In a free society every man has the right to measure another man by his deeds and express his opinion openly

Israeli police arrested a fourth person for calling Mohammed a pig. Avia Morris, the first person arrested described being taunted with cries of “Allahu Akbar”  and “Kill the Jews” along with signs of support for ISIS. But it only became a legal matter when the twenty-year-old woman retorted, “Mohammed is a pig.”

Calling for the death of infidels isn’t a crime. Insulting Mohammed is.

Avia got off lucky. When a young woman named Tatiana Soskin drew Mohammed as a pig scrawling in a Koran, the Clinton administration was more outraged by this than by the World Trade Center bombing.

Its spokesman said that it gave “great thought to this… at the very highest levels of our government.”

It denounced the “outrageous, crude and sick portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed” and claimed, “This woman is either sick or she is evil… she deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam.”

That rant didn’t come from some storefront Mullah or Bin Laden clutching his assault rifle in a cave on an Al Jazeera video. It came from the twisted mind of a sick and evil appeasement administration.

Sick and evil might have been a better description of Mohammed’s practice of sex slavery than of a young woman who drew a cartoon of a rapist as a pig. When the Caliph of the Islamic State was revealed to have taken American hostage Kayla Mueller as his slave, he was following the law of Mohammed.

As ISIS put it, “Enslaving the families of the kuffar (non-Muslims) and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah (Islamic law) that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Koran and the narrations of the Prophet.”

Was Mohammed a pig? He raped a little girl, forced his son to divorce his slave wife so he could have her, and took a number of captured non-Muslim women as slaves the same way the ISIS Caliph did. Their numbers included a number of captured Jewish women, Safiyah and Rayhana, as well as Arab women such as Juwayriyah. Rape and sexual slavery was a way of life for Mohammed and his men.

By any civilized standard, Mohammed was a pig and worse. And yet instead of calling out those who praise a rapist and a pedophile, we lock up the young women who dare call out his piggishness.

There is no reason to be surprised that these piggish habits should also be a way of life for his followers.

As we consider the fate of Kayla Mueller or of the thousands of girls groomed to be sex slaves to Muslim men in the UK, we must conclude that what happened to them took place because our societies have failed to tell the truth about Mohammed.

The response to Muslim violence has been greater extremes of censorship. There is a direct connection between the amount of protective censorship imposed on any criticism of Islam and Islamic violence. The Clinton administration rant about Tatiana’s cartoon took place after the World Trade Center bombing. And yet it would have been unthinkable then to lock up a Mohammed filmmaker, as Hillary and Obama did after the Benghazi massacre. Each new atrocity creates new momentum for censorship.

The Israeli police behave the way they do because the authorities are desperate to keep some kind of peace and it is always easier to censor, arrest and control non-Muslims than Muslims. That is also why the authorities in European countries are far more willing to lock up those who burn the Koran or criticize Islam than the Salafis who patrol the streets as Sharia police and call for a Caliphate.

This is not tolerance. It’s appeasement. It’s cowardice and treason.

We are in a race between collapsing systems struggling to prop up an impossible situation despite the outbursts of violence and those who tell the truth about them. The worse the situation becomes, the more the systems will try to retain control through censorship. Unable to control the followers of Mohammed, they will instead seek to control those who tell the truth about him.

Telling the truth will become more dangerous, but it will also save lives.

If Kayla Mueller had known the truth about Mohammed, she might never have gone to Syria. If more mothers and fathers in the UK had known the truth about Mohammed, they might have been better able to protect their daughters. If more people in America and Europe knew about Mohammed, they might demand that their governments let fewer migrants in who believe Mohammed is a role model.

What is happening in the Islamic State is only a more open version of what is already taking place in the West. Slavery has returned to America, not under the Confederate flag, but under the Saudi flag. The Muslim sex grooming in the UK does not come with its own flag, but with the Koran. And Muslims in this country continue to try and bring non-Muslim women out of this country to serve ISIS.

The Yazidi little girls enslaved by ISIS, just as little girls in the UK were enslaved by Muslim migrants, were told by their captors that raping them was a prayer to Allah.

“According to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever,” a twelve-year-old girl was told. “He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to Allah.”

As Islam spreads across the West, we are all drawing closer to Allah. Portions of cities go dark and become no-go zones. Terrible things happen there that no one talks about. It’s important to talk about them. But it’s also important to talk about what ties together the little girls in the Islamic State and the United Kingdom, the slave trade of over a thousand years and Mohammed’s wives.

And that is Mohammed. Mohammed was a pig. We can and should say it. As many times as it takes. He is not a role model. He is not a prophet. It’s not the women who call him a pig who are sick and evil.

It’s those who imitate and defend his sick and evil ways.

Telling the truth about Mohammed is more than a statement. It’s not a mere provocation. It saves lives.

(This article originally appeared in another form at Front Page Magazine)

– See more at:

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 2: Britain

  • “There’s things that I see when I’m driving around Birmingham that shouldn’t be happening. I only drive into these areas, never actually walk into these areas, I just wouldn’t. Just in case I did do something that…because of their culture or their religion it was a threat or it was an insult or something.” — Resident of Birmingham.
  • “There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve the police at all… there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves.” — Sir Tom Winsor, chief inspector of the police forces in England and Wales.
  • “We are sleepwalking our way to segregation. We are becoming strangers to each other and leaving communities to be marooned outside the mainstream.” — Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.
  • “One of the results of [multiculturalism] has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into ‘no-go’ areas where adherence to this ideology [of Islamic extremism] has become a mark of acceptability.” — Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester.

This is the second article in a multi-part series documenting so-called no-go zones in Europe. The first article in this series documents no-go zones in France. This second segment focuses on the United Kingdom. It provides a brief compilation of references to British no-go zones by academic, police, media and government sources.

An erroneous claim on American television that Birmingham, England, is “totally Muslim” and off-limits to non-Muslims has ignited a politically charged debate about the existence of no-go zones in Britain and other European countries.

No-go zones can be defined as Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are de facto off limits to non-Muslims due to a number of factors, including the lawlessness, insecurity or religious intimidation that often pervades these areas.

In some no-go zones, host-country authorities are unable or unwilling to provide even basic public aid, such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services, out of fear of being attacked by Muslim gangs that sometimes claim control over such areas.

Muslim enclaves in European cities are also breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism.

Europe’s no-go zones are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to remain segregated from — rather than become integrated into — their European host nations.

The problem of no-go zones is well documented, but multiculturalists and their politically correct supporters vehemently deny that they exist. Some are now engaged in a concerted campaign to discredit and even silence those who draw attention to the issue — often by deliberately mischaracterizing the term “no-go zone.”

Islam expert Andrew C. McCarthy has offered a lucid clarification of what no-go zones are and of what they are not:

“[N]o sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouragedfrom entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.

“White Flight”

In the United Kingdom, much of the debate over no-go zones — in Britain they are sometimes referred to as “Muslim areas” or “Muslim enclaves” — has focused on “white flight,” the large-scale migration of native white Britons out of a given neighborhood as more and more Muslim and other immigrants move in.

Although the issue of “white flight” remains taboo for British multiculturalists, official statistics and academic research confirm that many British cities are undergoing huge demographic transformations due to mass immigration.

A study by Oxford Professor David Coleman showed that if current immigration levels continue, white Britons will be a minority in little more than 50 years — within the lifespan of most young adults alive today. Coleman warned that this will be accompanied by a total change in national identity—cultural, political, economic and religious. He wrote: “The ethnic transformation implicit in current trends would be a major, unlooked-for, and irreversible change in British society, unprecedented for at least a millennium.”

A recent study by the think tank Demos found that native white Britons are increasingly abandoning parts of the country where Muslim immigrants have become the majority of the population. Demos wrote:

“In these areas, departing white British are replaced by immigration or by the natural growth of the minority population. Over time, the end result of this process is a spiral of white British demographic decline.”

An example of this trend is Birmingham. In August 2007, researchers at Manchester Universitypredicted that the number of native white Britons in Birmingham would drop by nearly one-fifth over the next 20 years, from 65% in 2006 to 48% in 2027. At the same time, the number of Pakistanis in the city would nearly quadruple, increasing from 13% in 2006 to 48% in 2027.

In January 2013, Manchester University statistician Ludi Simpson analyzed official data from the 2011 census and found that native white Britons are already a minority in Leicester (45%), Luton (45%) and Slough (35%). He also forecast that they would be a minority in Birmingham by 2019, nearly a decade earlier than the previous estimate.

Muslim Enclaves in Britain

An analysis of 2011 census data reveals the existence of more than 100 Muslim enclaves in Britain. The Muslim population exceeds 85% in some parts of Blackburn and 70% in a half-dozen wards in Birmingham and Bradford. There are also large Muslim communities in Dewsbury, Leicester, London, Luton and Manchester, among others.

Birmingham: Bordesley Green (includes Small Heath) (73.9%); Hodge Hill (includes areas of Saltley and Ward End) (41.5%); Ladywood (35.2%); Lozells and East Handsworth (48.9%); Nechells (43.5%); Sparkbrook (includes Sparkhill) (70.2%); Washwood Heath (includes Alum Rock) (77.3%).

Blackburn with Darwen: Audley (68.7%); Bastwell (85.3%); Corporation Park (62.6%); Little Harwood (51.9%); Queen’s Park (51.5%); Shear Brow (77.7%); Wensley Fold (39.8%)

Bolton (Greater Manchester): Crompton (32.7 %); Great Lever (36.6%); Halliwell (27.9%); Rumworth (51.8%)

Bradford (West Yorkshire): Bowling and Barkerend (45.8%); Bradford Moor (72.8%); City (57.3%); Great Horton (42.8%); Heaton (55.9%); Keighley Central (51.2%); Little Horton (58.0%); Manningham (75.0%); Toller (76.1%)

Brent: Barnhill (23.3%); Dollis Hill (31.3%); Dudden Hill (23.5%); Harlesden (21.8%); Stonebridge (28.2%)

Dewsbury (West Yorkshire): Dewsbury South (including Savile Town) (43.8%); Dewsbury West (46.7%)

Leeds: Gipton and Harehills (33.2%)

Leicester: Charnwood (38.7%); Coleman (39.7%); Spinney Hills (69.6%); Stoneygate (50.2%)

London Borough of Enfield: Edmonton Green (29.1%); Haselbury (25.7%); Jubilee (24.1%); Lower Edmonton (24.1%); Ponders End (29.0%); Upper Edmonton (26.4%)

London Borough of Tower Hamlets: Bethnal Green South (45.7%); Bromley-by-Bow (48.7%); East India and Lansbury (42.9%); Limehouse (35.5%); Mile End and Globe Town (34.3%); Mile End East (45.9%); Shadwell (46.7%); Spitalfields and Banglatown (38.6%); St Dunstan’s and Stepney Green (48.7%); Weavers (30.3%); and Whitechapel (42.4%).

London Borough of Newham: Boleyn (40.5%); East Ham Central (39.6%); East Ham North (50.1%); Green Street East (49.1%); Green Street West (50.4%); Little Ilford (44.8%); Manor Park (45.4%); Wall End (33.9%)

London Borough of Redbridge: Clementswood (42.7%); Cranbrook (36.6%); Goodmayes (33.5%); Loxford (46.0%); Mayfield (34.6%); Newbury (29.4%); Seven Kings (31.3%); Valentines (40.0%)

London Borough of Waltham Forest: Forest (31.9%); Lea Bridge (32.3%); Leyton (30.2%); Markhouse (32.4%)

Luton: Biscot (64.6%); Dallow (includes parts of Bury Park) (61.6%); Saints (51.1%)

Manchester: Cheetham (43.3%); Longsight (53.8%); Rusholme (37.9%); Whalley Range (32.7%)

Oldham: Coldhurst (64.2%); Medlock Vale (32.3%); St Mary’s (58.7%); Werneth (68.2%)

Pendle: Bradley (45.7%); Brierfield (38.8%); Walverden (47.1%); Whitefield (69.8%)

Rochdale: Central Rochdale (52.4%); Milkstone and Deeplish (67.1%)

Slough: Baylis and Stoke (44.7%); Central (40.6%); Chalvey (37.2%);

Westminster: Church Street (42.0%); Harrow Road (24.1%); Hyde Park (25.1%); Queen’s Park (26.3%); Westbourne (33.1%)

Wycombe: Bowerdean (35.6%); Oakridge and Castlefield (45.7%)

Britain’s Asian Muslims

The British Muslim community is ethnically diverse, although the vast majority are from Asia. Census data shows that two-thirds of Muslims (68%) have an Asian background, including 38% from Pakistan and 15% from Bangladesh. Just over 10% of Muslims fall into the official census category of “Black/African/Caribbean/Black British,” 7.8% are “White” and 6.6% are “Arab.”

Opinion surveys cited by Ludi Simpson show that most ethnic minorities identify as “British” at least as strongly as do native white Britons.

Many areas of Britain with large concentrations of Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi Muslims, however, are insular, parallel societies that are run according to patronage-based politics, known as the biraderi (clan or tribal) system. These enclaves are also run according to Sharia law, as evidenced by the prevalence of honor-based violence, polygamy and forced marriage.

A report by the former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Lord Ouseley, foundthat arranged marriages, common among Asian Muslims, are a key factor in the formation of Muslim ghettoes in Britain. The report said:

“The Sikh and Hindu communities are doing relatively well. Overall, their children are performing above average in educational terms. They tend to be better housed and are more likely to be in employment than are those of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origins. This can be explained mainly in class terms. Most of the Sikhs and Hindus come from the middle strata of their societies and are relatively well educated. Most of the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, predominantly Muslim, come from rural, or more correctly, peasant societies. Many have relatively little education and hold traditionalist views on religion. This, coupled with complex family relationships often identified with land ownership in Pakistan and Bangladesh, leads to a predominance of first cousin marriages which include one spouse from the country of origin. It is estimated these constitute 60% of marriages. This has a significant impact.

“It has a major impact on population growth. About 1,000 Bradfordian Muslims marry each year. If most of those marriages were internal to this country, it would lead to 500 new households which would be likely to average 4 children per household. (This is based on experience from other immigrant groups where family size usually halves that of the first generation by the second generation.) With 60% of marriages involving a spouse from overseas, the number of households goes up to 800 and, with many of the spouses being first generation, family size is likely to be significantly larger. So whereas 500 internal marriages might be expected to produce 2,000 offspring, the 800 marriages are likely to produce 4,000 offspring. This leads to very rapid population growth. In the eighties the Council estimated that the Muslim population would reach 130,000 by 2030 and then level. Now the projection is for 130,000 by 2020 and rising. The number of separate households is predicted to rise from 16,000 now to 40,000 in 2020. This rate of growth concentrated in particular areas puts severe demands on the public services. It has other ramifications. Many of the children arrive at school with little or no English. Many of those who come from overseas have little education and do not possess skills which are transferable to a Western economy. The high family size means overcrowding will be a persistent problem.”


A BBC Panorama documentary about separation and segregation between Muslim Asians and white Britons in Blackburn in Lancashire can be viewed here. According to the BBC:

“For all the hopeful talk about ‘integration,’ ‘multiculturalism’ and now ‘cohesion,’ the reality on the ground appears to be that Britain’s Muslim Asian community and its white community have few points of contact, and that the white majority often feel they share little in common with the growing Muslim Asian minority.”

Professor Ted Cantle, an expert on inter-cultural relations, told the BBC:

“There is not just simply residential segregation, but there is separation in education, in social, cultural, faith, in virtually every aspect of their daily lives, employment too.

“It exists as a problem, to some degree or other, throughout the country, and it may be in small pockets and neighborhoods within larger cities like London and Birmingham and therefore not quite so evident.

“It might be whole boroughs or whole cities, but to some degree or another it exists. There is some degree of separation or segregation in most towns and cities.”


In 2001, the Principal Race Relations Officer at the Commission for Racial Equality, GV Mahony, warned about the proliferation of Muslim-only areas in Bradford:

“Not all Muslims in Bradford want Muslim-only areas. Traders, retailers, restaurant owners want and need a broad-based custom profile. However, there is a drive amongst the mosque-attending older generation who would like Sharia areas. There is also the minority of highly disaffected young men who want to control their patches. These two opposite ends of the spectrum desire the same thing albeit for different reasons and it is likely that they will support each other in order to attain their goals.”


Native white Britons are already in the minority in London (45%). According to Ludi Simpson, 23 of London’s 33 boroughs are now “plural.” In the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (sometimes called “Britain’s Islamic republic”), white Britons (31%) are outnumbered by Bangladeshis (32%).

Tower Hamlets and other parts of East London have been the focus of repeated attempts by Islamists to impose Sharia law on members of the public.

Extremist Muslim preachers — sometimes referred to as the Tower Hamlets Taliban — haveissued death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with posters declaring: “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced.” And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims has been vandalized or blacked out with spray paint.

Left, an example of the posters that have been put up in Muslim enclaves in Britain. Right, British jihadists in Syria encourage British Muslims to take up arms for the Islamic State, in a recruitment video entitled “There is No Life Without Jihad”.

The Sunday Telegraph uncovered more than a dozen other instances in Tower Hamlets where both Muslims and non-Muslims have been threatened or beaten for behavior considered to be a breach of fundamentalist “Islamic norms.” Victims said that police ignored or downplayed outbreaks of hate crime, and suppressed evidence implicating Muslims in them, because they feared being accused of racism or “Islamophobia.”

One victim, Mohammed Monzur Rahman, was left partially blind after being attacked by a mob in Cannon Street Road, Shadwell, for smoking during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. “Two guys stopped me in the street and asked me why I was smoking,” he said. “I just carried on, and before I knew another dozen guys came and jumped me. The next thing I knew, I was waking up in hospital.”

A group of Muslim men attacked a 23-year-old American student, who had only been in the country for three days, after they saw him drinking on an East London street. The student suffered extensive injuries, including a smashed eye socket. The perpetrators are now in prison.

The owners of restaurants and shops in Brick Lane in Whitechapel, a popular area of London, have been warned that they faced 40 lashes if they continued to sell alcoholic products.

In Leytonstone in East London, the former Home Secretary John Reid was heckled by the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen who yelled: “How dare you come to a Muslim area.” A four-minute video of the incident can be viewed here.

Muslim gangs have also been filmed loitering on London streets and demanding that passersby conform to Sharia law. In a series of videos, the self-proclaimed vigilantes — who called themselves Muslim London Patrol — are seen abusing non-Muslim pedestrians and repeatedly shouting “this is a Muslim area.”

One video records the men shouting: “Allah is the greatest! Islam is here, whether you like it or not. We are here! We are here! What we need is Islam! What we need is Sharia!”

The video continues:

“We are the Muslim Patrol. We are in north London, we are in south London, in east London and west London. We command good and forbid evil. Islam is here in London. [Prime Minister] David Cameron, Mr. Police Officer, whether you like it or not, we will command good and forbid evil. You will never get us. You can go to hell! This is not a Christian country. To hell with Christianity. Isa [Jesus] was a messenger of Allah. Muslim Patrol will never die. Allah is great! Allah is great! We are coming!”

In January 2015, twelve of the men were given Antisocial Behavior Orders (“Asbos”), forbidding them from “forcing their views on others” for a period of three years. Their spiritual mentor is a British-born Islamist agitator named Anjem Choudary, whose parents migrated from Pakistan.

In July 2011, “Muslims Against Crusades,” a group founded by Choudary, launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities — including what it calls “Londonistan” — into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate outside British jurisprudence.

The Islamic Emirates Project named the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London, as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.

Muslims Against Crusades (proscribed in November 2011) is one of the many reincarnations of the Muslim extremist group al-Muhajiroun, which was banned in January 2010. A studypublished by the London-based Henry Jackson Society in September 2014 found that one in five terrorists convicted in Britain over more than a decade have had links to al-Muhajiroun.

An investigative report published by the British anti-fascism group Hope Not Hate in November 2013 concluded that al-Muhajiroun was “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history.”

The group’s founder, Anjem Choudary, remains free and continues to call for the implementation of Sharia law in Britain.

Meanwhile, Britain’s first directly elected Muslim mayor — a close ally of Choudary named Lutfur Rahman, who runs Tower Hamlets Council — has been accused of using illegal tactics to get re-elected in May 2014. Muslim residents were allegedly told that they would not be “good Muslims” unless they voted for Rahman, who was born in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and moved to Britain as a child.

A letter signed by 101 Islamic figures that was published in a Bengali newspaper, The Weekly Desh, said that not voting for Rahman was an “un-Islamic and a sinful act.” Their pronouncements were allegedly used to cajole and control many within the local 65,000-strong Muslim community.

Rahman is linked to the Islamic Forum of Europe [IFE], an Islamist group dedicated to changing the “very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed … from ignorance to Islam.”

In the years since he was first elected in 2010, Rahman has dedicated much of his time as mayor to diverting public money to the IFE, and to stocking public libraries in Tower Hamlets with books and DVDs containing the extremist speeches of banned Islamist preachers.

The complete transcript of a Channel 4 Dispatches film about the IFE’s effort to implement Sharia law in London can be found here.


Luton, where one quarter of the residents are Muslim, is situated 30 miles (50 km) north of London. Luton has a total population of 200,000, including some 50,000 Muslims. Most are Pakistanis (30,000) or Bangladeshis (13,000), according to recent census data.

Many of the Muslims in Luton have settled in Bury Park, a well-known Muslim enclave where the native British population has all but disappeared. Muslims in Bury Park have been accused of “ethnic cleansing” for harassing elderly non-Muslims to the point that many have been forced to move away. BBC reports on “white flight” in Luton can be viewed here and here (links to original videos here and here).

Bury Park, a “town within a town” that abuts the Luton town center, is known for high unemployment, drug trafficking and domestic violence. Bury Park is also known for its nearly two dozen mosques and madrassas that cater to at least ten different Muslim groups or sects, including: Hizb ut-Tahrir, Salafism, Sufism, Deobandism and Barelvism. The largest mosque in Bury Park is the Luton Central Mosque, where loudspeakers attached to a minaret call Muslims to prayer.

Bury Park is home to at least two dozen of the more than 600 British jihadists who are fighting in Syria and Iraq. A BBC report on Muslim women from Luton who want to join the conflict in Syria can be found here.

An observer writes:

“When a Mecca Bingo Hall opened in the heart of Bury Park, its windows were smashed. The neon Mecca sign, some Muslims claimed, was an insult to their religion because it associated the name of their holiest city with gambling. Adverts and billboards featuring women deemed to be showing too much flesh have been defaced. An evangelical church was daubed with graffiti. Over the past 18 months or so, around 30 non-Muslim homes in the area have also been attacked. Multiculturalism in Bury Park now seems to mean a Muslim from Pakistan living side-by-side with a Muslim from Bangladesh, not white living next to black and brown.”

A one-hour BBC documentary about Islamic extremism in Luton can be viewed here.


Birmingham has been the focus of “Operation Trojan Horse,” an alleged plot by Muslim extremists to Islamize primary and secondary schools in the city. British authorities are nowinvestigating the activities of Islamists in at least 25 schools in Birmingham, up from initially four. The plan consists of a strategy to wrest control of schools by ousting non-Muslim head teachers and staff at secular schools and replacing them with ones who would run the schools according to strict Islamic principles.

Since Operation Trojan Horse came to light, British authorities have been inundated with hundreds of whistleblower complaints in Birmingham alone — including emails, letters and telephone calls from parents, teachers and school leaders — about the imposition of Islamic fundamentalist practices in city schools.

In 2009, the Birmingham Mail reported that native British working class Brummies [colloquial term for the inhabitants, accent and dialect of Birmingham] feared that parts of their city had become no-go areas for them. The article cited research carried out by the UK Department of Communities and Local Government, which questioned residents from the Castle Vale neighborhood about their feelings on immigration.

The report highlighted concerns that white people were not welcome in parts of Birmingham at night, and quoted an anonymous male contributor who described an area with a high “Asian” population where a road sign was sprayed with the phrase: “No Whites after 8:30.” He said:

“Perhaps I need to work harder in understanding the different cultures and things like that, but there’s things that I see when I’m driving around Birmingham that shouldn’t be happening.

“There’s these areas that have completely been took over… and you do feel very uneasy. Not just me, and I only drive into these areas, never actually walk into these areas, I just wouldn’t. Just in case I did do something that I… because of their culture or their religion it was a threat or it was an insult or something, because we don’t understand.”

In 2011, the magazine Standpoint published the first-hand account of a British clergyman’s wife who had just returned to London after living in Birmingham for the past four years. She wrote:

“For four years, we lived in inner-city Birmingham, in what has been a police no-go area for 20 years. We know that because some plain-clothed cops told us when they asked to use our vicarage as a stake-out to bust drugs rings that pervade the area. Even during this time we saw the area change. When we arrived, the population was predominantly Pakistani. Now Somalis are there in equal number. Most of the run-down Irish pubs were turned into mosques during our time.

“One day he [her husband] was chatting to a man with a passing resemblance to Lawrence of Arabia, who had just arrived from Antwerp—one of an increasing number of Muslims who are arriving here with EU passports. He asked him why he had come to Birmingham. He was surprised at the question: ‘Everybody knows. Birmingham—best place in Europe to be pure Muslim.’ Well, there must be many places in Europe where Muslims are entirely free to practice their faith, but I suspect there are few places in which they can have so little contact with the civic and legal structure of a Western state if they choose.

“To a London reader, born and bred with multiculturalism, I know that my stories may come across as outlandish and exaggerated… When I recently told a friend how a large Taliban flag fluttered gaily on a house near St Andrew’s football stadium for some months, her cry of ‘Can’t you tell the police?’ made me reflect how far many of our inner cities have been abandoned by our key workers: our doctors and nurses drive in from afar, the police, as mentioned before, have shut down their stations and never venture in unless in extremis—they and ambulance crews have been known to be attacked—even the local Imam lives in a leafier area.”

Warnings Ignored

In January 2014, the chief inspector of the police forces in England and Wales, Sir Tom Winsor,told the London Times that “some parts of Britain have their own form of justice” and that crimes as serious as honor killings, domestic violence, sexual abuse of children and female genital mutilations often go unreported. He added:

“There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve the police at all. I am reluctant to name the communities in question, but there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves. There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called. They never hear of any trouble because the community deals with that on its own. It’s not that the police are afraid to go into these areas or don’t want to go into those areas. But if the police don’t get calls for help then, of course, they won’t know what’s going on.”

Similar warnings emerged from a documentary secretly filmed inside several of the 85 Sharia law courts operating in Britain, which exposed the systematic discrimination that many women are suffering at the hands of Muslim jurists.

The documentary, Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Courts, was filmed by the BBC and was first aired on BBC Panorama, a long-running current affairs program, in April 2013.

The undercover investigation proved what has long been suspected: Sharia courts, which operate in mosques and houses across Britain, routinely issue rulings on domestic and marital issues according to Sharia law that are at odds with British law. Although Sharia rulings are not legally binding, those subject to the rulings often feel obliged to obey them as a matter of religious belief, or because of pressure from family and community members to do so.

In September 2005, the high-profile black chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, said in a speech that multiculturalism was dividing rather than uniting British society. He also warned of the emergence of “fully fledged ghettos” based on race and religion. Speaking after Hurricane Katrina exposed the black underclass in the American city of New Orleans, Phillips said:

“The fact is that we are a society which, almost without noticing it, is becoming more divided by race and religion. We are becoming more unequal by ethnicity… There are some simple truths which should bind us together.”

Phillips added that some districts are becoming “literal black holes into which nobody goes without fear and trepidation and from which nobody ever escapes undamaged.” He warned that this situation risks culminating in a “New Orleans-style Britain of passively coexisting ethnic and religious communities, eyeing each other over the fences of our differences.” He concluded:

“We are sleepwalking our way to segregation. We are becoming strangers to each other and leaving communities to be marooned outside the mainstream.”

The former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Lord Ouseley, concurred. “We do have concentrations and clusters of ethnic groups in areas that are suffering poverty, racialism, exclusion and discrimination,” Ouseley told the BBC’s Today program. “It’s not new. It’s been around for a while. It may be getting worse.”

In January 2008, Michael Nazir-Ali, then one of the Church of England’s most senior bishops, warned that Islamic extremists had created “no-go” areas across Britain where it is too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter. In an essay published by the Sunday Telegraph, Nazir-Aliwrote:

“One of the results of this [multiculturalism] has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into ‘no-go’ areas where adherence to this ideology [of Islamic extremism] has become a mark of acceptability.

“Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-Right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an ‘Islamic’ character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer.

“Such amplification was, of course, unknown throughout most of [British] history and its use raises all sorts of questions about noise levels and whether non-Muslims wish to be told the creed of a particular faith five times a day on the loudspeaker.

“There is pressure already to relate aspects of the Sharia to civil law in Britain. To some extent this is already true of arrangements for Sharia-compliant banking but have the far-reaching implications of this been fully considered?”

Nazir-Ali was widely mocked for his politically incorrect observations. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, said they were “a gross caricature of reality.” William Hague, who at the time was the shadow foreign secretary, said Nazir-Ali had “probably put it too strongly.” The Muslim Council of Britain [MCB] accused him of “frantic scaremongering.”

Less than one month later, however, two Christian preachers were threatened with arrest for committing a “hate crime” after they handed out gospel leaflets in Alum Rock, a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. One of the preachers, Joseph Abraham, said:

“I couldn’t believe this was happening in Britain. The Bishop of Rochester was criticized by the Church of England recently when he said there were no-go areas in Britain but he was right; there are certainly no-go areas for Christians who want to share the gospel.”

The other preacher, Arthur Cunningham, said:

“He [the police officer] said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station.”

The then shadow home secretary, David Davies, accused Muslims of promoting a sort of “voluntary apartheid” by shutting themselves in closed societies and demanding immunity from criticism. He defended Nazir-Ali:

“Bishop Nazir-Ali has drawn attention to a deeply serious problem. The government’s confused and counter-productive approach risks creating a number of closed societies instead of one open, cohesive one. It generates the risk of encouraging radicalization and creating home-grown terrorism.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Additional Resources

A video showing a group of Muslim men attacking a white couple in Walsall, situated just eight miles from Birmingham, can be viewed here. A video showing Muslim youth attacking white girls in Ashton-under-Lyne in Greater Manchester can be viewed here.

A video showing Muslim youth attacking police in East London with rocket fireworks can be viewed here. A video showing Muslim youth interrupting a television interview in Burnley in Lancashire can be viewed here. A video showing a Muslim threatening to kill a man filming street preaching in England can be viewed here.

A video showing Muslims attempting to enforce Sharia law on the streets of London can be viewed here. A video showing Muslims attacking an American student after walking around East London drinking a bottle of beer can be viewed here.

A BBC documentary about “white flight” in the East London Borough of Barking and Dagenham can be viewed here. A BBC Panorama documentary about separation and segregation between Muslim Asians and white Britons in Blackburn in Lancashire can be viewed here, hereand here. BBC reports on “white flight” in Luton can be viewed here and here.

A one-hour BBC documentary about extremism in Luton can be viewed here. A 20-minute documentary, entitled “London’s Holy Turf War” can be viewed here. A 25-minute documentary about rising tensions between Asians and West Indians can be viewed here.

A 45-minute documentary about the exploding subculture of polygamous marriages among British Muslims can be viewed here. A BBC Panorama documentary secretly filmed inside several of the 85 Sharia law courts operating in Britain can be viewed here and here. A 30-minute BBC documentary about honor crimes in Britain can be viewed here.

A 1.5-hour BBC Three documentary about the sexual grooming of young girls by Pakistani men in the UK can be viewed here. A 30-minute BBC documentary on the sexual grooming of young Sikh girls by Muslim men can be viewed here. A 30-minute BBC Panorama documentary about the sexual grooming of young girls in the South Yorkshire town of Rotherham can be viewedhere.

A 30-minute BBC documentary about Muslim radicalization in British prisons can be viewedhere. A 15-minute documentary about the rise of British jihadists in Syria can be viewed here. A three-hour BBC documentary called “Generation Jihad” can be viewed here, here and here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No Shariah controlled no-go zones in Europe?

  • Reality?” documented dozens of French neighborhoods “where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings.”
  • In October 2011, a 2,200-page report, “Banlieue de la République” (Suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming “separate Islamic societies” cut off from the French state and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law.
  • The report also showed how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim preachers who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.
  • The television presenter asks: “What if we went to the suburbs?” Obertone replies: “I do not recommend this. Not even we French dare go there anymore. But nobody talks about this in public, of course. Nor do those who claim, ‘long live multiculturalism,’ and ‘Paris is wonderful!’ dare enter the suburbs.”

The jihadist attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French magazine known for lampooning Islam, has cast a spotlight on so-called no-go zones in France and other European countries.

No-go zones are Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims due to a variety of factors, including the lawlessness and insecurity that pervades a great number of these areas. Host-country authorities have effectively lost control over many no-go zones and are often unable or unwilling to provide even basic public aid, such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services, out of fear of being attacked by Muslim youth.

Muslim enclaves in European cities are also breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism and pose a significant threat to Western security.

Europe’s no-go zones are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated from — rather than become integrated into — their European host nations.

The problem of no-go zones is well documented, but multiculturalists and their politically correct supporters vehemently deny that they exist. Some are now engaged in a concerted campaign to discredit and even silence those who draw attention to the issue.

Consider Carol Matlack, an American writer for Bloomberg Businessweek, who recently penned a story — entitled “Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities” — in which she claims that no-go zones are nothing more than an “urban legend” that is “demonstrably untrue.” She then goes on to ridicule those who disagree with her.

The American cable television channel Fox News has also issued at least four apologies for referring to Muslim no-go zones in Europe, after one commentator erroneously claimed that the entire city of Birmingham, England, was Muslim. Had he simply said that “parts” of Birmingham are Muslim, he would have been correct.

Despite such politically correct denials, Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.

What follows is the first in a multi-part series that will document the reality of Europe’s no-go zones. The series begins by focusing on France and provides a brief compilation of just a few of the literally thousands of references to French no-go zones from academic, police, media and government sources that can easily be found on the Internet by doing a simple search on Google.

Fabrice Balanche, a well-known French Islam scholar who teaches at the University of Lyon, recently told Radio Télévision Suisse: “You have territories in France such as Roubaix, such as northern Marseille, where police will not step foot, where the authority of state is completely absent, where mini Islamic states have been formed.”

French writer and political journalist Éric Zemmour recently told BFM TV: “There are places in France today, especially in the suburbs, where it is not really in France. Salafi Islamists are Islamizing some neighborhoods and some suburbs. In these neighborhoods, it’s not France, it’s an Islamic republic.” In a separate interview, Zemmour — whose latest book is entitled, “The French Suicide” — says multiculturalism and the reign of politically correct speech is destroying the country.

French politician Franck Guiot wrote that parts of Évry, a township in the southern suburbs of Paris, are no-go zones where police forces cannot go for fear of being attacked. He said that politicians seeking to maintain “social peace” were prohibiting the police from using their weapons to defend themselves.

The Socialist mayor of Amiens, Gilles Demailly, has referred to the Fafet-Brossolette district of the city as a “no-go zone” where “you can no longer order a pizza or get a doctor to come to the house.” Europe 1, one of the leading broadcasters in France, has referred to Marseille as a “no-go zone” after the government was forced to deploy riot police, known as CRS, to confront warring Muslim gangs in the city. The French Interior Ministry said it was trying to “reconquer” 184 square kilometers (71 square miles) of Marseille that have come under the control of Muslim gangs.

The French newspaper Le Figaro has referred to downtown Perpignan as a “veritable no-go zone” where “aggression, antisocial behavior, drug trafficking, Muslim communalism, racial tensions and tribal violence” are forcing non-Muslims to move out. Le Figaro also reported that the Les Izards district of Toulouse was a no-go zone, where Arab drug trafficking gangs rule the streets in a climate of fear.

Separately, Le Figaro reported that large quantities of assault rifles are circulating in French no-go zones. “For a few hundred dollars you can buy Kalashnikovs,” political scientist Sebastian Roché said. “The price of an iPhone!”

The newspaper France Soir published poll results showing that nearly 60% of French citizens are in favor of sending the army into troubled suburbs to restore order.

The newspaper Le Parisien has called parts of Grigny, a township in the southern suburbs of Paris, a “lawless zone” plagued by well-organized Muslim gangs, whose members believe they are “masters of the world.” The weekly newsmagazine Le Point reported on the spiraling Muslim lawlessness in the French city of Grenoble.

The French magazine L’Obs (formerly known as Le Nouvel Observateur) has reported on the deteriorating security situation in Roubaix, a city in northern France that is located close to the Belgian border. The magazine reported that local citizens are “exiled within their own country” and want to create their own militia to restore order because police are afraid to confront Muslim gangs.

In August 2014, the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles (Contemporary Values) reported that “France has more than 750 areas of lawlessness” where the law of the French Republic no longer applies. Under the headline “Hell in France,” the magazine said that many parts of France are experiencing a “dictatorship of riffraff” where police are “greeted by mortar fire” and are “forced to retreat by projectiles.”

Separately, Valeurs Actuelles reported on the lawlessness in Trappes, a township located in the western suburbs of Paris, where radical Islam and endemic crime go hand in hand. “Criminals are pursued by Islamic fundamentalists to impose an alternative society, breaking links with the French Republic,” according to local police commander Mohammed Duhan. It is not advisable to go there, he says, adding, “You will be spotted by so-called chauffeurs (lookouts for drug traffickers) and be stripped and smashed.”

Valeurs Actuelles has also reported on no-go zones in Nantes, Tours and Orléans, which have turned into “battlefields” where the few remaining native French holdouts are confronted with “Muslim communalism, the disappearance of their cultural references and rampant crime.”

A graphic 20-minute documentary (in French) about the no-go zone in Clichy Montfermeil, a suburb of Paris, can be viewed here. At around the 3-minute mark, the video shows what happens when French police enter the area.

A policeman uses a shotgun to try to keep an attacking gang at bay, in the Parisian suburb of Clichy Montfermeil. (Image source: Dailymotion video screenshot)

A 1.5 hour documentary (in French) produced by France’s TF1 about Muslim gangs in Parisian no-go zones can be viewed here. A 50-minute documentary (in French) produced by France’s TV3 about the no-go zones of Clos Saint-Lazare in northern Paris can be viewed here. A 45-minute documentary (in English) about the no-go zones of Marseilles can be viewed here.

A four-minute video of the most dangerous neighborhoods of France in 2014 can be viewedhere. A three-and-a-half-minute video of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Greater Paris Metropolitan Area can be viewed here. A two-minute video of a no-go zone in Lille can be viewed here. A five-minute video about life in the suburbs of Lyon can be viewed here.

A Russian television (Russia-1) documentary about no-go zones in Paris can be viewed here. The presenter says: “We are in Paris, the Barbès quarter, a few minutes from the famous Montmartre. Finding a European here is almost a mission impossible. Certain Paris streets remind one of an oriental bazaar.” He continues: “The Paris banlieues have become criminal ghettoes where even the police dare not enter.” Hidden cameras record widespread lawlessness and drug dealing in the area.

A 120-page research paper entitled “No-Go Zones in the French Republic: Myth or Reality?”documented dozens of French neighborhoods “where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings.”

Some of the most notorious no-go zone areas in France are situated in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis, a northeastern suburb (banlieue) of Paris that has one of the highest concentrations of Muslims in France. The department is home to an estimated 600,000 Muslims (primarily from North and West Africa) out of a total population of 1.4 million.

Seine-Saint-Denis is divided into 40 administrative districts called communes (townships), 36 of which are on the French government’s official list of “sensitive urban zones” or ZUS.

Seine-Saint-Denis — also known locally as “ninety-three” or “nine three” after the first two digits of the postal code for this suburb — has one of the highest unemployment rates in France; more than 40% of those under the age of 25 are jobless. The area is plagued with drug dealing and suffers from some of the highest rates of violent crime in France.

In October 2011, a landmark 2,200-page report, “Banlieue de la République” (Suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming “separate Islamic societies” cut off from the French state, and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law. The report said that Muslim immigrants are increasingly rejecting French values and instead are immersing themselves in radical Islam.

The report — which was commissioned by the influential French think tank, L’Institut Montaigne — was directed by Gilles Kepel, a highly respected political scientist and specialist in Islam, together with five other French researchers.

The authors of the report showed that France — which now has 6.5 million Muslims (the largest Muslim population in European Union) — is on the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society.

The report also showed how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim preachers, who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.

The research was primarily carried out in the Seine-Saint-Denis townships of Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil, two suburbs that were ground zero for Muslim riots in the fall of 2005, when Muslim mobs torched more than 9,000 cars.

The report described Seine-Saint-Denis as a “wasteland of de-industrialization” and said that in some areas, “a third of the population of the town does not hold French nationality, and many residents are drawn to an Islamic identity.”

Another township of Seine-Saint-Denis is Aubervilliers. Sometimes referred to as one of the “lost territories of the French Republic,” it is effectively a Muslim city: more than 70% of the population is Muslim. Three quarters of young people under 18 in the township are foreign or French of foreign origin, mainly from the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa. French police are said to rarely venture into some of the most dangerous parts of the township.

The southern part of Aubervilliers is well known for its vibrant Chinese immigrant community along with their wholesale clothing and textile warehouses and import-export shopping malls. In August 2013, the weekly newsmagazine Marianne reported that Muslim immigrants felt humiliated by the economic dynamism of the Chinese, and were harassing and attacking Chinese traders, who were increasingly subject to robberies and extortion. The situation got so bad that the Chinese ambassador to France was forced to pay a visit to the area.

In response, the Socialist mayor of Aubervilliers, Jacques Salvator, suggested that the violence could be halted if Chinese companies would agree to hire more Arabs and Africans. The Chinese countered that Muslims do not work as hard as the Chinese, that they are more demanding, and that they complain too much, according to Marianne.

After local officials refused to act in the face of increasing Muslim violence, the Chinese threatened to “call on the Chinese mafia” for protection. Muslims responded by launching a petition to have the Chinese expelled from the area.

Also in Aubervilliers, the magazine Charlie Hebdo reported in 2012 that the town hall was obligating non-Muslim men who want to marry Muslim women to convert to Islam first, even though France is ostensibly a secular republic. One such man, Frédéric Gilbert, a journalist, was told:

“You can convert in any mosque in three minutes. All you need do is to repeat ‘with conviction and sincerity’ this sentence: ‘I recognize that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet,’ and the Imam will agree that you have converted to Islam.'”

In a story entitled, “When Town Hall Mayors become Imams,” Charlie Hebdo wrote:

“In other words, Moroccan law prevails over French law in cases of mixed marriages and the same situation pertains with regard to other former French colonies such as Tunisia and Algeria as well as with Egypt.”

According to the newspaper Le Parisien, the practice of “false conversions” to Islam is widespread because most non-Muslim grooms prefer fake conversions rather than to suffer “administrative complications.”

In 2014, Le Figaro published the contents of a leaked intelligence document that warns about the imposition of Islamic Sharia law in French schools in Muslim ghettoes. The 15-page document provides 70 specific examples of how Muslim radicals are taking over ostensibly secular schools throughout the country. These include: veiling in playgrounds, halal meals in the canteen, chronic absenteeism (bordering 90% in some parts of Nîmes and Toulouse) during religious festivals, clandestine prayer in gyms or hallways. The report details how “self-proclaimed young guardians of orthodoxy” are circumventing the March 2004 law banning religious symbols in French schools. In Marseille, a high school principal testified that some of her students pray with such fervor that they have “blue foreheads.”

A video showing a radical Islamic rally in Saint-Denis can be viewed here. A video showing radical Muslims commandeering a French bus amid screams of “Allahu Akbar!” (Allah is greater!) can be viewed here. A series of eight videos documenting Muslim street prayers in Paris can be viewed here. (Street prayers have now been outlawed.) A series of 25 videos documenting the Islamization of France can be viewed here.

In July 2012, the French government announced a plan to reassert state control over 15 of the most notorious no-go zones. The crime-infested districts, which the French Interior Ministry has designated as Priority Security Zones (Zones de Sécurité Prioritaires, or ZSP), include heavily Muslim parts of Amiens, Aubervilliers, Avignon, Béziers, Bordeaux, Clermont-Ferrand, Grenoble, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles, Montpellier, Mulhouse, Nantes, Nice, Paris, Perpignan, Strasbourg, Toulouse and many others. The number of ZSPs now stands at 64; a complete list of ZSPs can be found here.

Meanwhile, a 13-minute Hungarian television documentary (with English subtitles) about no-go zones in Paris can be viewed here. The presenter interviews a French crime reporter named Laurent Obertone, who is the author of a bestselling new book entitled, “La France Orange Méchanique” (France: A Clockwork Orange).

In his book, Obertone writes that France is descending into a state of savagery and that the true magnitude of crime and violence across the country is being deliberately under-reported by politically correct media, government and police.

In the documentary, Obertone states: “The French elite became outraged when [former French President Nicolas] Sarkozy referred to [Muslim] immigrants attacking police as ‘mobs’.”

The Hungarian presenter then asks: “What if we went to the suburbs?” Obertone replies: “I do not recommend this. Not even we French dare go there anymore. But nobody talks about this in public, of course. Nor do those who claim, ‘long live multiculturalism,’ and ‘Paris is wonderful!’ dare enter the suburbs.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The woman as a potential throw-away object in Islam, reply to a questioner on Islam QA

183616: He divorced her via text message several times, and when she was menstruating, and when he was angry

I am from American and I have a question about my marriage.
I got married three years ago, very ignorant about “talaq” and how many times your supposed to say it and when you are suppose to say it. Somebody told me that I am suppose to say it three times in order to get divorced with someone and in my mind I thought you were suppose to say it three times in one sitting in order to divorce your spouse.
The first time I said it was with text message and this was when my wife was in India and I cant exactly remember why I text her and I text her twice, talaq. I also cannot remember if I intended divorce or not towards her. Her brother asked a Hafiz and he said the text message is invalid it does not count.
I also said it two differnet times and both times I was angry to the point where I really had a hard time controlling my behavior. The first time I said it two times and the second time I said it three times.
I also read online about menstruation and that talaq is invalid during menstruation.
Another thing I would like to state is that me and my wife always had sexual relations between each menstrual cycle and I also saw a video online posted by a scholar that a man cannot have sexual intercourse with his wife and divorce her when he wakes up because he still has feelings for her.
In addition, I also have doubts about the implicit divorces and what exactly what my intention was when I said it.
My wife saying were still married because she did not hear me tell her talaq when I was angry and that we need witnesses.
Recently, I came across Hanifa fiqh of divorce online and one scholar said if you say it 3 times, you guys are divorced but I was reading fatwa at the same time from your website and it said otherwise.
Can you please clear up my doubts and confusion.

Praise be to Allaah.Firstly:

Divorce issued in writing or via e-mail or text message counts as such so long as the intention to divorce is present or it is accompanied by signs that point to intention to divorce.

But if that is written in order to show his handwriting or with the intention to make his wife worry, but without the intention to divorce her, then it does not count as such.

But if you are uncertain about your intention when you wrote the message, or you forgot what your intention was, the divorce does count as such.

See the answer to question no. 72291

In order for divorce to be valid, it is not stipulated that the wife should hear it or that witnesses should be present.


Divorce during the wife’s menses or during a period of purity in which a man has had intercourse with his wife, does not count as such according to the more correct opinion. See the answer to question no. 72417 


Divorce issued in a state of extreme anger does not count as such. See the answer to question no. 96194

The threefold divorce counts as one divorce, according to the more correct opinion, whether one says: “You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced”, or he says: “You are thrice divorced” or “You are three-times divorced.”

If a man divorces his wife and she begins the ‘iddah, then he divorces her again before taking her back, the second divorce does not count according to the more correct opinion, because divorce can only be valid after doing the marriage contract or after taking the wife back.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The more correct view concerning this entire issue is that there is no threefold divorce at all, unless he issues a divorce then takes her back, or makes a new marriage contract  otherwise the threefold divorce does not count as such. This is the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is the correct view. End quote from ash-Sharh al-Mumti‘, 13/94

Based on the above, you can work out the number of divorces that you issued.

Husbands have to fear Allah, may He be exalted, and not take the verses of Allah in jest, or toy with divorce and use it for purposes other than those for which it was ordained.

And Allah knows best.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Blogging the Qur’an: Suras 58, “The Pleading Woman,” and 59, “Exile”

The Banu Nadir Jews submit to the Muslim forces

At the beginning of the Medinan sura 58, Allah tells Muhammad that he has heard the pleas of the woman whose husband attempted to divorce by telling her, “You are to me as my mother’s back.” A woman thus divorced could not remarry, and indeed had to remain in her ex-husband’s household as, effectively, a domestic servant (see Asad’s explanation in his commentary on Qur’an 33:4 here). Allah directs that such a divorce is not final, but can be reversed if the husband frees a slave (v. 3), fasts for two months, or feeds sixty poor people (v. 4).

According to Islamic tradition, the woman mentioned here was named Khawlah bint Tha”labah, and her husband Aws bin As-Samit, and Gabriel gave this Qur’anic passage to Muhammad after Khawlah complained to the Islamic prophet about her plight. Here again, then, the reader of the Qur’an faces two choices: either Muhammad was fabricating revelations from the supreme God in order to solve problems and settle issues he encountered in the course of his daily life, such that what claims to be an eternal book is actually filled with incidental minutiae from Muhammad’s life, or every detail of his life was mapped out for all eternity by the deity in order to teach some eternal truths, and he was therefore the most important person who ever existed. There doesn’t seem to be any other alternative.
Later come more indications of the incidental and ad hoc nature of the Qur’an (or, alternatively, the minute divine planning of every detail of Muhammad’s life).According to Qatadah, v. 11 “was revealed about gatherings in places where Allah is being remembered. When someone would come to join in assemblies with the Messenger, they would hesitate to offer them space so that they would not lose their places. Allah the Exalted commanded them to spread out and make room for each other.” And then Allah tells believers to make contributions before private meetings with Muhammad (vv. 12-13).

This sura also includes familiar Qur’anic themes, including the bellicose promise that “those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be humbled to dust” (v. 5). Allah sees and knows all things, including the secret meetings of the unbelievers, and will punish them on the Day of Judgment (vv. 7-10). Those who befriend those who are accursed by Allah are the party of Satan (v. 19) and will suffer in hell (v. 17). (And of course, those accursed by Allah include Jews and Christians, as per 9:30). No one who loves those who resist Allah and Muhammad will enter Paradise (v. 22).

Sura 59 was revealed, according to Islamic tradition, after Muhammad had the Jewish an-Nadir tribe exiled from Medina. Allah “cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers” (v. 2). Ibn Kathir explains:

When the Messenger of Allah migrated to Al-Madinah, he made a peace treaty with the Jews stipulating that he would not fight them and they would not fight him. They soon betrayed the treaty that they made with Allah’s Messenger. Therefore, Allah sent His torment down on them; it can never be averted, and His appointed destiny touched them; it can never be resisted. The Prophet forced them to evacuate and abandon their fortified forts that Muslims did not think they would ever control. The Jews thought that their fortifications will save them from Allah’s torment, but they did not help them against Allah in the least. Then, that which they did not expect came to them from Allah, and Allah’s Messenger forced them to leave Al-Madinah”¦.

According to the historian Tabari, the betrayal of the treaty was actually a conspiracy to kill Muhammad by some members of the Banu Nadir. Rather than appealing to the Nadir leaders to turn over the guilty men, Muhammad sent word to the Nadir: “Leave my country and do not live with me. You have intended treachery.” When the men of the Nadir protested and invoked that covenant, Muhammad’s messenger replied: “Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants.”

Abdullah bin Ubayy and some of the others that the Qur’an designates as “hypocrites” urged the Banu Nadir not to go, and promised to come to their aid if attacked (vv. 11-12, 16). Relying on this, the Nadir told Muhammad: “We will not leave our settlements; so do as you see fit.” With the displacement of responsibility onto the enemy that would become characteristic of jihad warriors throughout the ages, Muhammad told the Muslims, “The Jews have declared war.” Allah then promised Muhammad that he would strike “terror” into the Jews” hearts (v. 13) and told him that both the hypocrites and the Jews would end up in hell (v. 17).

The Prophet of Islam ordered his Muslims to march out against the tribe and lay siege to them. During the siege, he ordered that the date palms of the Banu Nadir be burnt. The Nadir Jews, surprised, asked him: “Muhammad, you have prohibited wanton destruction and blamed those guilty of it. Why then are you cutting down and burning our palm-trees?” Allah justified Muhammad’s action by explaining that he cut down the trees “by Allah’s leave” (v. 5). Islamic apologists frequently cite Muhammad’s prohibition against wanton destruction “” but don’t mention Muhammad’s own violation of this decree, and Allah’s endorsement of the violation.

What the Jews couldn’t carry with them became Muhammad’s personal property, which he distributed to the needy (vv. 6-9). He also kept some, as Umar later recounted: “The properties abandoned by Banu Nadir were the ones which Allah bestowed upon His Apostle”¦.These properties were particularly meant for the Holy Prophet”¦.He would meet the annual expenditure of his family from the income thereof, and would spend what remained for purchasing horses and weapons as preparation for Jihad.”

The sura ends with a warning to fear Allah, for the “Companions of the Fire” and the “Companions of the Garden” are not equal (v. 20), and with praise of the Qur’an, which would have made even a mountain bow down if it had been revealed on a mountain (v. 21), as well as praise of Allah himself, “the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace, the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Safety, the Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme” (v. 23), “the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms,” to whom “belong the Most Beautiful Names” (v. 24). These are among the legendary ninety-nine names of Allah found in Islamic tradition.

Next week: Sura 60, “She Who Is Tested” — which contains an extremely revealing explanation of when Abraham is to be taken as an example, and when he is not — a key distinction that has unfortunately eluded George W. Bush and others who have tried to improve relations between the West and the Islamic world.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Blogging the Qur’an: Suras 54, “The Moon,” 55, “The Merciful,” 56, “The Inevitable,” and 57, “Iron”

Neil Armstrong did what??

Ibn Kathir reports that Muhammad would recite sura 54, as well as sura 50, “during major gatherings and occasions because they contain Allah’s promises and warnings, and information about the origin of creation, Resurrection, Tawhid [the oneness of Allah], the affirmation of prophethood, and so forth among the great objectives.” Sura 54 takes its name from its first verse, which refers to the splitting of the moon — a miracle that, according to a hadith, took place during Muhammad’s lifetime. As the Muslims looked agog at the moon split into two parts, Muhammad cried, “Witness, witness (this miracle).”

Some modern-day Muslims, however, claim that this verse constituted a prophecy that was fulfilled during Neil Armstrong’s moon landing in 1969, when the astronauts dug up a bit of the lunar soil and brought it back — although, despite their imaginative forays into numerology in connection with this claim, it is more than a stretch to consider that gathering of a small amount of soil as amounting to a splitting of the moon.
The rest of the sura centers around the refrain, “And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?,” which appears in vv. 17, 22, 32, and 40. A secondary refrain is “how (terrible) was My Penalty and My Warning,” which appears in vv. 16, 18, 21, and 30. Around these are familiar themes: the unbelievers turn away from Allah’s signs and scorn them as magic (v. 2); Muhammad should turn away from them and leave them alone until the Day of Judgment, when they will be punished (vv. 6-8). Noah and his flood are a warning to the unbelievers of Muhammad’s day (vv. 9-16), as is the destruction of the people of “˜Ad (vv. 18-22); the people of Thamud (vv. 23-31 — for the she-camel see here); Lot’s people (vv. 33-39); and Pharaoh and his people (vv. 41-42). Are the unbelievers who reject Muhammad better than they (v. 43)? They think they will be able to defend themselves if they band together (v. 44) but they will not escape the Day of Judgment (v. 46).

The Meccan sura 55 is organized around a poetic refrain that is repeated much more frequently than are those in sura 54: “Which of the Lord’s blessings will you deny?” (vv. 13, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45, 53, 55, 59,61, 65, 67, 69, 77) — somewhat resembling Psalm 136, with its recurring “For his mercy endures forever,” although even here the Qur’an is focused on magnifying, refuting, and even mocking the perversity of the unbelievers’ rejection of Islam.Says Maududi, “This is the only Surah of the Qur’an in which besides men the jinn also, who are the other creation of the earth endowed with freedom of will and action, have been directly addressed.” The jinn are addressed with humans in v. 31.

The first part (vv. 1-30) emphasizes Allah’s creative power and his control of earthly phenomena; the second part (vv. 31-78) warns of the Day of Judgment and again describes hell and Paradise. Little is said that has not been said many other times in the Qur’an. The “two Easts and two Wests” of v. 17 refer, says Ibn Kathir, to “the sunrise of summer and winter and the sunset of summer and winter” — a decidedly geocentric point of view.

Sura 56, another Meccan sura, once again warns of the Day of Judgment (vv. 1-7) and describes the rewards of the Companions of the Right Hand — that is, those who enter Paradise (vv. 10-40; 88-91). These include, of course, the legendary virgins (v. 36), who are a “special creation” (v. 35). One way in which they are special, according to Islamic tradition, is that their virginity is endlessly renewed, so that the believers” experience of them is always just like the first. After this comes yet another description of the tortures of hell (vv. 41-56; 92-94), and a warning to mankind based on the signs of Allah’s power in the natural world (vv. 57-76). The sura concludes by praising the Qur’an as a divine revelation that only those who are ritually pure should touch (vv. 77-80). Allah taunts the unbelievers by asking them that if they believe the Qur’an to be false and consider themselves independent of him and his power, why don’t they intervene when a man is dying (v. 83) and call his soul back into his body (v. 87)?

The Medinan sura 57 was revealed after the Muslims conquered Mecca and faced few significant barriers to becoming the masters of all Arabia. It begins with a paean to Allah’s power and a question to the unbelievers: “What ails you that you do not believe in Allah?” (v. 8). The costs of the conquest may have left the Muslims short of funds, for Allah exhorts the Muslims to contribute to the Islamic cause, although he tells them that those who did so before the conquest of Mecca will be rewarded more abundantly than those who jumped on the bandwagon only when the Muslims had definitively defeated their enemies (vv. 10-11). Maududi explains: “Those who sacrifice their lives and expend their wealth to further promote the cause of Islam when it is already strong cannot attain to the rank of those who struggled with their lives and their wealth to promote and uphold the cause of Islam when it was weak.”

The righteous will be rewarded with the gardens of Paradise (vv. 12, 21), while the hypocrites will be punished (v. 13) with hell (v. 15). The Muslims should not belike the Jews and Christians, who received divine revelation but whose hearts grew hardened (v. 16). Instead, they should give generously (v. 18), for this world is just play and amusement, and earthly life is just deception (v. 20). Allah decrees and controls all earthly events (v. 22) — as the Tafsir al-Jalalaynexplains: “No affliction befalls in the earth, by way of drought, or in yourselves, such as illness, or the loss of a child, but it is in a Book, meaning, the Preserved Tablet (al-lawh al-mahfūz), before We bring it about, before We create it.” Earlier prophets are invoked, along with the gift of iron, to show Allah’s solicitude for mankind (v. 25). One of these earlier prophets was Jesus, but his followers invented monasticism, which Allah had not commanded. They should instead have sought his will alone; many of the Christians are “rebellious transgressors” (v. 27). The Jews and Christians have no power over Allah’s grace (v. 29) — asthe Tafsir al-Jalalayn says, this is “contrary to their claims that they are God’s beloved and those who deserve His beatitude.” Ibn Kathir explains that this verse means that “they cannot prevent what Allah gives, or give what Allah prevents.”

Next week: Sura 58, “The Pleading Woman”: “It is I and My messengers who must prevail.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Laws applying to slaves, a post taken from

General treatment of slaves

The law protected slaves from being abused by their masters:

  • Killing a slave merited punishment.1 (Ex 21:20)
  • Permanently injured slaves had to be set free (Ex 21:26-27)
  • Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were effectively freed (Dt 23:15-16)

The law also gave slaves a day of rest every week (Ex 20:10, Dt 5:14).

Hebrew slaves

Hebrews could become slaves of a fellow Hebrew if they committed a crime such as theft and had no other way of paying the fine (Ex 22:1-3) or if they became impoverished and sold themselves and/or their family into slavery. (See also Did slavery take advantage of the poor? below.) Kidnapping someone and selling them into slavery was forbidden (Dt 24:7).

When one Hebrew owned another Hebrew as a slave, the law commanded lenient treatment:

  • Slaves were to be treated as hired workers, not slaves (Lev 25:39-43)
  • All slaves were to be freed after six years (Ex 21:2, Dt 15:12)
  • Freed slaves were to be liberally supplied with grain, wine and livestock (Dt 15:12-15)
  • Every fiftieth year (the year of jubilee), all Hebrew slaves were to be freed, even those owned by foreigners (Lev 25:10, 47-54)

In special cases, slaves could choose to remain with their masters if they felt it was in their best interests (Dt 15:16-17).

If a Hebrew sold himself as a slave to a foreigner, he reserved the right to buy his freedom (Lev 25:47-49) and was still to be treated as a hired man (Lev 25:53).

Foreign slaves

While foreign slaves could be made slaves for life, the laws regarding the general treatment of slaves applied to them as well (Lev 24:22, Num 15:15-16). The law made it clear that foreigners were not inferiors who could be mistreated (Ex 23:9); instead they were to be loved just as fellow Israelites were (Lev 19:33-34). For more information, see the article on Gentiles in the OT.

Female slaves

In some cases, fathers could sell their daughters as a maidservant and wife. Since they were then married to their master, they were not automatically set free after six years (though unmarried female slaves were freed, as Dt 15:12explicitly states). However, they were still protected by the law:

  • If the husband divorced his wife, the law labeled it “unfair treatment” and allowed for her to be freed (Ex 21:8)
  • If someone bought a wife for his son, he was to treat her as his daughter (Ex 21:9)
  • Neglected wives were automatically freed (Ex 21:10-11)

Captives of war apparently became slaves, and men could choose to marry female captives. There were similar laws for the protection of these women, even though they would have been in the lowest class of society:

  • Captive women were given a month to mourn their families and adjust to their new home before marrying (Dt 21:13)
  • If divorced by their husband, they were freed (Dt 21:14)
  • They could not be sold to anyone else (Dt 21:14)

See also Were female slaves raped? below.

Specific objections

Dt 21:10-11: Were female slaves raped?

The law explicitly condemned all of the following:

Therefore any forced intercourse would have been against both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Ex 21:20-21: Could masters beat slaves to death?

The NIV translates Ex 21:21 as, “…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” While there is an argument for this translation,2 it is not necessarily the correct translation, so I am using the standard meaning of “he is not to be punished if the slave survives for a day or two.”

Most likely, this law was intended to distinguish between cases where a slave died as a direct result of their master’s mistreatment and where they died of natural causes. It could of course be the case that a slave was severely beaten but didn’t succumb to their injuries for a few days. In that situation, the case could have been brought before the priests and they could have used common sense and ruled that it was murder (cf. Dt 17:8-11). One should keep in mind that the laws given in the OT are examples, not legalese. For instance, Ex. 21:33-34 mentions only an ox or donkey falling into a pit, but that hardly means that if another animal fell into someone’s pit the owner wouldn’t receive compensation.

Lev 25:39: Did slavery take advantage of the poor?

Skeptics have objected that poverty would force people to sell themselves as slaves; impoverished Hebrews could not then be said to have chosen slavery of their own free will. However, the law provided several safety nets for the poor within society:

  • Gleanings left over from harvest were left for the poor to pick up (Dt 24:19-21)
  • Towns had the equivalent of food pantries for the poor, which were stocked using tithes (Dt 14:28-29)
  • People were commanded to lend generously to the poor and provide for them (Dt 15:7-11, Lev 25:35-37), without charging interest (Ex 22:25)

Finally, the law was adamant about providing justice for the poor and not taking advantage of them (Dt 27:19, Ex 22:22-27). Only under extreme circumstances would someone be forced to sell themselves into slavery because of their poverty. If the Israelites had followed the law faithfully, there would not have been any financial need at all (Dt 15:4-5).

Ex 21:5-6, Dt 15:16-17: Were slaves forced to say they “loved” their masters and/or serve them for life?

The law plainly states that Hebrew slaves were to be freed after serving six years (Ex 21:2, Dt 15:12). If a slave wished to remain, it was his free choice. Since Hebrews typically became slaves only due to poverty, some may have felt they were better off working for a rich family and being provided for rather than struggling to make it on their own (cf. Dt 15:16).

Slaves weren’t forced to say they loved their masters if they wanted to stay; the speech given in Exodus 21:5 is only an example. A parallel passage in Deuteronomy 15:16 only has the slave saying he doesn’t want to leave.

As for whether slaves could be forced into lifelong slavery, Exodus 21:6 says the ceremony for lifelong slaves was to take place in front of a judge. Slaves had to publicly state their intention to remain as slaves; their master couldn’t lie and say they’d expressed their intentions privately. While an evil master could force his slaves to make the proclamation by threatening them, it was the responsibility of the priests/judges and the community at large to observe masters’ treatment of their slaves (cf. Lev 25:53). This observation was also in their best interests, since one person’s disobedience brought guilt on those who knew what was going on and failed to do anything about it (Lev 19:17), which in turn would result in adverse consequences for the entire community (Dt 11:26-28).


1. What punishment was given to a master who killed a slave? In an earlier version of this article, I said it was death, based on Ex 21:12. However, I don’t think this is necessarily the case. For one, the preceding verses 21:12-17 list multiple crimes that were explicitly punishable by death, yet 21:20 does not explicitly say the master should be put to death. For another, 21:28-32 says that when the owner of an ox is culpable for its goring someone to death, he is to be killed, but if the victim was a slave, he is only subject to a fine. (Back to article)

2. I received this explanation from (quoted with permission):

The Hebrew word translated “gets up” in the NIV, “remains alive” in the NKJV, and “survives” in the NASB literally means “arise, endure, remain, raise up”. So, the differences in translation result from debate on whether the verb in this passage means to literally “stand up” or metaphorically to “remain” as in stay alive. I lean towards the meaning of “live” taken by the NKJV and NAS. Punishment of slaves was considered the right of the owner (Pr 10:13; 13:24), but this did not allow for violence. An owner who caused the death of a slave was to be punished (Ex 21:20). If the slave lived a few days it was evidence that the owner had no intent to kill. Any permanent injury brought freedom to the slave (Ex 21:26-27). The master’s power over the slave was limited, which made these laws unprecedented in the ancient world.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment