Note how the so-called "Daily Hate" actually defends the religion they're often accused of hating, by incorrectly stating that "female genital mutilation (FGM) has not been advocated by Muslim scripture".
A British Muslim leader has been caught on camera advocating female genital mutilation.
Mohammed Abdul, the Imam of a Bristol mosque, was filmed urging a follower to take women and girls abroad so they can be circumcised legally.
The practise was banned by law in 2003, and it's illegal to help or encourage anyone to carry out the barbaric procedure overseas.
The footage was obtained by an undercover reporter working for the Sunday Times newspaper, who posed as a Muslim seeking advice.
During a meeting with Mohammed Abdul at the Masjid al-Huda mosque: 'In this country, it is not possible, we cannot do that. (For) any other Muslim who likes to practise the way of Prophet Muhammad, the best way is to go to other countries.
'Some families, they go to Africa or Arab countries.
'In this country you have to fight for your religion, your cultures, They (the British) don't like your Muslim cultures.'
Although female genital mutilation (FGM) has not been advocated by Muslim scripture, a number of clerics encourage it.
The procedure, which involves the removal of external female genitalia, causes incredible pain and leaves women scarred for life.
In some cases the vagina is sewn shut.
It's estimated 100,000 women in Britain have undergone the procedure and another 24,000 are thought to be at risk.
Dr Yunes Teinaz, who works for anti-FGM charity Forward, tells The Sunday Times: 'As a result of misinformation spread by so-called Muslim scholars, young girls are being mutilated and subjected to unimaginable pain and suffering.'
The police have confirmed they have received the Sunday Times video and that the 'material will now be assessed.'
Since the law was passed in 2003, no-one has been prosecuted for carring out female genital mutilation.
Forward chief executive Naana Otoo-Oyortey said she hopes the new evidence will force the government to do more to combat the problem.
She said: 'With the summer approaching, this is the time when most children are at risk of being taken abroad to be mutilated.'
Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)."
Today I came across an article by an American named Dr. Faheem Younus, on his Huffington Post blog, titled "In Islam, Heaven Is Not Exclusive".
Claim
Islam's holy Quran provides not one, but many ways to the heaven (29:69). Yes, some are straight -- like belief (3:85) and good deeds (5:10) -- while others are convoluted. It's like going to New York City. You could take the bridge, tunnel, ferry or simply fly into the Big Apple.
God's grace though, truly leads the way to salvation. "He forgives whom He pleases and punishes whom He pleases (5:19)" to me, assures that no matter which way you take, you won't hit traffic, accidents or bad weather.
To the Jewish man mentioned above, some Muslims may say: No way! How can a Jew or a Christian ever go to heaven? To them I present this from Quran: "Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians -- whichever party believes in God and the Last Day and does good deeds -- shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve (2:63)."
How can the Quran charge Jews and Christians of the notion of an exclusive heaven and then turn around to claim the same?
This is not a fringe interpretation, applicable to Jews and Christians only. Prophet Muhammad (sa) paved the way to salvation -- ultimately for all humans -- in a famous narration from the book of Muslim, "A man said: By God, God will not forgive so-and-so. At this, God said: Who is he who swears by Me that I will not forgive so-and-so? Verily, I have forgiven so-and-so and have nullified your good deeds."
Those who believe in God, Christians and Jews, shall be in Heaven (2:62)
Verse
"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." [Qur'an 2:62]
Meaning of Verse
This verse is often quoted by Muslims in an effort to prove Islam is tolerant and inclusive of other faiths. After all, how much more tolerant can a faith be than to allow the followers of other faiths into its vision of heaven?
However, this is in direct conflict with the following:
"And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" [Qur'an 48:13]
As most Muslims will already be aware, this is not a contradiction per se, when you take abrogation into consideration. Verse 2:62 has been abrogated by verse 3:85.
"And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers." [Qur'an 3:85]
Conclusion
Heaven in Islam is exclusive to Muslims. Christians and Jews may believe in God, but they do not believe in "His Messenger". Thus they are destined for the "Blazing Fire".
The only way a Christian or Jew can make it into heaven is by accepting Muhammad as a prophet, but then they would no longer be Christians or Jews, they would be Muslims.
In fact, Muslims will be spared hell-fire by Allah on the Day of Resurrection by making innocent Christians and Jews take their place and be thrown into hell.
"Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire." [Sahih Muslim 37:6665, See also: Sahih Muslim 37:6666, Sahih Muslim 37:6667, and Sahih Muslim 37:6668]
Dr. Faheem Younus serves as the Adjunct Faculty for Religion and History at the Community Colleges of Baltimore County and a Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Maryland. He is a recipient of the prestigious Presidential Service Award (Gold) by Barack Obama in 2009 for his work with Muslim Youth in America, Dr. Younus served as the National Youth President of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA (MKA USA) from 2006-10. This leading Muslim Youth group has thousands of members organized in over 63 chapters all across USA. He currently serves as the National Secretary for Education for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA. Being an expert on issues surrounding Muslim youth in America, Dr. Younus launched his blog www.Muslimerican.com where you can find an archive of his works .
Dr. Younus teaches a popular course, Islam: Fact and Fiction, at multiple campuses across community colleges in Maryland. Dr. Younus has represented Islam on FOX News, ABC News and NPR. His Op-Ed pieces have been published in National Media outlets and newspapers such as The Christian Science Monitor, The Huffington Post, AOL News, The Baltimore Sun, Orlando Sentinel, Express Tribune, The Asbury Park Press, The Star Press and others. His short pieces have been published in prestigious newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, Boston Globe, and The Economist.
Dr. Younus is a respected physician, currently in the practice of Infectious Diseases at a Maryland Hospital, who remains committed to the spirit of volunteerism. He was awarded a Governor’s Citation by Robert Ehrlich for his humanitarian services in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
Ahmadiyya Islam is a peaceful religion, but Ahmadis passing themselves off in the West as "Muslims" is thoroughly dishonest.
Ahmadiyya Islam has an additional Prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and additional religious texts (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's writings). So they are as different to mainstream Islam as Islam is to Christianity. After all, Islam is simply an additional Prophet (Muhammad) and some additional religious texts (Qur'an and Sunnah). But do you ever hear Muslims claim they are Christians? And if Muslims did claim to be Christians, then they would not fool anyone.
Accordingly, Ahmadis are widely persecuted in Islamic countries because they are viewed as infidels by Muslims. In fact, they are often viewed as less Muslim than Christians and Jews.
From WikiIslam (visit the original page for references):
Ahmadiyya (sometimes referred to as Qadiani) is a religious movement founded towards the end of the 19th century. Central to the Ahmadiyya is the belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi.
Ghulam Ahmad was a religious figure who claimed to have fulfilled the prophecies about the world reformer of the end times, who was to herald the Eschaton as predicted in the traditions of various world religions and bring about the final triumph of Islam as per Islamic prophecy. He claimed that he was the Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the 14th Islamic century.
Orthodox followers of Islam do not consider the Ahmadis to be Muslims, due to their beliefs, as with the beliefs of the Baha'is and Qur'anists, differing vastly from those of mainstream Islam. This has lead to the widespread persecution and killing of Ahmadis around the world.
At the 1974 annual World Muslim League conference held in Mecca and attended by 140 delegations of Muslim countries and organizations from all over the world, it was unanimously agreed that the Ahmadiyya are "a subversive movement against Islam and the Muslim world, which falsely and deceitfully claims to be an Islamic sect; who under the guise of Islam and for the sake of mundane interests contrives and plans to damage the very foundations of Islam."
The sale, publication and distribution of Ahmadiyya litriture has also been banned in Bangladesh, the Muslim Council of Britain have stated that members of the Ahmadiyya faith are "outside the fold of Islam", they have been banned from practicing their religion publicly in Indonesia's East Java, West Java, and South Sulawesi provinces, and Pakistan has officially declared them to be non-Muslims.
Likewise, according to Ahmadi beliefs, only those who accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's prophethood are considered Muslims.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died of diarrhea in Lahore on the 26th of May, 1908. There are numerous unflattering accounts which claim he died in a public toilet.
Whilst they often claim to have up to 200 million adherents worldwide, in reality the Ahmadiyya faith has only 10 million adherents.
Ahmadiyya Islam puts particular emphasis on missionary work. Many western converts to Islam, being fooled by Ahmadi missionaries into believing Islam is pacifistic, actually begin their religious lives as Ahmadis before moving on to the less tolerant mainstream Sunni Islam. Dr. Faheem Younus' articles have a clear goal in converting Westerners, whether atheists, Jews or Christians:
I don't know how, but people say this all the time: "He cannot go to heaven because he does not believe in [insert your Prophet or God's name here]." According to a 2008 Pew survey, one in five Christians in America believe that non-Christian faiths cannot lead to salvation. That number soared to 60 percent for white evangelical Protestants who attend church once a weak.
Frankly, I would have checked out of my faith, Islam, if it took such a position. Thank God (or Allah) that it doesn't.
Conclusion
Maybe it's time that Dr. Faheem Younus "checked out" of being a Muslim....
Oh wait, what
he believes in is heretical to Muslims, has been universally
condemned by mainstream Islamic scholars, and would certainly get him
killed in some Muslim countries, so he was hardly a “Muslim” to
begin with.
This is just crazy. You would be forgiven for thinking you had entered some sort of time-warp. How on earth could they possibly believe that they would get away with murder by using such an excuse? And, yes, Muslims believe in genies (and witches).
A pregnant wife was smothered to death by her husband, his parents and his brother-in-law who later all claimed she may have been killed by an evil spirit, a court has heard.
Nalia Mumtaz, 21, was pronounced dead at hospital after being rushed there by paramedics who found her lying lifeless and ashen faced on a bed at the family home. Her unborn child died with her.
Her husband Mohammed Mumtaz, 24, his father Zia Ul Haq and mother Salma Aslam, both 51, as well as his brother in law Hammad Hassan, 24, all deny charges of murder and manslaughter.
At Birmingham Crown Court today, prosecutor Christopher Hotten said the cultural context in which Mrs Mumtaz met her death on July 8, 2009 was of importance, as were the religious beliefs of the defendants, described as a ‘traditional Muslim family with an emphasis on religious observance’.
He asked the jury: ‘Was she or may she have been possessed by an evil spirit which took her life as the defendants were to suggest both at the time and after her death?
‘Or may she have died as a result of some unknown or undetected illness?
'Or will you be sure that, as we say, she was assaulted, smothered, by these four defendants all of whom admit they were present when she died?’
Mrs Mumtaz was born in Pakistan and willingly entered into an arranged marriage with her husband, then a student at Wolverhampton University, in August 2007.
She came to Britain for the first time the following May after obtaining a visa and moved into his parents’ modern, three bedroom detached home in Birmingham.
Mr Hotten said she was attractive, bright and was ‘thrilled’ by the prospect of motherhood after falling pregnant in February 2009.
During her pregnancy, she was regularly seen by a GP and various midwives – the last time two days before her death - and both she and her unborn child appeared healthy.
But her parents said she phoned them at their home in the Jhellum district of Pakistan the day before her death and told them she was ‘not at peace’ living with her in-laws and was upset, Mr Hotten said.
The jury was also told that numerous telephone calls were made to Mrs Mumtaz's relatives in Pakistan, the emergency services and other individuals in the hours before she was taken to hospital.
During the calls it is alleged that Ul Haq claimed that a ‘djinn’ - or evil spirit - had been sent from Pakistan, while a woman at the house was allegedly heard to say ‘don’t call an ambulance yet - we will cure her ourselves.’
Part-way through Mr Hotten’s opening speech, Mumtaz collapsed in the dock in a clearly distressed state and the jury was sent home until tomorrow.
In the UK, you will rarely find an "Indian" restaurant or takeaway that is actually owned by an Indian. Almost all of them are owned by Bangladeshi or Pakistani Muslims. Islam is such a big thing for so many of them that, in some instances, they will refuse to employ you solely on the grounds of your religious beliefs. Even Shi'ite Muslims in the UK often face rejection by the Sunni Muslim employers.
A takeaway owner who allegedly ran a brothel above his restaurant hounded girls as young as 12 to become prostitutes and told one of his child victims that ‘age is just a number’.
Azad Miah, 44, branded the vulnerable girls ‘fresh meat’ and harassed them over weeks and months before offering to give them drugs, alcohol or money in return for sex, a court heard.
Miah targeted the girls in ‘a cold, clinical, calculated exploitation of the desperate and therefore vulnerable’, Carlisle Crown Court was told.
Tim Evans, prosecuting, said: ‘Most worryingly, he would stalk some of them, following them home in particular.’
One of the girls, who was just 14 at the time and addicted to heroin, was paid £100 for sex with him, it is claimed.
The girl, now 21, told detectives she had sex with Miah ‘hundreds of times’.
When another girl refused his advances he called her ‘white trash’.
Miah is accused of paying for the sexual services of a child, inciting child prostitution and of keeping a brothel above The Spice of India, in Carlisle city centre, between 2005 and 2011.
Opening the case, Mr Evans said: 'This is a case in which this defendant sought to persuade a variety of young girls, some of whom he knew were under 16, to have sex with him for money via the provision of drugs or drink.
'Those requests were either made face to face when girls either came into the The Spice of India in Botchergate or were made by telephone calls and texts.
'The attempted persuasion was persistent. He would hound young girls for periods of weeks or months face to face or over the phone. Perhaps most worryingly, he would stalk some of them, following them home.
'Some of the girls that he had made approaches to did indeed have sex with him for money.'
Mr Evans said many of the alleged victims aged from 12 to 16 were told by Miah that their friends were also having sex with him for money.
He told the jury it would hear 'in essence' that The Spice of India, since closed, not only operated as a takeaway restaurant but as a brothel 'where women attended and prostituted themselves'.
The prosecutor said many of the girls involved in the case were addicted to drugs or came from troubled backgrounds.
'It is the Crown’s case that the defendant deliberately targeted girls who fell into that category or who had other problems with the law,' he said.
'The defendant believed that such girls would be more likely to give in to his persistent offers... and they may find themselves less likely to be believed if they complained to the police against a responsible, respected restaurateur of the city.'
Mr Evans said it may be that Miah’s defence team would portray the alleged victims as 'the sort of girls who will lie'.
He continued: 'On the facts of this case you may think that far from being an argument for the defence, the character and background of these girls is a powerful part of the prosecution case.'
'It supports the argument, the Crown say, that this was cold, clinical, calculated exploitation of the desperate and vulnerable; drug addicts very often.'
Miah denies eight counts of paying for the sexual services of a child between 2005 and 2009, eight counts of inciting child prostitution between 2007 and 2011 and one count of keeping a brothel between 2005 and 2011.
Eleven years ago, Farida Bano was circumcised by an aunt on a bunk bed in her family home at the end of her 10th birthday party.
The mutilation occurred not in Africa, where the practice is most prevalent, but in India where a small Muslim sub-sect known as the Dawoodi Bohra continues to believe that the removal of the clitoris is the will of God.
'We claim to be modern and different from other Muslim sects. We are different but not modern,' Ms Bano, a 21-year-old law graduate who is angry about what was done to her, told AFP in New Delhi.
She vividly remembers the moment in the party when the aunt pounced with a razor blade and a pack of cotton wool. The Bohra brand of Islam is followed by 1.2 million people worldwide and is a sect of Shia Islam that originated in Yemen.
Note the dishonest retired cleric who, like the equally dishonest Wikipedia user NarSakSasLee with his edits on “Urine therapy”, would most certainly be aware of the many positive references to camel urine in Sahih hadiths, and the fact that drinking it, taking it in capsule form or applying it to the face and head is widespread across the Middle East purely because of its recommendation by Muhammad.
If you Google "Camel urine" you will find many Muslim websites trumpeting its alleged "health benefits" as one of Islam's "scientific miracles" and some of the world's most respected Islamic scholars and fatwa websites do likewise.
In essence, this cleric from the comparatively civilized country of Turkey, has labeled his own Middle Eastern Arab prophet as an "ignorant" by claiming those Turkish men who drunk camel urine following Muhammad's advice, "must have been ignorant".
Two Turkish men were hospitalized on arrival to Turkey after drinking camel's milk and urine while on an umrah visit, daily Hürriyet reported.
The men believed the camel's milk and urine to be good for health, claiming it was written in a hadith. An imam, according to the Turkish men, also drank the milk and urine with them.
The visitors were hospitalized due to high fever and unusual levels of liver enzymes. Further tests revealed that the two men had been infected with the "alkhurma" virus, reportedly catching the virus from the milk.
The alkhurma virus is very dangerous and highly contagious and has a fatality rate of 25 to 35 percent, daily Hürriyet reported.
İhsan Özkes, a retired religious cleric and current member of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), denied the existence of any hadith that would encourage people to drink camel's milk and urine.
"Those who did drink it must have been ignorant," he said.
Hmm. This must be the world's most incompetent criminal. Surely no one will notice anything strange if there is a slaughtered donkey left on the bed....
An Egyptian woman who was fed up by her husband’s excessive demands for sex drugged the man before strangling him. She then slaughtered a donkey and put it next to him to cover her crime.
The woman left her husband’s body and the dead donkey on the bed for eight days before they were discovered by the husband’s grand son who came to visit them at their house in the southern town of Qena.
Newspapers quoted police as saying the 25-year-old wife, identified as Duaa, confessed to murdering her 57-year-old husband by putting drugs in his juice. She then strangled him while unconscious.
“The woman said she decided to get rid of him because he never stopped demanding to have sex with her…she slaughtered his donkey and placed it next to her husband’s body as a camouflage,” a police source said.
Al Arabiya News has reported that the Saudi hacker known simply as “Cyber Terrorist”, who had hacked numerous Jewish sites and the site of the Danish cartoonists who drew caricatures of Muhammad, died in Riyadh after suffering an apparent acute asthma attack.
What I found most interesting about this was not the news article itself, but the few comments left behind by its readers. Here we witness two distinct forms of crazies meet.
First we have the Neanderthal-like celebrations by what I assume are Zionists upset that someone would dare hack Jewish companies, which remind me of the sickening and animalistic celebrations by Americans upon hearing the news of Osama's death:
"good job eliminating this dangerous scourge of the planet" - Ron
"And these vandal think that they are invulnerable. Sleep with one eye open." - bennie
"God works in mysterious ways you get in life what you give. I guess he gave nothing." - jack
"What goes around comes around - a lesson to us all. He was arrogant and paid for it." - Justice for all
"How can that be a bad thing?" - Flanstein
"With a touch of Karma" - Lauren
Then we have what can only be described as the typical reaction by Muslims, who seem to have the knack for constructing elaborate fantasies around the most mundane of news:
"Asthma.......yeah....right." - jh749
"Was it really asthma?" - Me
"dear me , asthma means mossad or cia" - murad
"I do not believe in conspiracy theories but have no doubt his death was no Asthma; Saudi Intelligence needs to come clean on this mysterious death and who did it." - Parsi
Finally, we have the Muslims again, who commend a fellow Muslim and treat him as a religious martyr for what is basically digital terrorism against the "enemies of Allah". I noted previously how illegal activity in defense of Islam seems to be widely accepted as the natural thing for them, as good Muslims, to participate in:
"unto the almighty we belong and unto hi we shall return" - Ashraf Khan
"RIP at least he fought for a good cause and was not a villain" - Sam
A Saudi hacker known just as “Cyber Terrorist” died in Riyadh after suffering an apparent acute asthma attack caused by the dust storm that hit the Saudi capital last week, UAE’s al- Bayan newspaper reported on Saturday.
The 28-year-old hacker was known for penetrating the most well protected sites including Microsoft, Kaspersky, Milworm, besides the server of another hacker known as the king of hackers Kevin Mitnick. In addition to numerous Jewish sites, banks and major companies, he was also able to hack into the site of the Danish cartoonists who drew caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
A colleague and fellow hacker mourned his friend’s passing and described him as a person who allocated his time in defending Islam and the Prophet. He said the friend specialized in hacking the hackers and even got the attention of U.S., Israeli and British media, who wrote about him.
“One company had shown interest in working with him for a large sum of money but he rejected the offer because it came from a Jewish company,” he said.
Earlier in the year, a Saudi hacker by the name of OxOmar was allegedly responsible for the hacking of Israel’s national airline as well as its stock exchange. He is also believed to have posted details of thousands of Israeli credit card holders after hacking into the bank’s account.
It is against the law to arrange FGM
in the UK, but despite its prevalence here, no one has ever been convicted of the offense. You can be damn sure that this would not be the case if it weren't for a certain religion promoting this barbaric practice.
As many as 100,000 women in Britain have undergone female genital mutilations (FGM) with medics in the UK offering to carry out the illegal procedure on girls as young as 10, it has been reported.
Investigators from the Sunday Times said they had secretly filmed a doctor, dentist and alternative medicine practitioner who were allegedly willing to perform FGM or arrange for the operation to be carried out. The doctor and dentist deny any wrongdoing.
The practice, which involves the surgical removal of external genitalia and in some cases the stitching of the vaginal opening, is illegal in Britain and carries up to a 14-year prison sentence. It is also against the law to arrange FGM.
The procedure is widespread across parts of Africa. Victims are rarely given anaesthetic and frequently suffer long-term damage and pain.
Research suggests that every year more than 22,000 girls in the UK and up to 6,000 in London are at risk of the potentially fatal procedure.
The Metropolitan police said that since 2008 it had received 166 reports of people who feared they were at risk of FGM. Across all 43 forces in England and Wales, no one has ever been convicted of the offence, according to the Sunday Times.
The newspaper added that only two doctors had been struck off by the General Medical Council since 1980.
According to Forward, a charity which campaigns against FGM, an estimated 100,000 women in the UK have undergone mutilation.
The model Waris Dirie, who was mutilated as a child, is a vociferous opponent of the practice.
Calling for a crackdown on FGM, she said: "If a white girl is abused, the police come break down the door. If a black girl is mutilated, nobody takes care of her. This is what I call racism."
Made you look. No, seriously, could you imagine the world-wide media frenzy if that were to ever happen in the UK? Forget Christians, replace them with Hindus celebrating Diwali and you'd still have a major story on your hands, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Here we have a UK Muslim gang jailed for kidnapping and raping two girls, but notice how several news outlets completely purge any mention of their religion and their own admission that the kidnapping and rape of these children were part of their Eid celebrations, leaving the false impression that it was an "Asian" gang with no religious motivations.
One news outlet that does give us the full details is the Daily Mail (also known as the "Daily Hate" to those who are fond of beheading the messenger). IANS also reports on the religious motivation.
What follows are the reports by the Daily Mail and IANS, then the purged reports by the Shropshire Star, Birmingham Mail, and the West Midlands Police (who say that they are "Serving our communities, protecting them from harm", but fail to mention that this is all secondary to protecting the image of Islam).
Muslim gang jailed for kidnapping and raping two girls as part of their Eid celebrations
A group of Muslim men who abducted and raped two teenage girls as part of their Eid celebrations laughed in court yesterday as they were jailed for a total of 38 years.
The girls, aged 15 and 16, were lured miles from their home to a dingy hostel.
In a horrifying weekend-long ordeal, they were plied with alcohol and repeatedly raped by two men, Shamrez Rashid and Amar Hussain, before being offered to a number of others who also ‘used them for sex’.
The 16-year old was forced to have sex six times with four different men.
The younger victim was raped by one man and then sexually assaulted by another.
One defendant, Rashid, 20, was said to have claimed the girls had enjoyed the sex, which he said had taken place as they celebrated the Muslim festival of Eid.
‘It was Eid,’ he said. ‘We treated them as our guests. OK, so they gave us [sex] but we were buying them food and drink.
‘They could have anything they wanted. They enjoyed it.’
His accomplice Amar Hussain, 22, claimed the girls were ‘slags’.
But Judge Melbourne Inman QC said the girls had still been children at the time of the offences.
He said it was quite obvious they had been frightened of the men, but this had had ‘no effect at all’ on their attackers’ behaviour.
‘They were still children and still living with their families,’ Judge Inman said. ‘In a civilised society, such people should be helped. You all abused them.
‘They were extremely vulnerable and you took advantage of that.’
The five defendants laughed and smirked as the horrifying details of their offences were described in court yesterday.
Rashid – who had already been found guilty of two rapes, an attempted rape, child abduction and an attempted sexual assault – grinned, laughed and made gun gestures in the dock.
His supporters in the public gallery hurled abuse at the judge as he passed sentence later.
The court heard how Rashid and Hussain drove the girls from their home in Telford in Shropshire to a Birmingham probation hostel on the evening of Saturday November 28 2009.
They took them to an unfamiliar environment so they ‘would be disorientated and reliant on them,’ prosecutors said.
After raping the girls, they ‘in effect offered them up to their friends, introducing a string of young men into the house’.
Over the following 36 hours, the girls were subjected to almost constant abuse, despite begging their attackers to stop.
The 16-year-old was left with bruising all over her face and neck after she was forced to perform a sex act on Hussain.
She was then forced to have sex with Rashid and a third man, Adil Saleem, while others watched.
The court heard how she held on to a doorframe to try to stop her attacker dragging her into a bedroom, but was pushed inside and the door locked behind her.
She was warned that her attackers were in a gang known as the B9 Crew, and that ‘when someone pressed charges against them, they went to their mother’s house, put a gun to her face and broke her jaw’.
The girls eventually ran from the hostel and called the emergency services from a payphone.
The trial at Birmingham Crown Court was the latest of several cases in which groups of men have been accused of sexually exploiting vulnerable girls.
Hussain was found guilty of child abduction and three rapes and was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Rashid received ten years for child abduction, two rapes, an attempted rape and attempted sexual assault.
Adil Saleem, 20, was given eight years for one count of rape. Jahbar Rafiq, 28, was handed eight years for rape and sexual assault and Amer Islam Choudhrey, 20, was given 15 months for child abduction and sexual assault.
Gang in Britain jailed for rape as Eid celebrations
London: A group of Muslim men in Britain was jailed for a total of 38 years after they abducted and raped two teenage girls as part of their Eid celebrations.
In a horrifying weekend-long ordeal, the girls, then aged 15 and 16, were plied with alcohol and repeatedly raped by two men, Shamrez Rashid and Amar Hussain, before being offered to a number of others who also "used them for sex".
The court heard how Rashid and Hussain drove the girls from their home in Telford in Shropshire to a Birmingham probation hostel on the evening of Saturday, November 28, 2009.
The 16-year old was forced to have sex six times with four different men. The younger victim was raped by one man and then sexually assaulted by another, Daily Mail reported Saturday.
One defendant, Rashid, 20, was said to have claimed the girls had enjoyed the sex, which he said had taken place as they celebrated the Muslim festival of Eid.
Judge Melbourne Inman QC said the girls had still been children at the time of the offences. The five defendants laughed and smirked as the horrifying details of their offences were described in court Friday.
Gang behind bars for rape attack on Shropshire girls
Five men involved in raping and sexually assaulting two Shropshire teenagers have been jailed for more than 38 years.
The two Telford victims, aged 15 and 16, were abducted and lured to a dingy Birmingham flat where ringleaders Amar Hussain and Shamrez Rashid repeatedly attacked them, Birmingham Crown Court heard.
Both girls were victims of a series of sex attacks after being plied with alcohol during the 36-hour ordeal in November 2009.
Yesterday, at the end of a four-week trial, Rashid, 20, was given 11 years in a Young Offenders Institution for rape and four concurrent sentences for another rape, abduction of a child, attempted rape and an attempted sexual assault.
Hussain, 21, was jailed for 10 years for three rape offences, involving both victims, and a concurrent sentence for the abduction of a child.
The court was told that after attacking the girls, Rashid and Hussain ‘in effect offered them up to their friends’.
Rashid grinned and laughed in the dock during the hearing and his supporters hurled abuse at the judge as he passed sentence.
Jahbar Rafiq, 28, received eight years for rape and sexual assault and Adil Saleem, 21, was also jailed for eight years for rape.
Amer Choudhrey, 20, was given 15 months at a Young Offenders Institution for the abduction of a child and one offence of sexual assault.
Judge Melbourne Inman QC said the defendants had all abused the girls.
He told Hussain and Rashid they had played a leading role in the abuse.
“You brought the girls all the way from Telford because you knew you could abuse them and they would consent to anything with anyone and you said they were ‘slags’.
“They were extremely vulnerable and you took advantage of them and told others the girls were available,” he said.
The five men, all from the Birmingham area, denied all the charges.
On the direction of the judge, the jury cleared Hussain on one count of sexual assault, and Rafiq and Saleem of abduction.
Five men jailed for sex attacks on two teenage girls in Birmingham
FIVE men have been jailed for a total of 38 years after they lured two teenage girls to Birmingham and held them captive whilst subjecting them to a string of sex attacks.
Over the course of two days the girls, aged 15 and 16, were used for the sexual gratification of their two abductors and a steady stream of men who visited them in a house and hotel, Birmingham Crown Court heard yesterday.
Their ordeal ended when they escaped into the street – one of the girls wearing no shoes – and rang police from a payphone.
Shamrez Rashid, 20, fromBordesley Green, was jailed for11 years after he was convicted of child abduction, two rapes, attempted rape and attemptedsexual assault.
Amar Hussain, 22, from Balsall Heath, was sentenced to ten years after he was found guilty of child abduction, three rapes and attempted sexual assault.
Jahbar Rafiq, 28, from Aston, was found guilty of rape and sexual assault and was jailed for eight years.
Adil Saleem, 20, from Yardley, was found guilty of rape and sentenced to eight years.
Amer Islam Choudhrey, 20, from Selly Park, was convicted of child abduction and sexual assault and received a jail term of 15 months.
The court was told how the offences happened in November 2009 when the victims were lured to Birmingham from their Telford homes.
Over the next 36 hours they were used for the sexual gratification of Rashid and Hussain, and then a steady stream of young men – first in a cramped flat in Highgate Street and then a nearby hotel.
The jury was told how the two men took advantage of the girls’ ignorance of their surroundings and their lack of resources to effectively detain them.
A 20-year-old man also standing trial was found not guilty of sexual assault.
Det Insp Caroline Marsh from West Midlands Police said: “The girls have shown great courage throughout the trial which has obviously been a very difficult experience for them, particularly being cross examined at length by so many barristers.”
Five men sentenced to total of 38 years for child sexual exploitation offences
Five men have today (Friday) been sentenced to a total of over 38 years after subjecting two teenage girls to a harrowing two day ordeal in a house and hotel in Birmingham.
The men were found guilty on 14 March at Birmingham Crown Court of offences linked to child sexual exploitation after the two girls had been brought into Birmingham from Telford and held over a period of nearly two days in a house and hotel in November 2009.
The girls, aged 15 and 16 at the time, were lured to Birmingham from their Telford homes and over the next 36 hours were used for the sexual gratification by Shamrez Rashid, aged 20, and Amar Hussain, aged 22, and then by a steady stream of young men – first in a cramped flat in Highgate Street and then in a nearby hotel.
Rashid and Hussain took advantage of the girls' ignorance of their surroundings and their lack of resources to effectively detain them. They eventually escaped from the hotel with one of the girls wearing no shoes; they found a payphone and called police.
Shamrez Rashid, from Bordesley Green, was found guilty of child abduction, two rapes, attempted rape and attempted sexual assault. Sentenced to 11 years.
Amar Hussain, from Balsall Heath, was found guilty of child abduction, three rapes and attempt sexual assault. Sentenced to ten years.
Jahbar Rafiq, aged 28 from Aston, was found guilty of rape and sexual assault. Sentenced to eight years.
Adil Saleem, aged 20 from Yardley, was found guilty of rape. Sentenced to eight years.
Amer Islam Choudhrey, aged 20 from Selly Park, was found guilty of child abduction and sexual assault. Sentenced to 15 months.
A 20-year-old man also standing trial was found not guilty of sexual assault.
One of the victims, who cannot be identified, spoke briefly on the affect the ordeal has had on her: "I find it very hard to describe the affect of what happened has had on me… no-one could ever understand how I felt at the time and the shame afterwards.
"It is something that I had learned to cope with myself and deal with alone."
Detective Inspector Caroline Marsh, from the public protection unit, said: "This has been a protracted and complex investigation since it began in 2009.
"Clearly, dealing with victims who have been subjected to such a horrific and prolonged series of attacks has been extremely difficult. We have supported them every step of the way and hope today helps to bring some sort of closure to them and their families.
"The girls have shown great courage throughout the trial which has obviously been a very difficult experience for them particularly being cross examined at length by so many barristers.
"Their evidence has been crucial to ensuring that this can never happen to another young girl in the future."
For those who aren't familiar with the situation of homosexuals in Iran, there has been what can only be described as a genocide against them. According to figures released
in 1999
by the Iranian homosexual rights group Homan, 4000 lesbians and gays had been executed since the 1979 Islamic revolution (a revolution no different than today's "Arab spring") . This genocide continues to this day.
Where is the outcry from the "moderate
Muslim
majority"? As countless surveys, statistics and the reaction to Peter Tatchell's attempt at solidarity with Muslims in the UK proved, gays may be with Muslims but the majority of Muslims are not with gays. Maybe it's about time some of the politically-driven and self-centered human-rights activists shifted their narrow focus onto those overseas who really could use their voice and influence.
Mahmoud Asgari, 16, & Ayaz Marhoni publicly hanged in 2005 on charges related to sodomy.
An influential Iranian cleric who is entitled to issue juristic rulings according to the Sharia law, has condemned western lawmakers involved in the decriminalisation of homosexuality, saying those politicians are lower than animals.
Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi-Amoli, an Islamic scholar based in Iran's holy city of Qom, said in a speech among his followers that homosexuals are inferior to dogs and pigs, according to the news website Khabaronline.
"If a society commits a new sin, it will face a new punishment," he said while interpreting Qur'anic verses about prophet Lot whose tribe Isalmic scholars say was punished by God for sodomy. "Problems like Aids did not exist before."
Citing the Qur'an, Javadi-Amoli said politicians who pass laws in favour of homosexuals are lower than animals. "Even animals ... dogs and pigs don't engage in this disgusting act [homosexuality] but yet they [western politicians] pass laws in favour of them in their parliaments."
Homosexuality is punishable by death according to fatwas issued by almost all Iranian clerics. Until recently, Lavat (sodomy for men) was punishable by death for all individuals involved in consensual sexual intercourse.
But under new amendments approved recently in the Iranian parliament the person who played an active role will be flogged 100 times if the sex was consensual and he was not married, but the one who played a passive role will still be put to death regardless of his marriage status.
Despite the horrific punishment for homosexuals in Iran, the gay community in the country is alive underground and has won some recognition by coming out in defiance of the regime.
In September 2011, a group of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Iranians launched a campaign on Facebook, highlighting the discrimination against sexual minorities in Iran where homosexuals are put to death.
The following response was posted by Blackmore on the FFI forum. I have reproduced it here exactly as it is over there, but, for the sake of not confusing new readers, I have included a few additional inline links leading directly to the pages on IslamoCriticism which Blackmore is referencing.
REASONINFUSION, I hope you read this. And if you make a video response I’m fine with that.
ISLAMOCRITICISM has already refuted in great detail most of what REASONINFUSION said so I have hardly anything to add and make it a short response.
REASONINFUSION, you call me hypocritical. Muslims have made it a habit of accusing others harshly of things they are committing themselves excessively. For a someone who isn’t deep into the material, especially ignorant non-believers and muslims, it makes it look that muslims are clean of the things they accuses the others of. Let’s be real, if someone accuses another of being a murderer, the message is that they accuser is not a murderer. If he nevertheless turns out to be a murderer to than he shows to be a shameless hypocrite.
Last week on Dutch television was a muslim complaining about the terrible state of the country. One of the things he said that Holland was a free heaven for paedophiles. The message was that islam does not allow such thing. How low can you go? Sure the people who have never heard of Aisha fall in this trap. But it may make muslims wonder why they need a strategy of promoting islam by accusing others of things that islam permits. REASONINFUSION does this all the time!
REASONINFUSION doesn’t feel shame, to make islam look good, to make a big deal of western slavery which lasted only 300 years and was abandoned by it’s own insights. For sure it wasn’t abandoned because of pressure from the Islamic world. And in opposite, under western pressure, the last countries on earth to officially abandon slavery were the very Islamic Sudan and Mauritania. And that was in the last decades of the 20th century! But somehow, REASONINFUSION’s wrath still lays in the 300 years of western slavery which is long gone. While at the same time he doesn’t even mention the horrors Islamic slavery which will last forever. This just proves how little arguments there are to defend islam. To justify islam he has to resort to accusing the others, of something bad muslims permit themselves, while the others don’t do it anymore. On top of that he even has the guts and shamelessness to call the others hypocritical!
And than REASONINFUSION talks about censorship. He justifies the censorship goning on in Islamic countries, after I’d mention that Saudi Arabia blocks 5000 western websites, by that in the western world there is also censorship. Again he takes to make islam look examples of others of similar behaviour. But he does not come up with any example of what websites that may be. As far as I know only websites with paedophile content are here forbidden. I can’t think of anything else. We even allow websites where the norms and values of a primitive 7th century Arab desert tribe are promoted. But maybe REASONINFUSION can put a little more light on what websites he has in mind which are forbidden here but shouldn’t be…
And than REASONINFUSION talks about lying. That was in response to my remarke that Islam allows lying. Again, he justifies Islam, and it’s condoning of lying by religious law, by giving examples of others who lie. Even our governments lie to us he says. On that I agree! Although it’s not the subject I can come up with many examples of our leaders lying. George Bush and Tony Blair telling what a great and peaceful religion islam is comes to my mind.
In Sahih Muslim 15:4052 the following is said: “Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him) said: He who took an oath and (later on) found something better than that should do that, and expiate for (breaking) his vow.” IMO the Syrian government is a good applicator of Muhammad’s words by constantly breaking the truce they agreed on. They have a lot of benefit on making a truce and even more on breaking it. I’m sure REASONINFUSION agrees with this godly Islamic tactic of breaking oaths set by Muhammad.
I wonder has it ever occurred to REASONINFUSION that there is a change that he may have been lied to also. By people that made him convert to islam I mean. He seems to be very impressed with the line of Muhammad: "there is NO ARAB BETTER THAN A BLACK AND NO BLACK BETTER THAN AN ARAB"
REASONINFUSION said about it:
it should be obvious that any saying attributed to him saying other wise must be highly questioned!
Well this line turned out to be a proven fabrication. Muhammad never said such thing! But according to REASONINFUSION any saying attributed to Muhammad saying otherwise must be highly questioned. Well, as it turns out, we only have Muhammad saying things otherwise! This must give an indication that in REASONINFUSION’s view the official utterly discriminating content of islam is not that good. Why else did say that any saying attributed to Muhammad otherwise must be highly questioned? These things saying attributed to Muhammad otherwise is what is all that there is left for him...
Muslims often claim lying in Islam is restricted to its use in war, but in the following narration, Muhammad permits a Muslim to lie in order to kill Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet who wrote an anti-Muslim poem which offended him.
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab)." The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me." Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you." Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Kab replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka'b said. "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as 'Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka'b replied. "I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."
I replied to REASONINFUSION earlier. My response can be read here. Blackmore wanted to put his reply directly under the video at Youtube but is still blocked by REASONINFUSION. So I'll be posting his response here.
Hi REASONINFUSION, here’s Blackmore. I hope you can read this. First I’ve never made a point to be proud to be Dutch. Although I’m not ashamed of it either. I only mentioned I’m not American but Dutch, so I can’t say anything bad about your founding fathers. As far slavery concerns, I have, repeatedly, called that inhuman. By that I condemn everybody who was or is involved, including my own folks the Dutch. I’ don’t think this is so hard to understand.
In our previous discussion I brought it repeatedly up that you would never speak out that slavery is inhuman. And I was right! I challenged you to but you never did. Maybe as a person, as a human, you may find that slavery inhuman, but you can’t say that because that would implicitly condemn the slave trader and catcher Muhammad, of which all examples are good. By not condemning slavery you proof of my previous point that Islam decides what your norms and values are.
There’s a whole lot of injustice in the world but it beats me how your eye fell on Islam as the medicine. Everytime Islam gets attacked an example of injustice elsewhere follows. An imperfection gets justified with another imperfection. If Islam was really perfect, a perfect example, on which every sane person agrees on, should follow. Not an example which only is good in the eyes of primitive 7th century Arabs or their descendants who are stuck in their 7th century believes.
Don’t say Islam is the region of the Blackman because it isn’t. The negro race is probably the race that has suffered the most because of Islam. That it didn’t happen in America doesn’t mean Islam is for the Blackman. If you really want to fight white racists, the KKK, or who ever, with Islam, you’re just as monstrous as who you fight.
After writing my reply, I realized REASONINFUSION had made another video addressing both of us again. Being the vulgar piece of work that he is, he now brings our mothers and sisters into the equation. I may respond to this video in a day or two if I have the time and can be bothered, but, honestly, there is little worth addressing. What I will say for now is, my mother was a teenage Muslim bride when she lost her virginity. Not quite the answer REASONINFUSION was looking for, is it?
Again from Blackmore:
REASONINFUSION uploaded another video. I'll respond to it sunday or monday.
Here’s a short response. REASONINFUSION claims that Muhammad stayed faithful during his 25 year marriage with Khadija. Well as soon as she died he jumped from one woman on the other. In no-time after her dead he was married with about thirteen woman. By no means this is the behaviour you expect of a grieving widower. His 25 year faithful marriage with Khadija proves that, since s Khadija was a rich widow when she married Muhammad, she was the boss. In English it doesn’t rime but in Dutch we say, ‘who pays, who decides’. REASONINFUSION how can you be so blinded that you can’t see this…
Over a week ago I posted a debate between a racist black Muslim Youtuber named REASONINFUSION and a Dutch atheist named Blackmore. The reason I posted it here was because REASONINFUSION decided to delete the entire exchange. He says he deleted it because Blackmore was "attacking Islam" and that he allegedly refused to condemn others who had practiced slavery.
Just like numerous other apologists for Islam who have no other option than to resort to fallacious tu quoque arguments to defend the indefensible, the fact that the video was titled "Slavery in Islam", thereby the topic of discussion between them was of slavery in Islam seems to be lost on REASONINFUSION. Read the entire exchange between them and decide for yourself if Blackmore refused to condemn slavery carried out by the Americans.
Today I came across a new video by REASONINFUSION addressed to both me and Blackmore. Like his replies to Blackmore in the debate that I previously had the displeasure of viewing, it consists mostly of fallacious, overtly racist, and convoluted nonsense. So I won't be deconstructing it as thoroughly as I usually do when I reply to others, but I will do him the courtesy of replying to some of his false assumptions about me and the questions he posed to me. Blackmore's response can be read here.
"Some of the slaves brought over from Africa to America were brought over on The Good Ship Jesus." [1:11-1:18]
And throughout America's history of enslavement, a lot of those innocent Africans were sold to the whites by African Muslims, who also happened to trade in white European Christians. The Arab slave trade pre-dates the European slave trade by almost a thousand years and is still going strong in places like Sudan, Yemen and Mauritania where they often explicitly use their Islamic beliefs to justify owning other humans. The number of black Africans enslaved by Europeans is dwarfed by the number of Africans who were enslaved or perished at the hands of Islamic slavers. Unlike in the West, there has neverbeen an abolition movement from within Islam. Even today there are many examples of prominent Muslims, scholars and politicians, who endorse slavery on religious grounds, citing Islam's theology and the example of Muhammad as justifications.
"I assume that this [IslamoCriticism] is a white man, or a white women." [2:15-2:18]
Then he assumes wrong. Anyone who follows my blog would be aware that I'm South Asian.
"Maybe IslamoCriticism overlooked the fact that Blackmore is proud of being Dutch" [2:27-2:32]
No, I haven't overlooked anything. REASONINFUSION is proud of being black, I'm proud of being Bangladeshi, and (according to REASONINFUSION) Blackmore is proud of being who he is. What is wrong with any of that? Black Muslims in Nigeria, Somalia, and so forth, are busy killing non-Muslims, gays, and apostates. Does that make REASONINFUSION any less proud of being black or a Muslim? Clearly not. Is he now going to dig up some dirt on South Asians or the very short history of Bangladesh to use in slandering my ethnicity?
"My question for IslamoCriticism is if he is so well read, how come he hasn't put forth the fact ... that the Dutch were the first people to import black slaves to the new-world" [2:55-3:11]
I never claimed to be "well read". In his racist response to Blackmore, REASONINFUSION notes that he was a philosophy major and the product of parents who also were very educated, and that he knew whites were raping, warmongering savages long before his ironic conversion to a religion founded by a raping, warmongering white Arab. Unlike REASONINFUSION, I have had little in the way of a formal education and both my parents were poor illiterate villagers.
Blacks embracing Islam must be one of the worlds greatest ironies. As I noted previously, I find it offensive when learning of blacks who have converted to Islam. It is as puzzling to me as a Jew embracing Nazism or a black person embracing the KKK. Muhammad regulated the practice of slavery and allowed for the manumission of a slave, but this is by no means an obligation. In Islam the freeing of a slave is like an "indulgence". Therefore, it is seen as apunishment and as a way to atone for previous "sins" and score some brownie points with Allah.
Back to the question at hand; REASONINFUSION asks, why didn't I tell my readers the "Dutch were the first people to import black slaves to the new-world"?
This is a ridiculous question that hardly deserves a response, but for the sake of avoiding any misunderstandings, I will answer. I was clearly not writing an in-depth essay, or even a vague summary, of the history of slavery. I was simply introducing a debate between REASONINFUSION and Blackmore discussing slavery in Islam, whilst also pointing out the use of fabricated nonsense by REASONINFUSION. My introduction was a measly 6 sentences in length. How and why would anyone expect me to cover such a thing in such a short space? There is an appropriate time and place for everything, but discussing the Dutch in an introduction to a debate on slavery in Islam is not it.
A more salient question would be, why didn't REASONINFUSION tell his readers about the Dutch slave trade? Even after Blackmore told him he was a Dutch, REASONINFUSION continued in his use of tu quoque against America. So basically what this boils down to is the fact that REASONINFUSION is mad at me for his own incompetence. The guy can't even use logical fallacies effectively.
"How come he [IslamoCriticism] has not critisized Blackmore for being proud of being Dutch " [3:19-3:23]
I have already partly covered this above in my response to [2:27-2:32]. I would also add; unlike REASONINFUSION, I'm not a bigoted racist. There is a big difference between religion/ideology and race/ethnicity, something that he fails to grasp. I criticize Islam because it is a religion and political ideology that is inherently racist and promotes such abhorrent things as owning other humans. As far as I'm aware, Blackmore is not a slaver, and humans do not have a hereditary "slaver gene" that holds the descendants of people from a country that partook in such barbarity, as responsible for their past actions. If there were such a gene, then the blacks in America would be just as guilty because it was African Muslims who sold many of their descendants to the whites.
"Why are you [Blackmore] so proud of being Dutch when your people were the first white people to bring slaves to America?" [3:55-4:00]
Why is REASONINFUSION so proud of being Muslim and black, when the Muslim Arabs and then the Muslim Africans who converted were enslaving black Africans long before the Europeans?
"And to IslamoCriticism, how about spreading your criticism? How about some Dutch criticism and some American criticism and some white criticism and some Christian criticism?" [4:29-4:39]
REASONINFUSION clearly has not read anything on my blog, otherwise he would be aware that I often criticize white racism, especially that of the racist BNP.
If that isn't clear enough for REASONINFUSION, let me make it a little clearer; racism and slavery are both disgusting things. I condemn anyone who is racist or has ever owned, bought or sold another human being. Someone who is capable of doing such a thing is not worthy of being classed as a human. In my eyes, they are sub-humans worse than pigs.
F--k all the Americans, Dutch, Europeans, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and anyone else who has ever owned, bought or sold another human being, or has discriminated against anyone for their race or caste. F--k the slaving and raping founding fathers of America, and f--k the white fat slaving bastard known as Muhammad.
Now can REASONINFUSION condemn racism and the owning of human beings in the clear-cut, jargon-free fashion that I have? Of course he can't, because that would mean he'd have to condemn that fat, white, slaving bastard known as Muhammad, someone who actually bought more slaves once Allah "empowered him" with his message. Obviously that message did not include erasing the abhorrent institution of slavery. Allah was too busy outright banning comparatively harmless activities such as gambling, alcohol, and even noble practices such as adoption, in order to accommodate situations in Muhammad's life as they arose.
"Stop hiding behind a moral ethic that we know you do not live according to, nor do your parents or grand parents. Where is your record for civil rights? [...] Do you work on the behalf of non-whites? I doubt that very seriously." [4:38-5:17]
I'm not hiding behind anything. Where I'm from, it's extremely offensive to bring ones parents into the discussion in such a derogatory manner. Nevertheless, I concede the fact that they'll both probably die as Muslims is a shameful thing, considering how our ancestors were Hindus who were slaughtered in the millions by Islamic imperialists.
As for caring about what happens in Africa, I love Africa and care very much for the wellbeing of black Africans. Human life began there, so, in a sense, we're all Africans. This alone should fill the Africans with pride, I know it would me.
Finally, as I've already mentioned, I speak out against many things on this blog, elsewhere on the net and more so in my life, this includes speaking out against racism amongst the whites.
This is unforgivable. This only further proves that the life of children belonging to ethnic minorities is worth less, in the eyes of the British elite, than those of whites. How they could ever pervert something as noble as the idea of multiculturalism into what it is now, I will never understand.
A mother who gave birth to a baby girl in 'secret' following an affair, let her newborn die before burying its body in the ground.
Fatima Ali, from Bury, Greater Manchester, feared she would bring shame upon her devout Muslim family for having the child out of wedlock.
And after giving birth to the infant - alone her bedroom, she cut the umbilical chord and left it to die.
Last Friday at Bolton Crown Court Ali burst into tears as she was given a 26-week prison sentence, suspended for two years, and subjected to a twelve month supervision order.
Sentencing, Judge John Appleby said, 'You failed to seek medical assistance following the birth of your daughter.
'The tragedy that followed is at the immense disaster for this child. She died within two hours of her birth, and, had you acted appropriately, her life could have been saved.
'There’s no evidence that you ill-treated or assaulted the child and it’s still a mystery perhaps as to the course of action you took following her birth.'
'This is a tragedy and the result of your actions will be with you for the rest of your life.'
Earlier the court heard that Fatima lived with her aunt and uncle.
Her family had disapproved of her relationship with Kazi Mohammed Dilwar Hussein and, when she had fallen pregnant, her partner gave her money to have an abortion in Birmingham in 2009.
Nazir Afzal, Greater Manchester Chief Crown Prosecutor said: 'Whatever the community or familial dishonour or shame, real or perceived, that Ali may have felt, it did not justify the tragic death of the most vulnerable victim, a new born baby boy or girl.
'Life is a precious thing and not something to be thrown away in a nearby garden.'
Defending, Lisa Roberts, said her client had made a bad decision and was still physically and emotionally in shock for some time after the birth.
Roberts added that having been raised by her aunt, she effectively had two families to disobey by having a baby out of wedlock due to their culture.
Miss Roberts noted: 'She went out with her family that same evening. What else was she to do? She had concealed her pregnancy from those she was closest.
'It was a bit late to be telling them, having given birth in her bedroom, to say she was unable to go out.'
Miss Roberts added it was hard to imagine the circumstances which Fatima faced.
'She has genuine remorse and genuine understanding of what she has done and why she has done it.
Miss Roberts said Ali realised how foolish she had been getting involved with a man who had promised to marry and support her, but instead left the country.
Her phone revealed numerous texts between the defendant and her partner - who was out the country, one of which included a photograph of the baby.
The court also heard how Fatima's entire family had since been ostracised by community members, not only for what she has done, but also because of the relationship she had out of wedlock.
Roberts continued: 'She has cultural processes, that some cannot begin to understand, that still play a significant part in her life.'
Muslims and their apologists often attempt to compare the Islamic observance of hijab with the wearing of the religious habit by Catholic nuns. This comparison is fundamentally
flawed and is one of many fallacious tu quoque arguments utilized in defense of Islam. But before we delve into the specifics, it is important to clarify what an Islamic "hijab" actually is. Many people seem to confuse the hijab, an item of clothing, with the observance of hijab:
Hijab Definition
The majority of female Muslims worldwide, following the Islamic requirement of observing Hijab, wear some form of Islamic dress. This ranges anywhere from wearing a simple head covering, to the burqa (a form of "full hijab"), which covers almost all exposed skin.
Full hijab can consist of the following elements:
*Jilbāb; this refers to any long and loose-fitting coat or garment worn by a women.
*Khimar; a scarf or wrap, often referred to simply as 'hijab', used to cover the head and neck.
*Niqāb; a piece of cloth which veils the face.
Some Muslim jurists regard the wearing of a niqab as wajib (mandatory), while others believe it is mustahab (favored by Allah).
Problems
The comparison made between the hijab and habit has many faults, including:
It is a logical fallacy known as a false equivalence. Unlike
the compulsory observance of Hijab for practicing Muslim women,
practicing Christian women are not required to wear a nun's habit.
Naturally, only nuns are.
By becoming nuns, this tiny percentage
of Christian women are choosing with their own freewill to wear the
habit. On the other hand, Muslim women are compelled by their religion to observe some form of hijab.
If she ever were to remove her head covering, unlike Muslim women
(even in America), a nun does not run the risk of being intimidated,
ostracized or honor killed by her co-religionists.
If you will use possibly the most religious women among Christians in this comparison, you will have to do likewise for Muslim women, i.e. those who wear the full hijab. Full hijab is a lot more restrictive
than a nun's habit, covering everything but the eyes (in some cases,
even the eyes are not spared).
Just like a priest or monk, a nun has
the choice to not wear the habit. She can always leave and
still remain an observant Christian. Conversely, a Muslim women
cannot “burn” her hijab (remove all head or facial coverings) and
remain an observant Muslim.
Quoting Bible passages to claim Christian women have to cover their heads is pointless. Religious texts can be interpreted in an infinite amount of ways. What matters is how mainstream Christianity and Islam view the issue.
The Hijab Paradox
Almost all apologists will at the least
concede that the mild form of hijab (the head covering alone) is
compulsory. But If you were to use any of the above and challenge a
Muslims assertion that the hijab and habit are the same thing, no
doubt, they would deny that the hijab is a requirement at all.
This is something that I like to refer to as
the “hijab paradox”. Muslim apologists swear blind that the hijab is "only cultural" when critics point out that it is oppressive to women, but
then claim it is a religious obligation when non-Muslim governments
attempt to ban it. Apparently they want to have one's cake and
(possibly very literally) eat it too.
Yes, we've all seen overweight Muslimahs protesting that "hijab is their choice", but try telling that to Muhammad and Allah or to women in Muslim countries who are routinely flogged or fined for choosing not to wear it.
