under Section 6 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006, receiving training in terrorism is illegal. Kyriacou and Mutegombwa, who both came from south London, were both given a three year and five month jail sentence. Mutegombwa's 18-year-old brother Hassan was convicted at an earlier trial of seeking funds for terrorism training overseas while at one of the camps run by "Osama bin London," and was given a 10-year jail sentence.
45-year-old Muhammad al-Figari from Tottenham, northeast London, was found guilty of two counts of partaking in terrorist training camps and two counts of possession of a record containing information likely to be useful to a terrorist. He was found not guilty of a third count of containing such a record. Figari was born in Trinidad as Roger Michael Figari. He came to London in 1989. He worked as a chauffeur for the BBC, and later became a convicted drug smuggler. He also had convictions for theft and assault.
Somali- born Kader Ahmed of Plaistow, East London, had been found guilty on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 of two counts of attending terror training camps, and was cleared of another similar count. Kader Ahmed had been 17 when arrested. During the trial he said that an undercover officer who had infiltrated the group was "James Bond" and said he had invented his evidence.
24-year-old Kibley da Costa from West Norwood in south London was found guilty of providing terror training, guilty of two counts of attending terrorist training sessions and one count of having a document containing information useful to a terrorist. He was given a jail sentence of four years and eleven months. He had been born in Jamaica to a Christian family and had arrived in Britain in 1995. He had worked as a bus driver, though this employment ended after he ran over a drunken man, who later died.
The trial of Mohammed Hamid aka Osama bin London started on Monday October 10, 2007. On the same day, his accomplice Attila Ahmet had pleaded guilty to three counts of soliciting to murder. Ahmed, aka "Abu Abdullah" had been a close associate of Abu Hamza al-Masri, the firebrand preacher at Finsbury Park Mosque. When Hamza was arrested and placed in custody in 2004, Attila Ahmet had continued to preach at the Finsbury Park Mosque, and in the streets outside when the mosque trustees had prevented their access. He and his followers finally lost control of the mosque on February 8, 2005, when the trustees, accompanied by police, changed the locks on the doors.
Attila Ahmet, Muhammad Al-Figari, Yassin Mutegombwa and (now cleared) Moussa Brown were arrested in London raids that began on September 1, 2006.
Mohammed Hamid, Attila Ahmet, Mohammed al-Figari and Kader Ahmed will be given sentences at a later date. Attila Ahmet has other charges which are to remain on file.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Osama bin London and British Terror Training Camps
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
MUST READ:
King John, Sharia and England
by Adrian Morgan
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently mused about Sharia law in Britain on BBC radio. He suggested that having only one system of law was "a danger." His comments sparked outrage, and numerous articles appeared, ostensibly "explaining" Sharia. Many of these were patronizing or inaccurate, attempting like Williams to avoid the plain fact that in marriage, Muslim law discriminates against women.
In one article from the Guardian, Elizabeth Stewart mentioned briefly that in 1213, King John offered to become Muslim and submit Britain to the rule of Sharia law. Stewart wrote: "But the Moroccan ruler decided that a king who was prepared to betray his own religion and subjects would probably not make a good ally, and turned him down."
This episode allegedly happened in 1213, two years before the unpopular monarch was forced to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede on June 19, 1215.
The story was taken up again by Graham Stewart in the Times more than a week later. The story is better known in the Muslim world than it is in Britain. Even in the 19th Century, when study of Britain's Medieval period was more popular than now, historians mentioned that the story was little-known.
The British Embassy in Rabat, Morocco, states on its website: " Morocco and Britain have longstanding political and trading links. Diplomatic relations date back to at least 1213 AD, when King John of England dispatched envoys to seek the support of Mohammed El-Nasir, Morocco's fourth Almohad ruler. It seems that Mohammed El-Nasir was not impressed by what he heard of the English King, and informed the envoys that King John was unworthy of an alliance with him."
So what is the background of this tale, and does it have validity? The earliest mention of this delegation to Morocco is made by the historian Matthew Paris, a Benedictine monk. Paris wrote a massive history of the world in several volumes, a history that started with Creation and continued until his present day.
Paris drew many details of King John's life and times, such as the signing of Magna Carta, from the writings of another monk historian, Roger of Wendover, Prior of Belvoir, who died in 1236. Roger wrote a chronicle called "Flores Historarium" ("Flowers of History"), but no mention of King John's mission to Morocco is mentioned here.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) King John, Sharia and England
by Adrian Morgan
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently mused about Sharia law in Britain on BBC radio. He suggested that having only one system of law was "a danger." His comments sparked outrage, and numerous articles appeared, ostensibly "explaining" Sharia. Many of these were patronizing or inaccurate, attempting like Williams to avoid the plain fact that in marriage, Muslim law discriminates against women.
In one article from the Guardian, Elizabeth Stewart mentioned briefly that in 1213, King John offered to become Muslim and submit Britain to the rule of Sharia law. Stewart wrote: "But the Moroccan ruler decided that a king who was prepared to betray his own religion and subjects would probably not make a good ally, and turned him down."
This episode allegedly happened in 1213, two years before the unpopular monarch was forced to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede on June 19, 1215.
The story was taken up again by Graham Stewart in the Times more than a week later. The story is better known in the Muslim world than it is in Britain. Even in the 19th Century, when study of Britain's Medieval period was more popular than now, historians mentioned that the story was little-known.
The British Embassy in Rabat, Morocco, states on its website: " Morocco and Britain have longstanding political and trading links. Diplomatic relations date back to at least 1213 AD, when King John of England dispatched envoys to seek the support of Mohammed El-Nasir, Morocco's fourth Almohad ruler. It seems that Mohammed El-Nasir was not impressed by what he heard of the English King, and informed the envoys that King John was unworthy of an alliance with him."
So what is the background of this tale, and does it have validity? The earliest mention of this delegation to Morocco is made by the historian Matthew Paris, a Benedictine monk. Paris wrote a massive history of the world in several volumes, a history that started with Creation and continued until his present day.
Paris drew many details of King John's life and times, such as the signing of Magna Carta, from the writings of another monk historian, Roger of Wendover, Prior of Belvoir, who died in 1236. Roger wrote a chronicle called "Flores Historarium" ("Flowers of History"), but no mention of King John's mission to Morocco is mentioned here.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) King John, Sharia and England
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Exclusive: Islam and the War against Freedom of Expression
by Adrian Morgan
How Muslims choose to depict themselves or their prophet is one issue, but for Muslims to demand that the West should submit to their prejudices and phobias is another.
…
Pertinent Links:
1) Exclusive: Islam and the War against Freedom of Expression
by Adrian Morgan
How Muslims choose to depict themselves or their prophet is one issue, but for Muslims to demand that the West should submit to their prejudices and phobias is another.
…
Pertinent Links:
1) Exclusive: Islam and the War against Freedom of Expression
Monday, February 11, 2008
MUST READ: ANGLICAN ARCHBISHIP SUPPORTS ASPECTS OF SHARIA LAW
UK: Anglican Archbishop Supports Aspects Of Sharia Law
by Adrian Morgan
On Thursday January 7, Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, made statements that have caused shock and outrage, concerning Islamic or Sharia law. He said that he thought the adoption of aspects of Sharia law in Britain was "unavoidable". He argued that Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty." He said that incorporating aspects of Islamic law into Britain's legal system, relating to marital and financial disputes, would improve "social cohesion".
Williams' comments were originally made to the BBC. The comments were immediately seized upon by the British press, and were immediately repudiated by British politicians. His support for the introduction of any form of state-endorsed Sharia law will undoubtedly cause heated debate at the upcoming General Synod of the Church of England, which will be held from February 11 to 14 in London.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) UK: Anglican Archbishop Supports Aspects Of Sharia Law
by Adrian Morgan
On Thursday January 7, Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, made statements that have caused shock and outrage, concerning Islamic or Sharia law. He said that he thought the adoption of aspects of Sharia law in Britain was "unavoidable". He argued that Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty." He said that incorporating aspects of Islamic law into Britain's legal system, relating to marital and financial disputes, would improve "social cohesion".
Williams' comments were originally made to the BBC. The comments were immediately seized upon by the British press, and were immediately repudiated by British politicians. His support for the introduction of any form of state-endorsed Sharia law will undoubtedly cause heated debate at the upcoming General Synod of the Church of England, which will be held from February 11 to 14 in London.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) UK: Anglican Archbishop Supports Aspects Of Sharia Law
Friday, February 8, 2008
MUST READ: MALAYSIA'S 'MODERATE' ISLAM MEANS RACISM & OPPRESSION
Malaysia's 'Moderate' Islam Means Racism and Oppression
by Adrian Morgan
Once Inside Islam, No One Gets Out
In April last year, I wrote about the totalitarian aspects of Malaysia's society. Since that time, the situations described then have been repeated and appear to have worsened. General elections were officially due to take place in 2009, but last month, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi suggested he would be bringing these elections forward. The elections may take place as early as March this year.
Malaysia's population of 27 million is, according to the UK government, 55% Muslim. The U.S. State Department maintains that 60% of the population is Muslim. Ethnic Malays are automatically classed as Muslim on their identity cards (MyKad) which are issued to everyone at age 12. Any changes to religious status, as defined on the MyKad, must be approved by the National Registration Department (NRD).
The NRD will not accept anyone's conversion out of Islam unless this has been approved by a Syariah (Islamic) court. So far, no Syariah court has ever allowed a living person to convert out of Islam. Individuals are denied the right to appeal in the civil courts against any decision made by an Islamic court. In practice, anyone who wishes to officially leave Islam is denied that right.
The most famous Malaysian apostate from Islam is a woman called Lina Joy, who became a Christian in 1981. In 1998, she was allowed by the NRD to have her birth name – Azlina Jailani – changed to her current "Christian" name. All attempts to have herself declared a Christian on her MyKad have failed. She has taken her case to numerous courts, but the civil courts refused to hear her case, referring her back to the Islamic courts. In August 2006 she took her case to the Federal Court, the highest court in the nation. A judicial decision on her case was repeatedly delayed until May 30, 2007.
By a decision of two against one, a panel of judges ruled that Lina Joy could not officially change her faith without approval from the Islamic courts. Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, one of the two judges who ruled against her, said: ""Civil courts cannot interfere. In short, she cannot, at her own whim, simply enter or leave her religion... She must follow rules. The appeal has been rejected with cause."
The judge who supported her appeal, Richard Malanjum, said the demands of the NRD for her to apply to an Islamic court to declare her apostasy were "discriminatory and unconstitutional." Islamic courts can jail apostates. Malanjum said that the NRD's decision for her to return to an Islamic court would cause Lina Joy to "self-incriminate" herself. Outside the court, a crowd of at least 200 Muslim fanatics welcomed the decision, shouting out "Allahu Ackbar" (God is Great).
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Malaysia's 'Moderate' Islam Means Racism and Oppression
by Adrian Morgan
Once Inside Islam, No One Gets Out
In April last year, I wrote about the totalitarian aspects of Malaysia's society. Since that time, the situations described then have been repeated and appear to have worsened. General elections were officially due to take place in 2009, but last month, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi suggested he would be bringing these elections forward. The elections may take place as early as March this year.
Malaysia's population of 27 million is, according to the UK government, 55% Muslim. The U.S. State Department maintains that 60% of the population is Muslim. Ethnic Malays are automatically classed as Muslim on their identity cards (MyKad) which are issued to everyone at age 12. Any changes to religious status, as defined on the MyKad, must be approved by the National Registration Department (NRD).
The NRD will not accept anyone's conversion out of Islam unless this has been approved by a Syariah (Islamic) court. So far, no Syariah court has ever allowed a living person to convert out of Islam. Individuals are denied the right to appeal in the civil courts against any decision made by an Islamic court. In practice, anyone who wishes to officially leave Islam is denied that right.
The most famous Malaysian apostate from Islam is a woman called Lina Joy, who became a Christian in 1981. In 1998, she was allowed by the NRD to have her birth name – Azlina Jailani – changed to her current "Christian" name. All attempts to have herself declared a Christian on her MyKad have failed. She has taken her case to numerous courts, but the civil courts refused to hear her case, referring her back to the Islamic courts. In August 2006 she took her case to the Federal Court, the highest court in the nation. A judicial decision on her case was repeatedly delayed until May 30, 2007.
By a decision of two against one, a panel of judges ruled that Lina Joy could not officially change her faith without approval from the Islamic courts. Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, one of the two judges who ruled against her, said: ""Civil courts cannot interfere. In short, she cannot, at her own whim, simply enter or leave her religion... She must follow rules. The appeal has been rejected with cause."
The judge who supported her appeal, Richard Malanjum, said the demands of the NRD for her to apply to an Islamic court to declare her apostasy were "discriminatory and unconstitutional." Islamic courts can jail apostates. Malanjum said that the NRD's decision for her to return to an Islamic court would cause Lina Joy to "self-incriminate" herself. Outside the court, a crowd of at least 200 Muslim fanatics welcomed the decision, shouting out "Allahu Ackbar" (God is Great).
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Malaysia's 'Moderate' Islam Means Racism and Oppression
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Australia: Who are the Jihad Sheilas?
Rabiah Hutchinson and Raisah bint Alan Douglas claim that they were misrepresented in an ABC documentary.
By Adrian Morgan
A story from News.com.au, formerly in The Australian, describes how two Muslim women have been complaining about their representation on Australia's national TV station ABC. They claim that last year, an ABC documentary crew approached them about appearing on a show, discussing their conversions to Islam.
The women are Rabiah Hutchinson and Raisah bint Alan Douglas.
They claim that they were told the footage would be used in the documentary strand Australian Story. Instead, they became the unwilling "stars" of a one-off documentary entitled "Jihad Sheilas". They sent a letter of complaint to ABC headquarters in Sydney, NSW.
This documentary aired Tuesday at 8.30 pm Australian time, though Rabiah Hutchinson has claimed that as a result of the documentary (or its advance publicity) she has been verbally abused.
In the documentary, she stated: "I would defend Islam with my life, so that makes me a filthy, dirty, subhuman terrorist." She was asked if she would die for her faith. She answered: "Of course. The same as if you asked me, would I die defending my children. Does that mean I'm going to go and lob grenades out of the bus in Lakemba? No, it doesn't. But you have just asked me a question that could very well have me put away for a long time."
Raisah bint Alan Douglas said on the documentary talking about the burkas she wears: "We hear a lot, "They're oppressed those poor darlings? Are you hot in there?" Well I say look, it's hotter in hell, so you know what, I'd rather wear this now and if I am a bit hot, it's hotter in hell. So I'll just do what God told me to do."
She also praised Osama bin Laden, as he followed the "correct" and "undiluted" version of Islam. She said: "It's not a bad thing for Islam, what Osama bin Laden has said. I believe that he has woken a lot of Muslims up to the oppression they were under but didn't realise it."
Shortly before US forces swarmed into Afghanistan in late 2001, Rabiah Hutchinson was in the country, staying at a village. She had left by the time the US military arrived. She has also had close links with Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the terrorist group that carried out the Bali bombings of October 12, 2002. A total of 202 people, mainly tourists had been killed in the suicide blasts, with 88 Australians among the dead.
She had stayed at the pesantren called the Al-Mukmin, based at Ngruki, Soya in East Java. This had been founded more than 30 years ago by Abdullah Sungkar, a founder of Jemaah Islamiyah, and Abu Bakar Bashir, who is still the "spiritual leader" of JI. Both individuals had founded JI around 1995. Sungkar died of natural causes in November 1999. A downloadable pdf document from the International Crisis Group from 2002 has revealing background information on Jemaah Islamiyah.
On the "Jihad Sheilas" documentary, Hutchinson was asked about whether she felt any sympathy for the victims of the 2002 Bali bombings. Her answer has generated controversy in the Australian press. She said: "Do I feel for the people that died? Not as much as I feel for those 200 Afghani people that gave me and my children shelter. Why? Because they weren't holidaying in someone's country, you know, sometimes engaging in child pornography or paedophiiia or drug taking."
To suggest that the victims of the Bali blasts engaged in paedophilia and child pornography naturally has caused resentment in Australia, which lost 88 citizens in the attacks. To complain that she and Douglas were duped into making the program is a distraction from the gravity of the words she uttered. If she was verbally abused, it was because of this comment, and not because she did not appear on Australian Story which is generally regarded as less hostile for interviewees.
The comments about the victims of the Bali bombings have been reported by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age.
One victim of the Bali blasts of 2002 who survived is angry that ABC broadcast the women's opinions. Peter Hughes claimed the airing of the documentary was insensitive. He said: "People are still suffering. It would be the most insensitive thing the ABC could do."
Hughes had no good words to say about 54-year old Rabiah Hutchinson. He said she was "uninformed" and "utterly insensitive". He said: "It's like going back to that moment (when) the suicide bomber was standing next to me. The criminals on death row (in Indonesia) are the paedophiles." He added: "She will be run down. If I could find where she is... I would ask her to say it in front of the families."
Mary Ann Jolley and Renata Gombac were the journalists for ABC, who worked for the station's News and Current Affairs division. It is not unusual for current affairs reporting to cross from one documentary strand to another, said Alan Sunderland, ABC's head of national programs.
So who are these two "Jihad Sheilas"? Neither has been charged with terrorist offences, but it is believed Hutchinson has been bugged by ASIO (Australia's security/intelligence forces) for the past two decades. In 2005, Hutchinson had her passport confiscated by ASIO. Both women are followers of the extremist Wahhabist doctrine propagated by Saudi Arabia.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Australia: Who are the Jihad Sheilas?
Rabiah Hutchinson and Raisah bint Alan Douglas claim that they were misrepresented in an ABC documentary.
By Adrian Morgan
A story from News.com.au, formerly in The Australian, describes how two Muslim women have been complaining about their representation on Australia's national TV station ABC. They claim that last year, an ABC documentary crew approached them about appearing on a show, discussing their conversions to Islam.
The women are Rabiah Hutchinson and Raisah bint Alan Douglas.
They claim that they were told the footage would be used in the documentary strand Australian Story. Instead, they became the unwilling "stars" of a one-off documentary entitled "Jihad Sheilas". They sent a letter of complaint to ABC headquarters in Sydney, NSW.
This documentary aired Tuesday at 8.30 pm Australian time, though Rabiah Hutchinson has claimed that as a result of the documentary (or its advance publicity) she has been verbally abused.
In the documentary, she stated: "I would defend Islam with my life, so that makes me a filthy, dirty, subhuman terrorist." She was asked if she would die for her faith. She answered: "Of course. The same as if you asked me, would I die defending my children. Does that mean I'm going to go and lob grenades out of the bus in Lakemba? No, it doesn't. But you have just asked me a question that could very well have me put away for a long time."
Raisah bint Alan Douglas said on the documentary talking about the burkas she wears: "We hear a lot, "They're oppressed those poor darlings? Are you hot in there?" Well I say look, it's hotter in hell, so you know what, I'd rather wear this now and if I am a bit hot, it's hotter in hell. So I'll just do what God told me to do."
She also praised Osama bin Laden, as he followed the "correct" and "undiluted" version of Islam. She said: "It's not a bad thing for Islam, what Osama bin Laden has said. I believe that he has woken a lot of Muslims up to the oppression they were under but didn't realise it."
Shortly before US forces swarmed into Afghanistan in late 2001, Rabiah Hutchinson was in the country, staying at a village. She had left by the time the US military arrived. She has also had close links with Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the terrorist group that carried out the Bali bombings of October 12, 2002. A total of 202 people, mainly tourists had been killed in the suicide blasts, with 88 Australians among the dead.
She had stayed at the pesantren called the Al-Mukmin, based at Ngruki, Soya in East Java. This had been founded more than 30 years ago by Abdullah Sungkar, a founder of Jemaah Islamiyah, and Abu Bakar Bashir, who is still the "spiritual leader" of JI. Both individuals had founded JI around 1995. Sungkar died of natural causes in November 1999. A downloadable pdf document from the International Crisis Group from 2002 has revealing background information on Jemaah Islamiyah.
On the "Jihad Sheilas" documentary, Hutchinson was asked about whether she felt any sympathy for the victims of the 2002 Bali bombings. Her answer has generated controversy in the Australian press. She said: "Do I feel for the people that died? Not as much as I feel for those 200 Afghani people that gave me and my children shelter. Why? Because they weren't holidaying in someone's country, you know, sometimes engaging in child pornography or paedophiiia or drug taking."
To suggest that the victims of the Bali blasts engaged in paedophilia and child pornography naturally has caused resentment in Australia, which lost 88 citizens in the attacks. To complain that she and Douglas were duped into making the program is a distraction from the gravity of the words she uttered. If she was verbally abused, it was because of this comment, and not because she did not appear on Australian Story which is generally regarded as less hostile for interviewees.
The comments about the victims of the Bali bombings have been reported by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age.
One victim of the Bali blasts of 2002 who survived is angry that ABC broadcast the women's opinions. Peter Hughes claimed the airing of the documentary was insensitive. He said: "People are still suffering. It would be the most insensitive thing the ABC could do."
Hughes had no good words to say about 54-year old Rabiah Hutchinson. He said she was "uninformed" and "utterly insensitive". He said: "It's like going back to that moment (when) the suicide bomber was standing next to me. The criminals on death row (in Indonesia) are the paedophiles." He added: "She will be run down. If I could find where she is... I would ask her to say it in front of the families."
Mary Ann Jolley and Renata Gombac were the journalists for ABC, who worked for the station's News and Current Affairs division. It is not unusual for current affairs reporting to cross from one documentary strand to another, said Alan Sunderland, ABC's head of national programs.
So who are these two "Jihad Sheilas"? Neither has been charged with terrorist offences, but it is believed Hutchinson has been bugged by ASIO (Australia's security/intelligence forces) for the past two decades. In 2005, Hutchinson had her passport confiscated by ASIO. Both women are followers of the extremist Wahhabist doctrine propagated by Saudi Arabia.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Australia: Who are the Jihad Sheilas?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
MUST READ: SHOULD THE ISLAMIC WORLD APOLOGIZE FOR SLAVERY?!?
Should The Islamic World Apologize For Slavery? – Part One
By Adrian Morgan
Islam’s involvement in the black slave trade goes back over 14 centuries, back to its founder, Mohammed, who owned black slaves. Muslim slavers in North Africa also engaged in a red hot trade of white Christians. Read this fascinating, you-won’t-see-it-anywhere-else romp through reality by FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan who explains what politically-correct history books conveniently ignore. (CAIR: care to apologize?)
...
Should the Islamic World Apologize For Slavery? – Part Two
By Adrian Morgan
FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan takes us through a fascinating tale of the Islamic slave trade of blacks and Christians throughout history. It was only President Thomas Jefferson’s outright refusal to pay ransoms, an age-old practice, for our citizens-made-slaves that led to war and the capitulation of Algiers followed by Tunis, Tripoli and Morocco announcing that they too had officially abandoned slavery. Liberals in Congress should know this instructive history; perhaps they might learn something from it. Proponents of Islamic slavery, which dates back to the time of Mohammed, have no intentions of going away quietly.
...
Should the Islamic World Apologize For Slavery? – Part Three (of 3)
By Adrian Morgan
Misguided people in America and Britain have recently apologized for slavery, but is any representative of Islam prepared to apologize for 14 centuries of it? Slavery is intrinsically a part of Islam and to deny it is to contradict Mohammed, the founder of Islam. FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan takes us through Islam’s mind-boggling involvement with this heinous practice.
...
By Adrian Morgan
Islam’s involvement in the black slave trade goes back over 14 centuries, back to its founder, Mohammed, who owned black slaves. Muslim slavers in North Africa also engaged in a red hot trade of white Christians. Read this fascinating, you-won’t-see-it-anywhere-else romp through reality by FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan who explains what politically-correct history books conveniently ignore. (CAIR: care to apologize?)
...
Should the Islamic World Apologize For Slavery? – Part Two
By Adrian Morgan
FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan takes us through a fascinating tale of the Islamic slave trade of blacks and Christians throughout history. It was only President Thomas Jefferson’s outright refusal to pay ransoms, an age-old practice, for our citizens-made-slaves that led to war and the capitulation of Algiers followed by Tunis, Tripoli and Morocco announcing that they too had officially abandoned slavery. Liberals in Congress should know this instructive history; perhaps they might learn something from it. Proponents of Islamic slavery, which dates back to the time of Mohammed, have no intentions of going away quietly.
...
Should the Islamic World Apologize For Slavery? – Part Three (of 3)
By Adrian Morgan
Misguided people in America and Britain have recently apologized for slavery, but is any representative of Islam prepared to apologize for 14 centuries of it? Slavery is intrinsically a part of Islam and to deny it is to contradict Mohammed, the founder of Islam. FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan takes us through Islam’s mind-boggling involvement with this heinous practice.
...
MUST READ: THE BLACK MOSLEMS OF OAKLAND
The Black Muslims Of Oakland
(Part One of Two)
by Adrian Morgan
The murder of a respected California journalist prompted FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan to investigate the suspected involvement of Oakland’s “Your Black Muslim Bakery”. With rampant corruption and crime having destroyed the bakery’s original purpose, suspicions are only heightened.
...
and
The Black Muslims of Oakland
(Part Two of Two)
By Adrian Morgan
This utterly mind-boggling history of the people behind “Your Black Muslim Bakery” in Oakland, California, is almost beyond comprehension. FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan reveals the trail of rape, torture, prostitution, graft and corruption on a scale that takes your breath away.
...
(Part One of Two)
by Adrian Morgan
The murder of a respected California journalist prompted FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan to investigate the suspected involvement of Oakland’s “Your Black Muslim Bakery”. With rampant corruption and crime having destroyed the bakery’s original purpose, suspicions are only heightened.
...
and
The Black Muslims of Oakland
(Part Two of Two)
By Adrian Morgan
This utterly mind-boggling history of the people behind “Your Black Muslim Bakery” in Oakland, California, is almost beyond comprehension. FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan reveals the trail of rape, torture, prostitution, graft and corruption on a scale that takes your breath away.
...
MUST READ: TROOPS FIGHT TO PROTECT "HOLY FASCISM"
Afghanistan: Troops Fight to Protect "Holy Fascism"
by Adrian Morgan
...
The 2004 constitution maintains (Article One) that: "Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible", where (Article Two) "The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam," where "Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law." Despite Article Two's claims to religious freedoms, the Catch-22 comes in Article Three, where "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam."
Article 130 of the Afghan constitution states: While processing the cases, the courts apply the provisions of this Constitution and other laws. When there is no provision in the Constitution or other laws regarding ruling on an issue, the courts' decisions shall be within the limits of this Constitution in accord with the Hanafi jurisprudence and in a way to serve justice in the best possible manner.
...
Article 19 of the Declaration states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
While Western soldiers put their lives at risk to bring democracy to Afghanistan, it is surely time that Afghanistan is pressured to make good on its pledges to abide by Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Anything less is a travesty against justice for the people of Afghanistan, and an insult to the soldiers who have died to secure their freedom. The Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan for their religious tyranny that enabled al Qaeda's terrorism. It is sobering to consider that the new "democratic" Afghanistan still sees fit to engage in what Sayed Mahdawi called "Holy Fascism."
Pertinent Links:
1) Afghanistan: Troops Fight to Protect "Holy Fascism"
by Adrian Morgan
...
The 2004 constitution maintains (Article One) that: "Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible", where (Article Two) "The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam," where "Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law." Despite Article Two's claims to religious freedoms, the Catch-22 comes in Article Three, where "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam."
Article 130 of the Afghan constitution states: While processing the cases, the courts apply the provisions of this Constitution and other laws. When there is no provision in the Constitution or other laws regarding ruling on an issue, the courts' decisions shall be within the limits of this Constitution in accord with the Hanafi jurisprudence and in a way to serve justice in the best possible manner.
...
Article 19 of the Declaration states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
While Western soldiers put their lives at risk to bring democracy to Afghanistan, it is surely time that Afghanistan is pressured to make good on its pledges to abide by Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Anything less is a travesty against justice for the people of Afghanistan, and an insult to the soldiers who have died to secure their freedom. The Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan for their religious tyranny that enabled al Qaeda's terrorism. It is sobering to consider that the new "democratic" Afghanistan still sees fit to engage in what Sayed Mahdawi called "Holy Fascism."
Pertinent Links:
1) Afghanistan: Troops Fight to Protect "Holy Fascism"
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
MUST READ: THE SICKNESS THAT IS WAHHABI ISLAM
The Sickness That Is Wahhabi Islam
By Adrian Morgan
...
Saudi Arabia is a country with no democracy, and no religious freedoms. Yet we in the West allow the Saudis to fund mosques and schools, and to promote their intolerant Wahhabist ideology. Saudi-supported groups like CAIR complain about Muslims' rights being abused in the West, while Muslims and non-Muslims have no real rights in Saudi Arabia. There is something unbalanced in this equation.
Pertinent Links:
1) The Sickness That Is Wahhabi Islam
By Adrian Morgan
...
Saudi Arabia is a country with no democracy, and no religious freedoms. Yet we in the West allow the Saudis to fund mosques and schools, and to promote their intolerant Wahhabist ideology. Saudi-supported groups like CAIR complain about Muslims' rights being abused in the West, while Muslims and non-Muslims have no real rights in Saudi Arabia. There is something unbalanced in this equation.
Pertinent Links:
1) The Sickness That Is Wahhabi Islam
Thursday, August 2, 2007
MUST READ: PAKISTAN: IN THE LINE OF FIRE
Pakistan: In the Line of Fire
By Adrian Morgan
As Pakistan’s struggle continues between the theocratic desires of its resident Islamists and the secular nature of its government, the death toll rises.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Pakistan: In the Line of Fire
By Adrian Morgan
As Pakistan’s struggle continues between the theocratic desires of its resident Islamists and the secular nature of its government, the death toll rises.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Pakistan: In the Line of Fire
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
MUST READ: WILL GORDON BROWN MAINTAIN THE U.S. "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP"?
Will Gordon Brown Maintain the US "Special Relationship"?
By Adrian Morgan
On one hand, unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown repeats Churchill’s words joining America and Britain at the hip and, on the other, we hear his cabinet ministers saying quite the opposite.
...
Gordon Brown may state that he supports America, and he would be a fool to suggest otherwise, but I suspect he would be happier breaking bread with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton than with George W. Bush. At home his popularity may wane but so far the luminaries of the opposition Tory party, heirs to Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill, are floundering in a confusion of policy and outlook. We who live in Britain may shrug with resignation at future "Acts of God", but will we be prepared for future Acts of Gordon Brown?
Pertinent Links:
1) Will Gordon Brown Maintain the US "Special Relationship"?
By Adrian Morgan
On one hand, unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown repeats Churchill’s words joining America and Britain at the hip and, on the other, we hear his cabinet ministers saying quite the opposite.
...
Gordon Brown may state that he supports America, and he would be a fool to suggest otherwise, but I suspect he would be happier breaking bread with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton than with George W. Bush. At home his popularity may wane but so far the luminaries of the opposition Tory party, heirs to Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill, are floundering in a confusion of policy and outlook. We who live in Britain may shrug with resignation at future "Acts of God", but will we be prepared for future Acts of Gordon Brown?
Pertinent Links:
1) Will Gordon Brown Maintain the US "Special Relationship"?
MUST READ: WHO IS THE TRUE GODFATHER OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM?
Who Is the True Godfather of Islamic Fundamentalism?
By Adrian Morgan
...
His name is Ibn Taymiyyah, or Taq ad-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, and he lived from 1263 to 1328. His name by birth was Ahmad ibn Abdul-Halim ibn Abdas-Salaam. This individual could be considered as the real godfather of fundamentalism.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Who Is the True Godfather of Islamic Fundamentalism?
By Adrian Morgan
...
His name is Ibn Taymiyyah, or Taq ad-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, and he lived from 1263 to 1328. His name by birth was Ahmad ibn Abdul-Halim ibn Abdas-Salaam. This individual could be considered as the real godfather of fundamentalism.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Who Is the True Godfather of Islamic Fundamentalism?
Friday, July 20, 2007
MUST READ: BRITAIN'S NEW LEADERSHIP FAILS TO PREVENT TERRORISM, THREATENS AMERICA: PARTS ONE THRU FOUR
Britain's New Leadership Fails To Prevent Terrorism, Threatens America:
(Part One of Four)
By Adrian Morgan
(Part One of Four)
By Adrian Morgan
"Those who cure you are going to kill you."
On 27 June 2007, Britain gained a new Prime Minister. Gordon Brown had been the Chancellor since May 1997, while Tony Blair led the nation. After a six week transition period Brown became the premier, with no election mandate from the British public. Two days after Brown took the reins of power, a terror crisis involving car bombs erupted. The premier and his newly-appointed home secretary Jacqui Smith initially dealt with the situation calmly, appearing to be in control of the situation. Now, after a fortnight of the new regime, massive flaws in Britain's security and ability to tackle terrorism have been revealed. As Brown was an integral part of Blair's government, he cannot escape blame for these security lapses and policy failures.
...
Such measures may avoid hurting the feelings of the majority of Muslims who do not support terrorism, yet do little to inspire confidence for the future. When Al Qaeda and other terrorists are motivated entirely by Islam, such sensitivity is an obstacle to tackling the root causes of Islamist terrorism. As I will explain in Part Two, such politically correct sensitivity is one of the main factors which now make Britain so vulnerable to Islamist terror attack. Britain's unrealistic approach to tackling extremism already poses a threat to US security.
[and]
Britain's New Leadership Fails To Prevent Terrorism, Threatens America:
(Part Two of Four)
By Adrian Morgan
As an island, Britain's lack of shared borders has meant that, for 1,000 years, it has avoided invasion. Those borders are now seen to be porous, and people can enter Britain with ease. Amongst those are people who wish to destroy the nation. The case of the three car bombs from June 29-30, apparently plotted by doctors who had arrived to work in the health service, once again brought up questions of border security. Several of the car bomb suspects were said to have been identified by MI5 as potential terrorists, but no action had been taken to remove them from Britain's shores.
...
A week after the failed car bomb attacks, the Daily Mail revealed that up to eight police officers are employed in Britain, who are suspected by MI5 of links to Islamic extremism. Some are thought to have undergone terrorist training in Afghanistan. One officer, employed in the south east of England, had been using the internet to distribute videos of captives being beheaded, and of roadside bombings in Iraq. He has not been dismissed from his post.
[and]
Britain's New Leadership Fails To Prevent Terrorism, Threatens America:
(Part Three of Four)
By Adrian Morgan
In Part Two, the situation of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers was discussed in relation to terror. A quarter of all terror arrests between September 2001 and September 2005 involved asylum seekers. Illegal immigrants are an unknown factor in Britain's demography, who number from 570,000 to 870,000. The Institute for Public Policy Research has recently argued that Britain should offer an amnesty to illegal immigrants. Since September 2006, fingerprinting of visa and asylum applicants has taken place. Of 150 countries intended to be involved in supporting this "biometric" validation scheme, only 80 are currently taking part.
...
The scale of extremism within a section of Britain's homegrown Muslim community is now emerging as something far bigger than formerly acknowledged. Gordon Brown, after the car bomb plots in London and Glasgow, has tried to appear "tough" on terrorism, but as I will show in the final part of this article, he himself has connived with some of the shoddy policies which have allowed British terrorism to reach its current position.
[and]
Britain's New Leadership Fails To Prevent Terrorism, Threatens America:
(Part Four of Four)
By Adrian Morgan
In Part One I mentioned that Dr. Bilal Abdulla, who was in the car bomb attack upon Glasgow airport on June 30, was allegedly connected to the radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. This group, founded in Jerusalem in 1953, aims to establish a Caliphate or Islamic super-state. Expressly anti-Semitic, Hizb aims to destroy democracy. Tony Blair said in August 2005 that he wished to ban the group, but never followed through on his pledge.
...
I have written extensively on FamilySecurityMatters.org about how Britain's failure to combat its Islamist radicalism poses a very real threat to the U.S. New prime minister Gordon Brown has been forced by recent circumstances to sound "tough" on terrorism. He has been a leading figure in Blair's government for 10 years. The Labour party used to have a slogan - "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime," which it abandoned when crime figures rocketed. Brown may talk tough on terrorism, but unless he tackles the root causes of terrorism - the extremists who have preached unhindered for a decade on Britain's soil - Britain will remain a haven for terrorists.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
MUST READ: HAMAS, GAZA & THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD'S "PROJECT" (PARTS ONE & TWO)
Hamas was founded in 1987 during the first "intifada" by two leading Palestinian
Muslim Brotherhood members: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi. Its name is an acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, Arabic for "Islamic Resistance Movement." Their infamous "Charter" was written in 1987, vowing to annihilate the nation of Israel and condemning any Israeli/Palestinian peace initiatives. Article Eight of the Charter states Hamas' slogan: "Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Koran its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief."
Hamas, Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood's "Project":
(Part One of Two)
By Adrian Morgan
Recent events in the Gaza Strip have pushed Hamas into a position of power, which has been unprecedented since January 26, 2006 when election results were announced. Those elections saw the terrorist group officially becoming the head of the Palestinian parliament. Hamas evolved as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Developments since June 15 this year, when Hamas took the Gaza strip by force, have happened in line with the recommendations in a document entitled "The Project".
The Project was the name given to a 14-page document in Arabic, discovered on November 7, 2001, at the Swiss home of Muslim Brotherhood member and terrorist financier Youssef Moustafa Nada of the Al Taqwa Bank. The "Project" document, which was dated December 1, 1982, contains 12 major points, detailing a strategy for conquest of the West. Youssef Nada claimed not to know who wrote the document, though it was widely suspected to be the handiwork of Said Ramadan, son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
(Part One of Two)
By Adrian Morgan
Recent events in the Gaza Strip have pushed Hamas into a position of power, which has been unprecedented since January 26, 2006 when election results were announced. Those elections saw the terrorist group officially becoming the head of the Palestinian parliament. Hamas evolved as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Developments since June 15 this year, when Hamas took the Gaza strip by force, have happened in line with the recommendations in a document entitled "The Project".
The Project was the name given to a 14-page document in Arabic, discovered on November 7, 2001, at the Swiss home of Muslim Brotherhood member and terrorist financier Youssef Moustafa Nada of the Al Taqwa Bank. The "Project" document, which was dated December 1, 1982, contains 12 major points, detailing a strategy for conquest of the West. Youssef Nada claimed not to know who wrote the document, though it was widely suspected to be the handiwork of Said Ramadan, son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
...
[and]
Hamas, Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood's ‘Project’
Part Two (of Two)
By Adrian Morgan
Part Two (of Two)
By Adrian Morgan
Initially Hamas claimed to be involved with "charities," and as it was opposed to Yasser Arafat's PLO, it gained some support from Israel. Hamas received a boost of funds from 1988 onwards when Gulf States withdrew their support for the secular group Fatah. The first Hamas suicide bombing took place on April 16, 1993, followed by numerous similar attacks targeting Israeli civilians. The Oslo Peace Accords of 1993 were shunned by Hamas.
...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
