* Hence excluding those who out of ignorance supported islam. Klevius thinks former Chief Justice, Lord Phillips (see below) could possibly defend himself in these terms.
Islamic genocides throughout 1400 years makes it by far the worst ideological crime against humanity, known to history. And as you well know, it's still going on!Islam is a hate crime - simple as that! But a racist/sexist hate crime that is given all possibly support while critics are silenced. Why? Precisely because islam is so evil that it offends them who have been trapped in its evil sharia web. And therefore islam's evilness has been wrapped in a "it's-not-islam" self denial which protects the breeding ground for the original evil islam.
Genocide is any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious or atheist group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group (infidels);
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm ("islamophobia" intimidation etc) to members of the group (infidels);
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group (infidels) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (apostasy ban, forcing non-muslims under sharia etc);
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (non-muslim's children in mixed marriages always become muslims according to sharia).
However, in islam's case you may top up the victims of islam's attacks with the biggest and worst slave raiding/trading system ever known to history (and don't forget all the castrated boys the muslims "needed" and that 9 out of 10 never survived the bloody castration). And all of it sanctioned by the Koran. In fact, the whole islamic ideology originated as a (im)moral excuse for evil parasitism.
Klevius judicial key (beginning and end of OIC's sharia declaration that now affects all the world's muslims via UN) to the understanding of texts produced by Klevius and muslims:
Preamble: (OIC member states) agree to issue the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a general guidance for Member States in the Field of human rights.
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.
Islam without sharia as described below is not islam at all and therefore of no interest for "islamophobes" like Klevius and othersSharia is the word for the (im)moral and religious code, as well as the legal code, for muslims. It's deeply hateful, racist and sexist.
Sharia is derived from a variety of sources including the Koran, the ahadith (the sayings and actions of Mohammed), consensus among muslim scholars, and islamic jurisprudence said to be from a god but in reality man made. There are several different ‘schools’ of sharia and some variety of interpretation; however on many major issues – such as those addressed here – there are points of uniformity. However, the most crucial of these points is by far OIC's Cairo declaration (sharia) - also deceitfully called "islamic human rights" - which exempts all the world's muslims from the original Human Rights declaration.
Sharia legal procedures differ dramatically from western processes in that the use of lawyers is not common, and decisions are made by a judge only – there is no jury system. The law of evidence is also vastly different from what we are used to in the West. Oral testimony is prioritised in terms of evidence and the testimony of witnesses is afforded different legal weight – for example a man’s testimony is worth more than a woman’s, and a muslim’s testimony is worth more than that of a non-Muslim.
Klevius is of course not concerned with the personal and private elements of sharia, or islam for that matter, which all people have a right to practice provided they do not break laws guided by Human Rights. Klevius is concerned only with the criminal and political Human Rights violating elements of sharia law, and continues to inform you reader of what these are and how they are currently and 1400 yrs ago manifested worldwide.
Klevius is particularly concerned with the elements of sharia law which are discriminatory and violent towards women and girls, and which endanger and threaten the democratic principle of freedom of speech. Klevius is also deeply concerned about the attitude towards non-muslims, Atheists (incl. Buddhists), Christians, Jews and others that is enshrined in sharia law and expressed through notions of islamic muslim supremacism.
Klevius has, since 9/11, demonstrated that sharia law (islam) is being utilised in ways that are deeply damaging to women’s rights and the rights of children. Klevius has for more than a decade showed that sharia-adherent (islamic) restrictions on free speech have been mainstreamed in the world and the threat that this poses.
Finally, Klevius wants to highlight and examine people and organisations which are promoting and extending the power of sharia law.
The areas of greatest concern with regard to sharia law are:
Freedom of Speech
Other areas of concern:
SPEECH BY LORD PHILLIPS CHIEF JUSTICE
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
EAST LONDON MUSLIM CENTRE
3RD JULY 2008
Klevius info in bracket.
Lord Phillips: A point that the Archbishop was making was that it was possible for individuals
voluntarily to conduct their lives in accordance with Sharia principles without this
being in conflict with the rights guaranteed by our law. To quote him again “the
refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not,
given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the
community of access to that right”.
Klevius: Is he dement or what is going on?! Why would you need sharia if it's only about individuals
voluntarily conducting their lives in concensual agreements within existing UK law?
Lord Phillips: It was not very radical to advocate embracing Sharia Law in the context of family
disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards
accommodating the Archbishop’s suggestion. It is possible in this country for
those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement
shall be governed by a law other than English law. Those who, in this country, are
in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the
mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a
chosen arbitrator or arbitrators.
Lord Phillips: There is no reason why principles of Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.
Klevius: Again, what reason is there to introduce sharia anyway if it's already potentially there in the non-regulated concensual contract sphere? Why use a name for what isn't prohibited by UK law? You don't necessarily name other forms of concensual contracts either, do you! No, the only reason is to enable and protect islamofascist regulations which otherwise would violate UK law. Precisely the same pattern as with OIC when they introduced sharia in the UN for the purpose of being able to violate Human Rights without being held responsible for it.
Lord Phillips: There are now (2008 - 2014 it had increased to the double) about 1.6 million Muslims living in this country. They form a vital and valued element (least employed and most on benefit, "religious teacher" support etc) of British Society. They are well represented by a variety of groups and individuals (in fact they are better represented proportionally than any other group - in BBC programs one easily gets the impression that muslims constitute at least half of the populaton), including the Muslim Council of Britain, whose aims include the fostering of better community relations and working for the good of
society as a whole. That aim is undoubtedly promoted by this impressive Centre.
Klevius: Justice Phillips' beloved London Muslim Centre seems to have developed in quite the opposite direction (see below).
Anne Marie Waters, Sharia Watch UK 2014: Allegations of extremism have long plagued the East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre, particularly with regard to invited speakers. Controversial speakers include:
Moazzam Begg: arrested on terrorism charges in 2014.31
Rizwan Hussain: presenter on the Islam Channel (below).
Shakeel Begg: “And we know jihad in the path of Allah is of the greatest of deeds that a Muslim can take part in.”
Murtaza Khan: “We believe as much in sharia as any other individual. Those stigmas that you find, you know that we don’t believe in the sharia, we don’t want the sharia to rise, we don’t want people to be governed by the sharia etc, that’s just a myth. Every single Muslim is an activist in trying to re-awaken, re-ignite the people to live by the sharia, to accommodate the sharia, to understand the sharia. That’s what we all agree at the end of the day. There are some people who have taken it to a different element, that’s all we’re being wary of. Other than that, we share exactly the same concern inshallah.”32
Haitham al-Haddad (see Islamic Sharia Council above).
Abdurraheem Green: “Let us ask if democracy means that sovereignty is with the people, that the people have the right to decide what’s halal and haram, and it’s up to them, then no Muslim with any mustard seedsworth of imam can agree with this.”33
Bilal Phillips: “For us in Islam, we have a natural principle, a natural dividing line, which is for a woman to be considered an adult, or that she may be married and have sexual relations etc. That dividing line is puberty. So whether one in this society, considers that person still to be a child or not, that’s not the issue. But it remains legitimate, that if a muslim man in his 50s, even today, wanted to marry a young woman who was nine or ten, and she had reached puberty, it is legitimate.”34
The East London Mosque/London Muslim Centre is repeatedly reported as being organised and run by the Islamic Forum of Europe.
Islamic Forum of Europe
The IFE is based in London but boasts several branches around the UK, as well as affiliates throughout western Europe.
One of the founders of the IFE was Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, who was convicted of war crimes in Bangladesh in 2013. Also active is Azad Ali, who supports sharia law and is a key figure in the Unite Against Fascism group.
In 2010 a Telegraph report claimed that the East London Mosque (above) provides for the IFE’s headquarters and that the mosque’s chairman was a former president of the IFE. Furthermore, the director and imam of the mosque were trustees of the IFE.
Andrew Gilligan, writing in the Guardian, stated that recruits to the IFE are told: “Our goal is not simply to invite people and give da'wah [call to the faith]. Our goal is to create the true believer, to then mobilise those believers into an organised force for change who will carry out da'wah, hisbah [enforcement of Islamic law] and jihad [struggle]. This will lead to social change and iqamatud-deen [an Islamic social, economic and political order].”35 The IFE is, in its own words, dedicated to changing the “very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed … from ignorance to Islam.”
In a documentary aired in 2010, Channel 4’s Dispatches went undercover in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and revealed a side of the IFE which contrasts with their claim to promote tolerance.
Included in the transcript of the documentary36 is the following:
Speakers at an IFE training lecture declared “Victory is for Islam and Muslims” and attendees were instructed to identify “who the enemies are, both from outside the circle of Islam and within the circle of Islam.”
Female members of IFE confirmed that all decisions were made by men. It was also revealed that ceiling-high screens were used to remove women from meetings.
The IFE requires hopeful members to take an exam, offer an oath of allegiance, and keep their membership secret.
The IFE reading lists contains a book entitled ‘Let Us Be Muslims’ by Syed Mawdudi. This book urges Muslims “wherever you are, in whichever country you live, you must strive to change the wrong basis of government, and seize all powers to rule and make laws from those who do not fear God.”
According to local MP Jim Fitzpatrick, the IFE is already active in attempting to “change the wrong basis of government”. Fitzpatrick told Dispatches: “The suggestion is that they have councillors, candidates, standing for different parties, in different parts of the country, and that they encourage their members to vote for those candidates regardless of which political party they are representing in the ballot box.”
IFE is particularly engaged with the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets, so much so that the national Labour Party would not allow for independent local candidate selection. A Labour Party spokesman said: “We’re concerned about people joining for the right reasons and are trying to prevent organizations filtering in who may try taking over the party by signing up and ousting existing members.”
One person in Tower Hamlets whose links with the IFE have been particularly controversial is the Borough’s directly elected Mayor, Lutfur Rahman.Formerly the Labour leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Rahman was expelled from the party for alleged links with Islamic extremism – including the IFE.Following his expulsion he stood as an independent and was elected Mayor in 2010.Rahman came under fire in early 2014 when the BBC’s Panorama revealed that he had awarded two and a half times more money than had been recommended, to organisations run by Muslims.
Rahman’s cabinet in Tower Hamlets is made up entirely of Bangladeshi Muslims.Having changed the council policy, Rahman took over exclusive authority of awarding public money to local groups.Following this, there was a “clear diversion of funding away from secular bodies serving the whole community to faith-based or religious groups serving only sections of the community.”37 Awards included:
Bow Muslim Cultural Centre received £10,000 for work simply described as “to be confirmed”.
The East London Mosque received £10,000 for “professional fees” – the mosque has an income of more than £1 million a year.
£32,500 of public money was given to Bengali-language newspapers, media organisations and TV stations who have influence among Rahman’s electorate.
£1,800 to an Islamic religious teachers’ organisation for a day trip to the Isle of Wight.
Complaints from a council officer about awards were ignored.
During his independent candidacy for the mayoralty in 2010, Rahman received the support of the former Labour Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone – who, in supporting Rahman, campaigned against his own party’s candidate. Livingstone has a history of supporting Islamists and was strongly criticised for inviting Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to London; Qaradaw supports female genital mutilation, wife-beating, and believes Hitler’s attempt at wiping out Jews needed to be completed. Furthermore, Livingstone has been a presenter for Press TV, the media arm of the Islamic Regime of Iran – an Islamist state which imposes the death penalty (by stoning) for adultery, hanging for homosexuality, as well as the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy. Livingstone was selected by the Labour Party to be its candidate for the London Mayoralty race of 2012. Following the BBC Panorama exposé in 2014, Livingstone maintained his support for Lutfur Rahman.38
iEngage, also known as Engage, describes itself as a non-profit company which aims to “help empower and encourage British Muslims within local communities to be more actively involved in British media and politics”.39 In 2010 the group issued a press release stating that it would act as secretariat to a new All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia. This committee, chaired by Conservative MP Kris Hopkins with Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes and Labour Peer Lord Janner as vice-chairs, met at the House of Commons in late November 2010 for its launch event. iEngage has however been mired in controversy.
In response to the BBC broadcast “British Schools, Islamic Rules”, which provided clear evidence that children in Britain were being taught hatred for non-Muslims, and Jews in particular, the group offered a rebuke which did not dispute any of the claims made (or which did not disagree with the views expressed), but merely contended that the programme singled out Muslims.
iEngage wrote to the Home Secretary Theresa May in 2010 protesting the exclusion from Britain of Zakir Naik. The group centred its objections on Mr Naik’s right to free expression; its own website however laments “hate speech” when directed at Islam and Muslims.40 The letter to May states that: “unless .. speech demonstrates an actual, evidential causal relationship to incitement to hatred or acts of violence, its curtailment is a gross infringement of the right to free expression”. Included in Naik’s objectionable quotes are: “every Muslim should be a terrorist”. He also believes that all people are born Muslims, and that the death penalty should be applied to those that propagate against the faith.41
iEngage has also attacked the prominent Muslim journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown for her opposition to the burqa and niqab.42
Given all of this, it is pertinent to question the beliefs and motives of iEngage, in particular given some of its senior members. Listed on its website (2012)43 as trustees are Sir Iqbal Sacranie who was one of the founders of the Muslim Council of Britain (see above) and Mohamed Ali Harrath. Mohammed Ali Harrath is a founder of the Tunisian Islamic Front, a radical Islamist group linked to An Nahda, a Tunisian Islamist party led by Rashed al-Ghannoushi, and aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. Harrath has stated: “There is nothing wrong or criminal in trying to establish an Islamic state”. Harrath believes that a Jewish conspiracy controls the United States and has said: “Look at the Zionists in the United States. There’s not that great number [sic]. The United States is nearly 300 million. But they have six million Jews living there. Every single one votes and every single one makes sure he influences many votes. And that’s how they command. That’s how it works.”
In 2011 an article on iEngage claimed that it has also defended the radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir – a group which calls for a global Islamic caliphate under full sharia law.44
Also active in iEngage is Azad Ali, who is involved with the Islamic Forum of Europe and Unite Against Fascism. In 2010 Ed Miliband and Harriet Harman were criticised for speaking at an event at which Mr Ali defended the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.45 In a secret film by Channel 4’s Dispatches, also in 2010, Mr Ali was recorded stating: “Democracy, if it means at the expense of not implementing the sharia, of course no one agrees with that”.46
The Islam Channel is based in central London and claims to provide “alternative news, current affairs and entertainment programming from an Islamic perspective.”47 It is a venture of the Dawah Project,48 a registered charity which aims to “spread Islam” by utilising the media.
In 2010 the Islam Channel offered some insight in to what kind of Islam it intends to spread. On one occasion a presenter defended marital violence by stating: “it shouldn't be such a big problem where the man feels he has to force himself upon the woman”.49 On a second occasion a contributor confirmed the sharia belief that it is permissible to hit a woman provided no great physical damage is caused. He said: “In Islam we have no right to hit the woman in a way that damages her eye or damages her tooth or damages her face or makes her ugly. Maximum what you can do, you can see the pen over here, in my hand, this kind of a stick can be used just to make her feel that you are not happy with her.” Ofcom found the Islam Channel to be in breach of its Broadcasting Code; it did not however impose a fine.
Later, in 2013, the channel again came to the attention of Ofcom – this time a fine of £85,000 was imposed when a presenter advocated the killing of those deemed guilty of blasphemy. Allama Muhammad Farooq Nizami, in response to a viewer’s question on showing disrespect to the prophet Mohammed, declared: “there is no disagreement about this. There is absolutely no doubt about it that the punishment for the person who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death.”50
Islamic Human Rights Commission
The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) is a non-profit organisation based in London. Its stated mission is to “work with different organizations from Muslim and non-Muslim backgrounds, to campaign for justice for all peoples regardless of their racial, confessional or political background.”51 The group was established in 1997 and has consultative status with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism has written of IHRC:
“The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) is a radical Islamist organization that uses the language and techniques of a human rights lobbying group to promote an extremist agenda. Formed in 1997 by its current chairman, Massoud Shadjareh, the IHRC supports jihad groups around the world, campaigns for the release of convicted terrorists and promotes the notion of a western conspiracy against Islam. Shadjareh and the IHRC subscribe to the radical Islamist belief that Jewish conspiracies are afoot to undermine Muslims, and they liken Jews and Israelis to Nazis. Members of the IHRC's board of advisors have even called on Muslims to kill Jews. They include the Saudi Islamist Muhammad al-Mas‘ari and Muhammad al-‘Asi, an American convert to Islam who was banned from preaching at his mosque in Washington, D.C., and has been a frequent visitor to Britain.”
The group organises an annual “Islamophobia Awards” ceremony52 in London and has received messages of support from former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Lord Nazir Ahmed, and Sarah Teather MP, among others.
One nominee for the “Islamophobia Awards” 2014 was Maajid Nawaz53, co-founder and Chairman of the anti-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation and the Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn in the 2015 General Election. Nawaz had appeared on BBC’s The Big Questions in January 2014, together with two LSE students who in October 2013 had been prevented by their university from visibly wearing innocuous t-shirts depicting the prophet Mohammed. The students were told they would be physically removed from their freshers’ fair unless they covered up their t-shirts, and that their t-shirts were “offensive” and “harassing”. LSE subsequently apologised but only after the students formally instructed a QC and a firm of solicitors.
Nawaz made it clear on the programme that he, as a Muslim, was not offended by the t-shirts and that the students had the right to wear them. Shortly after the programme Nawaz tweeted54 one of the images and again said that it was not offensive. He then received a number of death threats55 and there was a concerted (but unsuccessful) effort to remove him as a PPC. A central figure in this campaign was Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation. Shafiq referred to Nawaz in a tweet as “Gustake Rasool”, which means “Defamer of Prophets” and is a religious and legal charge punishable by a death sentence in Pakistan. Nawaz travels regularly to Pakistan and has family there. Shafiq also tweeted56: “We will notify all muslim organisations in the UK of his despicable behaviour and also notify Islamic countries”. Shafiq is a member of the Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats group but, to date, that group and the Liberal Democrats appear not to have taken any action against him.
Rather than take the opportunity to display a firm commitment to a fellow Muslim’s human right to free speech in the face of significant religious intimidation against him, in choosing to shortlist Nawaz for their “Islamophobia Awards” the IHRC seems to have chosen to humiliate and ostracise him, and to reinforce (often deadly) Islamic blasphemy codes.
IHRC supports Hezbollah and has hosted Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky, head of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, at a “Spirit of Islamist Activism” event in London. Sheikh Zakzaky has referred to Jews as “the lowest creatures on earth”.57 Hezbollah has been declared a terrorist organisation by the United States, the Netherlands, France, the UK, Australia, Canada, the EU, and the Gulf Cooperation Council.
IHRC has also campaigned for the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, currently serving a life sentence in the US for his part in the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Centre in 1993.58
According to a report in 2010 the National Association of Muslim Police had recommended that British Muslims, when reporting crimes, should also “report any such actions to the Islamic Human Rights Commission”.59 This is despite the fact that: “the IHRC some time ago claimed to have cut its ties with the British police and refuses to co-operate with them because it regards the police (in the words of the IHRC's senior spokesperson) to be "insincere (to put it politely), hypocritical, having double standards"”.58
London Central Mosque (Regent’s Park Mosque)
Completed in 1978, Regent’s Park Mosque has hosted such distinguished figures as Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and former Home Secretary Jack Straw. It is widely regarded as the most influential mosque in the UK and, according to Channel 4’s Dispatches, says it is committed to interfaith dialogue.
A year after Dispatches investigated major mosques in the UK (in “Undercover Mosque”), its team went undercover again. Regent’s Park was not shown in a positive light.
Women are not permitted to enter the main hall of Regent’s Park Mosque but are provided with separate facilities. Dispatches sent a female reporter with a hidden camera to attend some classes for women in the mosque. Children were present when the following recordings were made:
Instructor: He is Muslim, and he gets out of Islam, he doesn’t want any more. What are we going to do? We kill him. Kill. You have to kill him, do you understand?
Instructor: The judgment for adultery, what is the law? Pupil: Stone him. Instructor: Until he dies. And the one who is not married? Pupils: Lash him, lash him. Instructor: Yes, with 100 lashes.
Instructor: If someone make themselves like a man, a woman like a man. The punishment is kill…kill them. Throw them from the highest place. We are not going to be like animals, living like animals. Or to be like the people of Lut (homosexuals), we have to take the judgement, the judgement is to kill them. Pupil: The punishment for homosexuals is to throw them from the highest point and then stone them. Pupil reading from the Koran: “Then we reduced him to the lowest of the low”, so if you throw someone off a mountain, you are reducing them to the lowest of the low, because they are falling off the highest place.
Instructor: This is not to tell you to start killing people, there must be a Muslim leader. When the Muslim army becomes stronger, when Islam has grown enough.
Instructor: It is not enough that you worship Allah, we have to also in our heart hate what displeases Allah and love what Allah loves. You have to hate what displeases Allah, especially when living in this country, with that non-Muslim. Pupil (reading from the Koran): “Verily we are free from you and whatever you worship beside Allah, we have rejected you and there has appeared between us and you hostility and hatred forever, until you believe in Allah alone.” Instructor: Islam is keeping away from disbelief and from the disbelievers.
Instructor: To be a good friend, to give them all our secrets? No, you understand? You don’t have to be friends with them, that is not allowed, because loyalty is only to the Muslim not to the kaffir.
At a meeting to promote “interfaith dialogue”, members of different faiths gathered for a discussion. When non-Muslims left, the tone of the meeting changed from civil and tolerant to the following:
Instructor: We feel nothing sometimes going past the church. We don’t look at it in disgust and think ‘what are those people doing in there?’ What they say with their tongues is so vile and disgusting, it’s an abomination.
On non-Muslim faiths, the following is taught: [The Muslim] shouldn’t just be indifferent and say things like ‘you go to the church, I go to the mosque’, lets all stay together like one big, happy family and all be united as humanity, this is false – it does not work. This concept is a lie, it is a fake and a farce.
All of the above instructors were trained in Saudi Arabia and told the reporter that they were delivering Saudi teachings. Dispatches revealed that the Regent’s Park Mosque is heavily funded by the Saudi government and that its director is a Saudi diplomat who enjoys diplomatic immunity. When questioned on the teachings above, Ahmed al Dubayan replied: “The ICC [Islamic Cultural Centre] is committed to interfaith and cross-cultural understanding. It does not support or condone extreme views, racial hatred, violence or intolerance.”
As well as the speeches recorded above, the bookshop attached to the mosque has been found to be selling DVDs preaching hatred of women in particular. One such DVD features Murtaza Khan (above) who declares: “The mental capacity of this society teaches you ‘I am a woman in my own right, I can get my own job, I can get my own funding, I can get my own welfare, I can get my own flat, I can get my own home, I can get my own state benefit – I don’t need you in my life’, what is that? Deception of the devil. Man is stronger than women, but men today don’t know how to take care of their families, that’s why their women walk loose, their women speak loose, and that’s their evil society and Muslim society is becoming like that today”.
Several other DVDs including speakers condemning non-Muslims and referring to Jews as “pigs” whose “time will come” were found to be on sale. Ahmed al Dubayan insists that the bookshop is independent of the mosque and that he has objected to the DVDs on sale.
Mosques engaged in underage marriage
In 2013 an ITV documentary found 18 imams at major mosques in Britain agreeing to marry underage girls. One of these mosques was the Central Jamia Masjid Ghamkol Sharif Mosque in Birmingham, the second largest mosque in Britain. The film involved two reporters, posing as the mother and brother of a 14-year-old girl, saying they wished to marry a young female family member against her will.
One of the reporters, posing as an older brother, approached a representative of the Central Jamia Mosque, Ghamkol Sharif, and asked him to marry his 14-year old sister to a 20-year old man. He was told: “In Islamic law she is ok to get married because she will be the age of maturity”.
The representative acknowledged that the age of sexual consent and marriage in the UK is 16 but on hidden camera he states: “Obviously, you take Islam as priority over the law of the land. But then we do consider the law of the land, but then we’ve got to look at what Islam says and that’s why I’ve got the right from a mufti, they say do it. If anyone, any authority finds out, anyone finds out, then what are you going to do?” The reporter asks if it is ok for the young girl to live with her new husband following the marriage, and is told: “She’s married, she’s married. By sharia, grace of God, she’s legal to get married and there’s nothing against that. We’re doing it because it’s ok through Islam but then you’ve got the kaffirs, the law, the English people, you know, that you know you can’t get married twice but, by the grace of God, we can get married 4 times. Obviously, Islam has made it easy for us. They don’t understand, that’s the only problem”.
The response of The Central Jamia Mosque Ghamkol Sharif in Birmingham was this: “though Islamic sharia law allows marriages in special circumstances in the Muslim world when girls reach puberty, with the consent of the girls and parents concerned, we do not live in a Muslim country, so we do not practice that”. Note, again, the absence of moral condemnation.
Another cleric who agreed to marry the 14-year old girl was Mufti Shams al-Huda al-Misbahi, who preaches at the Jamia Masjid Kanzul Iman Mosque in Heckmondwike near Leeds. The reporter, still posing as a brother, states: “She's not willing now, but she will be”. Misbahi responds: “If you make her willing, she will be willing.” He is then recorded saying that he would perform the marriage without providing an official marriage certificate valid under British law. “We'll make everything okay by Islam. We'll write down and put it in our records.” Misbahi goes on to tell the undercover reporter that the girl will be able to live with her new husband after the ceremony.
Mufti Misbahi has worked with the West Yorkshire Police as an advisor on community cohesion, and has publicly condemned forced marriage for many years.
In all, 18 out of the 56 mosques contacted agreed to carry out underage marriages.60
Approach of the legal profession
In March 2014 the Law Society, which is the representative body for all solicitors in England and Wales, issued guidance, by way of a formal practice note, on how to incorporate sharia law provisions in wills61. This guidance contains the following provisions which discriminate against women, non-Muslims, and “illegitimate” and adopted children:
“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.”
“…illegitimate and adopted children are not Sharia heirs.”
The guidance does not change the law, and in any case under the English law principle of testamentary freedom testators are free to “discriminate” if they so wish, as long as they provide for their dependants in accordance with the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
In response to criticism that it was endorsing discrimination and sharia law, the Law Society’s president Nicholas Fluck said62:
“We live in a diverse multi-faith, multi-cultural society…The Law Society responded to requests from its members for guidance on how to help clients asking for wills that distribute their assets in accordance with Sharia practice.”
It is a cause of significant concern to Sharia Watch UK that the legal establishment – which if anything should be calling attention to the danger sharia law poses to fundamental legal rights and the rule of law – should choose instead to issue formal guidance on how to use sharia law. Sharia Watch UK believes that in issuing this guidance the Law Society, whatever its intentions, is being seen to legitimise, endorse and give credibility to sharia law, not only in the area of wills and succession but more generally.
58. a. b. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100023272/the-truth-abou...
Iyad Madani, the Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based OIC, the worst Human Rights violator, represents islam and the world's muslims!
Klevius urgent advice to cure ignorance about islam: Read and listen to an intelligent woman like Ayaan Hirsi Ali!