Now it’s hard to say if Israr Ullah Zehri is a muslim, but he’s definitely a Pakistani, and so it’s reasonable to suppose that he reads the koran and all that stuff. Anyway, something we do know about Zehri is that he strongly supports the violent practice of so-called honour-killing, especially when the targets are women. Oh, and another thing we know about him is that he’s a senator – an official lawmaker who regularly sits in Pakistan’s national Parliament.

But what’s this got to do with the five women who wanted to seek husbands for themselves? Sadly, the fact that five women felt they could find their own husbands is highly relevant as far as Zehri and Pakistan are concerned. It’s highly relevant because in muslim countries such as Pakistan the standard Islamic practice is that a female must have her guardian’s consent if she wants to get married, and in effect this means that most marriages are arranged or even forced.

And so, when these five women started talking about choosing their own husband you can easily imagine how very annoyed Zehri must have been. I mean, since when did women get the right to have a say in who they’d like to marry? And Zehri wasn’t alone in getting annoyed, for when news about these five women got out, their relatives, guardians and a gang others were so annoyed they all decided to put a stop to such foolishness.

And how did they do that: how did they stop those women from finding their own husbands? Well, basically, they abducted all five of them and had them shot, and even though they were still alive they then threw the women into a pit and totally buried them. Now whether Zehri actually played any part in their killing is unknown, but when asked about the matter he fully defended what happened and said no one “should make a big issue out of it”, and “only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid.”

Of course, most decent people would like to see honour killings stamped out. It’s bad enough they occur in cesspit countries such as Pakistan, but they’re also on the rise here in the UK and Europe. Having said that, Zehri himself should of course be painfully killed as soon as possible, preferably by having a huge water melon forcibly shoved up his arse, stabbed repeatedly in the face with a twelve-inch knife, then dumped in a barrel of pig fat and left to soak for an hour or so before being set alight. If that happened, I really don’t think anyone would “make a big issue out of it”.

For further details contact – Senator Israr Ullah Zehri, 302-E, Parliament Lodges, Islamabad, Pakistan, Telephone: 051 920 7477.

Corporal Liam Elms, for example, was killed serving in Afghanistan. Liam was blown up while patrolling with The Royal Marines (45 Commando). Alright, soldiers in war zones are going to have to face that kind of thing – that’s the nature of the job – but what we now know is that Liam had been sent on a peculiar mission pandering to the locals: his task was to deliver a goat to a couple of newly married Afghans!

So our infidel politicians and kuffar generals think it’s a good idea to win the “trust” of primitive muslims by giving them goats, eh? Is that some kind of sick joke, or what? I mean, do they really think the Afghans will dump their medieval Islamic attitude and start singing ‘God Save the Queen’ if we give ‘em a few goats? I doubt it.

Apparently, the goat loving newly weds were in a region that was heavily overrun by the Taliban, and explosive devices were very common where they lived. Even so, our politicians and generals still felt it was worth risking Corporal Elms.

But it was George C. Scott who said (in the movie, Patton): “I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.”  And that’s very true, which is why it’s so very tragic that Liam had to die for the sake of some creepy muslim brown-nosing.

Rest in Peace: Corporal Liam Elms, Zulu Company, 45 Commando, Royal Marines, (and shame on those who sent you to your death).

Now this particular muslim was due to stand trial for conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit explosions, so why on earth wasn’t he remanded in custody, why did they grant him bail?

The authorities tell us he was given bail on “very strict conditions”. One of these conditions was that he had to remain at home.  But though confined to house arrest he was still allowed to attend his local mosque for prayers. How strict is that, eh?

Anyway, guess what happened… that’s right, he went to the mosque and was never seen again. Ha ha ha – I mean, what did the authorities expect? But never mind that, what Flashbuck wants to know is why they won’t tell us his name, or publish a description?

He’s charged with very serious offences and he’s committed another offence by doing a runner, so what’s the problem with telling us who he is and what he looks like, and why isn’t his face plastered all over the UK in shop windows, on notice boards, and in newspapers?

The report says the police have launched a massive manhunt, But how does that work? Do they go round telling everyone: “Be on the look out for… A Man with No Name.”

Okay, officer, gotcha, we’ll keep ‘em peeled, but what does he look like?

“Well we believe he looks like a man, er, a man with no name.”

Yeah, alright, officer, thanks for that, but can I ask, have you searched the mosque? What – you can’t search the mosques!!?

Now you might think that the child bride thing is a primitive practice confined to under-developed regions and non-Western cultures. But you’d be wrong, because according to a report in the The Sunday Telegraph: “British children as young as nine are being forced into marriage by their families”.

We should of course applaud The Sunday Telegraph for reporting this matter, but why did they have to dress it up in the way they did? For example, nowhere in the article do The Sunday Telegraph use the word ‘muslim’ or ‘Islamic’. I mean, instead, of ‘muslim children’ they say “British children”, and instead of ‘muslim families’ or ‘Islamic families’, we get “families”, which isn’t very helpful. Let’s face it, the native non-muslim British population are not forcing their young children into marriage.

Another problem with the report is the headline. Have a look again at what The Sunday Telegraph have done. Here’s their headline… “Nine-year-old Midlands girl rescued from forced marriage”. The first point to note is that the girl is described as a “Midlands girl”. Oh, yeah? Not a muslim girl in a muslim family, just a Midlands girl, eh? Like it could have been any Midlands girl, even a girl belonging to a family of Buddhists? Ha!

The headline then goes on to say that this “Midlands girl” (ha ha) was “…rescued from a forced marriage”. And indeed she was. But wouldn’t it have been more accurate to simply say “rescued from marriage” rather than “rescued from forced marriage”? Or do The Sunday Telegraph think that a nine-year-old girl can get married as long as it’s not against her will?

Anyway, as far as child brides and all that is concerned, let’s be fair and give Ayatollah Khomeini the final word. After all he was a muslim holy man – a leading cleric – and felt by many to be a saint…

“A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man’s four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl’s sister” (Ayatollah Khomeini, “Tahrir ol vasyleh”, Volume 4, Darol Elm, Qom, Iran, 1990).

And so the question is how can something be both peaceful and dangerous, friendly but also hostile?

Islam is benign, and most muslims are no more deadly than your average Quaker; even so, Islam is still the main motivation behind the vast majority of the world’s terrorist attacks. How can we account for that? A good place to start is the koran, but in doing so we need to remember the koran was promulgated over a period lasting more than twenty years, from about 610 to 632. So some chapters date from Muhammad’s earlier years in Mecca (to 622) and some from his ten years in Medina (622-632). This is an important point.

It’s an important point because koranic passages that originate in Mecca are appreciably different to those that come out of Medina. For example, in Mecca Muhammad is very keen that Jews and Christians should recognise that he’s a prophet. Thus, koranic passages proclaimed in Mecca typically assert a positive attitude towards Jews and Christians.

But Muhammad’s message was largely rejected by Mecca’s Jews and Christians, and even his native tribesmen abandoned him. Basically, in Mecca, his preliminary effort to be seen as a prophet from god was a dismal failure. Consequently, it was clear he could no longer stay put, and so Muhammad fled Mecca for Medina, a fertile settlement about two-hundred and seventy-five miles to the north-east.

Upon arrival, Muhammad found the situation in Medina somewhat strained: Medina’s tribes and clans had fought each other before and it was very probable that feuding could soon break out again. Accordingly, since he was a newcomer, leaders from the bickering tribes and clans invited Muhammad to serve as a kind of independent mediator, which he accepted.

As Medina’s mediator, Muhammad resolved disputes by drawing up a pact specifying that issues for resolution had to be submitted to “Muhammad the Prophet”. In due course he consolidated greater powers, and his authority advanced even further when most of Medina’s pagans acknowledged his prophetic claim and absorbed his message.

In effect, Islam was established in Medina: its cluster of Muslims eventually becomes an Islamic dominion with Muhammad as its religious, military and political leader. Back in Mecca Muhammad was powerless and therefore mainly confined to offering advice, issuing warnings, and articulating glad tidings. But as soon as he’s secure in Medina what we begin to see is Muhammad issuing a radically different set of revelations.

Whereas his Meccan revelations are generally religious, emphasising the pleasures of paradise for anyone accepting his message, or the torments of hell for anyone rejecting it, a more powerful Muhammad in Medina now sets forth a totally different kind of inducement, and an equally different kind of punishment. Besides promising paradise or hell, koranic passages from Medina now start guaranteeing believers the hand of captured females and a share of plundered booty. In addition, non-believers are now threatened with crucifixion, mutilation and decapitation.

Thus, in his native Mecca, when Muhammad and his followers were weak and overwhelmingly outnumbered, koranic passages tended to be peaceable. For example, one such Meccan verse says “Invite all to the way of the Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching…” (Koran, 16:125). But of course, the fact is Muhammad really couldn’t do anything else: given his circumstances in Mecca, what else could he say? Anyway, after consolidating power in Medina, Muhammad’s conciliatory attitude steadily disappears. Instead, with Islam now firmly established, he increasingly introduces revelations of a thoroughly different kind.

For instance, in contrast to the peaceable message put out in Mecca, Muhammad now begins to tell his fellow Muslims that “Fighting is prescribed for you…” (Koran, 2:216), and he orders them to “…fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them…” (Koran, 9:5). Basically, confident and no longer vulnerable, Muhammad starts to launch an offensive war against disbelievers: he tried his luck in Mecca by giving peace a chance, and by promulgating tolerant koranic passages, but as soon as he’s secure in Medina he quickly realises that the best way forward is through warfare, killing and fighting.

So the koran contains some friendly, peaceful passages as well as plenty of brutally violent passages. Thus, when modernizers and moderates tell us that Islam is innocuous, they do so by diving into the koran to seize any Meccan passage which substantiates their view. Likewise, Islamists, jihadists, and so-called radicals will validate their own vicious campaign by appealing to certain verses stemming from Medina.

Today, therefore, we’ve got proponents of modernization and moderation maintaining that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the koran supports freedom and basic civil liberties. However, we’ve also got radical proponents of Islamism and jihad, and they believe the koran mandates terrorism. But each side is just pushing their respective agenda by simply cherry-picking specific passages from the text, surely?

Not quite, because even though the koran contains many questionable and bizarre statements, including a large number of inconsistencies and contradictions, that doesn’t mean to say it can be treated like a pick-and-mix buffet. In other words, as far as the koran is concerned, it’s not a question of just choosing the peaceable passages if you want peace, or seeking out the bellicose passages if you want war.

It doesn’t work like that because the koran explicitly affirms that not every verse (or ayah) has the same legal force (see Koran, 2:106). But how can that be? Isn’t the koran supposed to be perfect, timeless, unchanging and complete? In which case, surely each and every verse (or ayah) is equally valid?

That’s very true: muslims do in fact believe that the entire koran is the perfect word of allah. Nevertheless, it still contains more than a few inconsistencies and contradictions. Accordingly, the problem for Islam is how to reconcile these inconsistencies and contradictions whilst also keeping the koran’s integrity intact. For example, The Encyclopaedia of Islam states that:

“Rather than attempting to explain away the inconsistencies in passages giving regulations for the Muslim community, koran scholars and jurists came to acknowledge the differences, while arguing that the latest verse on any subject ‘abrogated’ all earlier verses that contradicted it.” (The Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill).

In other words, Islam resolves the matter by resorting to the law of abrogation, which means that whenever there’s a disagreement between two koranic passages, the standard practice is to accept the later passage rather than the earlier. Alternatively put, if two koranic verses conflict, the later verse cancels out the earlier verse: “The koran is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which later pronouncements of the Prophet abrogate, i.e.: declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements” (Arthur Jeffery, ‘Islam: Muhammad and His Religion’, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958, page 66).

So what does this mean as far as the koran’s coherence and integrity is concerned? If some koranic verses have been abrogated by other verses, how can muslims maintain that the koran is completely true and perfect in every respect?

Muslims generally respond to such questions by insisting that they don’t have any problem with the fact that some koranic verses have been annulled – it isn’t a problem, as they see it, because it appears from what they say that god’s plan involves moulding muslims by gradually adjusting things.

For example, Muhammad’s revelations recommended fundamental changes in lifestyle; and so the claim is that it would have been very difficult for the first muslims to fully adopt such a sudden and total remodelling, which is why god simplified the struggle by framing certain things in a temporary manner.

Moreover, even though their original purpose was valid for just a limited time, muslims nevertheless believe that the koran’s abrogated verses remain sacred and true, because abrogated verses still apply to anyone experiencing the very same circumstances in the future.

Anyway, that’s what mainstream muslims believe as far as the integrity of the koran is concerned. But whatever merits their claim may have, the reality of course is that it just doesn’t make sense for muslims to keep on insisting the koran is perfect and unchanging: whichever way you slice it, when something is modified that means it’s been changed.

But questions about the integrity of the koran are really neither here nor there. What fundamentally matters is the fact that the law of abrogation is standard practice in Islam, and for moderate muslims that’s an enormous problem.

To see what the law of abrogation involves, and why it’s a huge problem for moderates, it’s instructive to briefly consider a classic example. Drinking alcohol, for instance, was once a firmly-rooted practice in Arabian social life. It’s unwholesome effects were well-known, but by and large it was customarily accepted and widely consumed. Accordingly, there are a number koranic revelations from Muhammad’s early phase that acknowledge this attitude (see Koran 16:7, and 2:219, also 4:43).

Now it’s important to note at this point that at the initial stage of its development the koran actually tolerates drinking – alcohol is condoned and there’s nothing in the koran just yet which expressly forbids its consumption. Later, however, we’re told that “…intoxicants… are abominations of the devil; you shall avoid them…” (Koran 5:90).

It is clear, then, that the koran is inconsistent as far as alcohol is concerned: at first it’s frowned upon but tolerated, then subsequently it’s totally proscribed. But, as we’ve already seen, “Rather than… explain away the inconsistencies… koran scholars… came to acknowledge the differences… arguing that the latest verse on any subject ‘abrogated’ all earlier verses…” (The Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill).

And so, since the verse totally proscribing alcohol was revealed after the earlier verses which condone it, Islam’s learned and authoritative ruling is that the proscription revokes the toleration. In other words, despite what the koran originally claimed, alcohol is now forbidden and that’s the end of the matter.

But where do these Islamic scholars and jurists get the right to control whether muslims can have a glass of wine? Aren’t they just boosting their own power and imposing their authority by arrogantly laying down overbearing rulings? Not at all, because, as we’ve already seen, the legal justification for the law of abrogation comes from the koran itself: “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar…” (Koran, 2:106, see also 16:101, and 13:39, and 17:86).

Abrogation, therefore, is a koranic concept. As such, it’s authoritatively used within mainstream Islam. But also, and more importantly, the law of abrogation is the most crucial factor of all when it comes to choosing between the moderates who claim that Islam is a religion of peace, and the radicals who stress that Islam mandates jihad, killing and terror.

For example, in maintaining that Islam is a religion of peace, moderates argue the koran expounds compassion, understanding, generosity and mercy, claiming also that it enjoins muslims to respect the existence of non-muslims, such as Jews and Christians. Typically, they’ll highlight verses from Islam’s early Meccan phase, such as: “…those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians… any who believe in god and the Last Day, and work righteousness, they shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear…” (Koran 2:62).

Now when it comes to Jews and Christians, the aforesaid verse is, of course, liberal and very easy going: as it stands this verse (and others like it) would seem to support the moderate view that Islam really is a religion of peace. But though the verse just cited claims that Jews and Christians will have “their reward” and nothing to “fear”, the bad news is that this compassionate view isn’t definitive: it’s not Islam’s definitive view because passages extolling peace and tolerance were all proclaimed during the formative stages of the koran’s unravelling; during later stages, however, revelations were issued threatening unbelievers with death and physical violence.

And so the koran does indeed contain some compassionate verses, but according to the law of abrogation they have no applicability. In effect, this means moderates haven’t got a leg to stand on: their claim that Islam is a religion of peace rests on a number of early koranic verses, but the verses they rely on lack legitimacy because they’ve all been flatly cancelled by later verses carrying greater legal force.

Moreover, the key point to underline here is that the aforementioned account isn’t eccentric or controversial – the law of abrogation is not some sort of extremist fringe view cooked up by swivel-eyed radicals seeking to justify their violent agenda. In actual fact, as a doctrine it dates all the way back to the beginning of Islam. Indeed, nearly every classical work on abrogation describes how a certain preacher had to be prevented from talking about the koran due to the fact he was unschooled in the principles of abrogation.

Recognised Islamic scholars have repeatedly confirmed and applied the law of abrogation. Ibn Hazm, for instance, is the distinguished author of The Abrogator and the Abrogated, and he remarks that 114 early verses expressing peace and toleration have all been abrogated by subsequent verses, such as 9:5, which says: “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (see: Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-’Elmeyah, Beirut, 1986, page 19). Similarly, in his distinguished work Al-Itqan fi Ulum Al-Quran, the highly esteemed fifteenth century Islamic scholar al-Suyuti identifies and discusses a number of koranic verses which in his expert view have all been abrogated.

Thus, the doctrine of abrogation is a fixed and essential teaching in orthodox Islam. Accordingly, Islam is not a religion of peace and tolerance hijacked by extremists. If anything, it’s the moderates who are trying to usurp Islam: by ignoring or even airbrushing out the koran’s violent (but legally compelling) passages moderates hope to present Islam in a more attractive manner, fooling non-muslims into accepting that Islam is a force for good when the reality is the exact opposite.

The origins of Islam are immersed in violence, and it’s well documented that Islam’s founding prophet went around fighting, killing, plundering and enslaving; so let’s give Muhammad the final word: “I swear by Him who has my soul in his hands, I was sent to you with nothing but slaughter” (Ibn Haban in his Sahih, vol. 14, page 529).

Yeah, but back then everyone did it… marrying young girls was morally acceptable then because it was the prevailing practice. Indeed it was, but does that make it right? I don’t think so: something isn’t right just because it’s widely practiced. Besides, it’s fair to assume that god wants us to follow a higher ethical code. Isn’t that what being a cutting edge prophet is all about? Aren’t they supposed to open our eyes? Let’s face it, readily following customs, especially customs that are wicked and contemptible, isn’t very impressive.

“Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him)
and he had sexual intercourse with me. I was nine years old.”
(Sunan Abu Dawood: Volume 3, Book 36, Number 4917)

Of course, as soon as any such news report appears we get no end of appeasers spouting the usual drivel, telling us that such killings have nothing to do with Islam: it’s just a ‘cultural thing’. The reality, however, is that a highly authoritative manual of Islamic law rules that no legal retaliation is required when a father or mother kill their offspring, or even their offspring’s offspring. (Page 584, Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller: Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Revised Edition), Amana Books, 1997, ISBN: 0915957728). So let’s get this right… it appears in an authoritative and reliable manual of Islamic law, but it’s just a cultural thing, nothing to do with Islam?

But not if your doctor is a muslim… For example, Section 2 of the constitution of The UK Muslim Doctors & Dentists Association (MDDA) states that muslim doctors and dentists must “advance the Islamic religion in the practice of medicine,” while also prioritizing “the preservation and protection of the good health of Muslims.” Let’s face it, this is clearly another US  and YOU situation: not only does their constitution put muslims first, but it doesn’t even mention non-muslims.

]]>An influential cleric in Saudi Arabia is insisting that women should fully cover their face with a one-eyed veil, because the traditional two-eyed veil is far too seductive, especially if women use eye make-up...http://www.flashbuck.com/2009/09/03/are-you-winking-at-me/feed/0http://www.flashbuck.com/2009/09/03/are-you-winking-at-me/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rsshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/flashbuck/BxAi/~3/yQvaPHeVrps/IslamNewsAl-Qaedaal-Qa’edaJihadMuslimTerrorFlashbuckThu, 03 Sep 2009 11:13:20 PDThttp://www.flashbuck.com/?p=239 It’s quiet at the moment. There’s stuff going on, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Europe there haven’t been any big attacks for a while now. So why does it seem so quiet? One explanation is we’re getting good at thwarting their plans. Indeed, there have been some very successful arrests. Also, security awareness is much tighter than it was.

The disruption of a number of terrorist cells has certainly averted some very serious killing. Back in 2007 the German police prevented what could have been Europe’s deadliest attack when they busted a gang planning to ram huge car bombs into airports, nightclubs and bars. Prior to that, the Danish police rounded up another group: chemicals used to make explosives were found and they were recorded discussing potential targets.

Counter-terrorist operations such as these, and many others like them, have hindered the terrorists and minimised a lot of death and suffering. But we can’t just leave it at that. The security services can’t foil every plot: sooner or later there’s bound to be another attack. The Director General of MI5 reckons that in the UK there are at least 2,000 people involved in terrorist-related activity. Moreover, the government has said that it’s aware of  200 terror networks, and that 30 plots are under investigation.

As far as Dr. Ingrid Mattson is concerned, the thing about her is that, apart from being president of ISNA, she’s also the director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut; and in her work there she uses texts by two so-called Islamic scholars who have inspired muslim terrorists: Syed Abul A’la Maududi and Sayyid Qutb.

This is the sort stuff Maududi writes… “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the Earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. . . Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.”

And so, on the 5th anniversary of the Beslan horror, Obama invites muslim nutjobs to The White House for a special dinner and stacks of praise. Nice one, Barack!

Every element of a muslim’s life is governed by Islam. However, the koran itself is not a complete legal code: it doesn’t explicitly deal with every single conceivable eventuality. In fact, the koran is silent on a vast number of issues. But though the scope of the koran is limited, it’s still possible for muslims to know how they should fully conduct themselves, because muslims maintain that, in addition to the koran, allah established Muhammad as the perfect model for the entire world.

Since Muhammad is seen as the perfect measure for all human activity, in effect this means that everything Muhammad said or did serves as a sort of paradigm. Consequently, if the koran doesn’t fully address a certain issue, Islam resolves the matter by studying what Muhammad is reported to have said or done. For instance, the koran insists that muslims must pray every day, but it doesn’t specify how this duty should be performed. And so muslims clarify the matter by looking at what Muhammad said about prayer, and by identifying the way that he prayed.

In another instance, the koran records (5:3) a general injunction that forbids the consumption of carrion. But it’s recorded elsewhere that Muhammad exempted fish. Muslims therefore respect the general koranic injunction which forbids the consumption of carrion, but as far as fish carrion is concerned they also respect Muhammad’s exemption. Thus, in Islam, it’s conventional practice to settle a whole range of questions by examining the life of Muhammad. It’s clear, then, that Muhammad’s life is a vital element of Islam.

The koran, of course, is the foundation of Islam: the primary source of Islam’s tenets of belief, wide-ranging principles, general injunctions and moral guidelines. But muslims contend that without the life of Muhammad it’s not always possible to correctly understand the koran, or rightfully implement its precepts. As they see it, Muhammad’s life is the living interpretation of the koran, and without the example set by Muhammad it’s difficult to see how anyone can even begin to be a muslim.

Not quite. You see, with Islam things are different. For a start, if you renounce your Islamic faith then strictly speaking you have to be killed. Indeed, all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that it’s just about the worst thing a muslim can do, which is why apostates in many countries are executed. But of course here in Britain we’ve not yet been fully Islamised. It’s still illegal here to kill someone just because they choose not to believe in something. Oh yeah? Try telling that to Nissar.

When Bradford’s muslims discovered they had given up on the Islamic thing, life for Nissar, his wife, and their five children suddenly got very difficult. Bricks were hurled at the windows of his home, and his car was rammed and set on fire. Indeed, over the course of about three years they’ve been regularly abused and intimidated. On one occasion, they even threatened to burn his house down, so Nissar reported the matter to the police. But the police dismissed Nissar and advised him to “move to another place”. A couple of days later the house next door was torched.

As I’ve already noted, when dealing with muslims, female police officers – muslim and non-muslim – now have to cover up with hijab headscarfs. But it’s not just police officers, female muslims employed by the fire service are no longer required to wear the standard fire service uniform. Instead, they get to wear special headscarfs and full length skirts and all that stuff. In other words, Islam has stealthily managed to increase the recognition of sharia law. For example, Jagtar Singh, spokesman for the Asian Fire Service Association, says… “We are pleased to note that the fire service is now taking seriously the issues of culture and religious belief…” So there you are… it’s no longer and never was about so-called refined multicultural sensitivity. All that palaver about respecting other cultures was basically just a load of guff aimed at disguising the fact that public bodies such as the police and fire service have submitted to the demands sharia law.