Islamica Community: roberto - Viewing Profile - Islamica Community

Destruction of Copts is Islamically correct

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 13, 2011
6:05 pm Eastern

© 2011
I am looking at a reproduction of an old engraving of Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It is in Bat Ye'or's book "The Dhimmi," which collects primary documents from history to chronicle the impact of Islamic law on non-Muslims through the centuries.

What is notable about the image, which is based on an 1856 photograph, is that the church, said to be at the site of Jesus Christ's crucifixion and burial, has no cross and no belfry. Stripped of its Christian symbols, the church stood in compliance with the Islamic law and traditions of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, which ruled Jerusalem at the time.

I went back to the book to find this image for a reason. It had to do with last weekend's massacre of two dozen Coptic Christians in Cairo by Egyptian military and street mobs, which also left hundreds wounded. The unarmed Copts were protesting the destruction of yet another church in Egypt, St. George's, which on Sept. 30 was set upon by thousands of Muslim men following Friday prayers. Why? The trigger was repair work on the building – work that the local council and governor had approved.

Does that explanation make any sense? Not to anyone ignorant of Islamic law. Unfortunately, that criterion includes virtually all media reporting the story.

Raymond Ibrahim, an Islam specialist, Arabic speaker and author of "The Al Qaeda Reader" (Broadway, 2007), catalogs the key sequence of events that turned a church renovation project into terror and flames. With repair work in progress, he writes online at Hudson New York (www.hudson-ny.org), "It was not long before local Muslims began complaining, making various demands, including that the church be devoid of crosses and bells – even though the permit approved them – citing that 'the cross irritates Muslims and their children.'"

Those details drove me to re-examine the de-Christianized 19th-century image of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher – no cross, no bells. It becomes a revealing illustration of Islamic history repeating itself in this "Shariah Autumn," the deadly but natural harvest of the grotesquely branded "Arab Spring."

Given our see-no-Shariah media (and government), we have no context in which to place such events. That context is Shariah society, advanced (but by no means initiated) by "Arab Spring," where non-Muslims – "dhimmi" – occupy a place defined for them by Islamic law and tradition. Theologian, author and Anglican pastor Mark Durie elaborates at markdurie.com: "Dhimmi are permitted to live in an Islamic state under terms of surrender as laid out in the 'dhimma' pact." Such terms, Durie writes, "are a well-established part of Islamic law and can be found laid out in countless legal text books." When non-Muslims violate these terms, they become subject to attack.

To place the dhimmi pact in comparable Western terms is to say the West has its Magna Carta, Islam has its Pact of Umar. Among other things, this seminal pact governing Muslim and non-Muslims relations stipulates, Durie notes, the condition that Christians "will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church or sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration."

Thus, this anti-Coptic violence, which for the moment has caught world attention, is Islamically correct. This is the piece of the puzzle Westerners fail to grasp. But Durie takes us through the theological steps: "For some pious Muslims in Egypt today, the act of repairing a church is a flagrant provocation, a breach of the peace, which amounts to a deliberate revocation of one's right to exist in the land." As such, it "becomes a legitimate topic for sermons in the mosque (where) the faithful are urged ... to uphold the honor of Islam." In Islamic terms, then, the destruction of the church is no injustice, as Durie writes. It is "even a duty to destroy the church and even the lives of Christians who have the temerity to repair their churches." That's because dhimmi who take to the streets to protest the Islamically just destruction of the church "are also rebels who have forfeited their rights (under the pact) to 'safety and protection.'" As violators of the "dhimmi" pact, they become fair game.

It's quite simple, but the theology eludes us. Why? I think the answer is that to expose the facts about Shariah in the Western milieu is to invite their criticism. Such criticism is forbidden under Shariah. So, we remain silent – which is what good "dhimmi" do.

http://www.wnd.com/i...w&pageId=355457

Why the UK must criminalise forced marriage.
Criminalising forced marriage will not just act as a deterrent. Just as all societies draw their moral codes from their legislature, criminalisation will go a long way to encourage a widespread intolerance to forced marriage and the perverted concept of honour behind it.

Written by Hannah Stuart on 10 October 2011 at 3pm

It is believed there were 400 forced marriages in the UK in 2008.
In a speech on immigration today, Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans to criminalise forced marriage, a move that is likely to have a strong impact on tackling the wider issue of honour-based violence in this country.
Forced marriage should not be conflated with arranged marriage: individuals enter into arranged marriages voluntarily; whereas people forced into marriage are usually tricked into going abroad, physically threatened and/or emotionally blackmailed to do so.
The Ethnic Minority Foundation, a group working closely with the government on an initiative to tackle forced marriage, estimated there were 400 cases of forced marriage the year before its launch in 2009. It is believed these numbers are growing.
In 2008, the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC), now part of the Henry Jackson Society, published Crimes of the Community, a comprehensive report on honour-based violence in the UK based on interviews with women's groups, community activists, police working in the field and victims of honour-based violence. Almost all were unanimous in saying that tougher measures are needed to tackle the root causes of such crimes.
The report stated that making forced marriage a civil offence had not worked and recommended a high profile law to criminalise forced marriage, holding people who carry them out accountable. It also suggested that people who seek to impede police investigations or withhold evidence should be prosecuted.
While the previous government came to the issue late, significant progress was made in its final years – which I believe Cameron’s aim, if realised, will be the culmination of.
In September 2008, the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act (2007) came into effect. Under the act, the police, friend or victim can apply for a Forced Marriage Protection Order, which forbids family members taking anyone abroad for marriage or intimidating victims to get married. Any person who contravenes a forced marriage protection order is liable to a fine, six months imprisonment or both.
Currently, however, there are no specific criminal laws against individuals who force another to marry. The Forced Marriage Act 2007 is a civil law and, outside of this, action is only taken by the police against individuals who commit crimes of assault, kidnap, abduction or sexual offence when forcing someone to marry.
For example, in a landmark case in a UK court in May 2009 a mother was sentenced to three years after attempting to force her two teenage daughters to marry their first cousins in Pakistan in July 2007.
The defence claimed that the mother acted to 'defend' the honour of the family's reputation in their Muslim and Pakistani communities, as her eldest daughter allegedly had an affair with an older man and then had an abortion.
When the same daughter got married, the mother told her that if she did not consummate the marriage, she would 'tie her to the bed, blindfold her and strip her', and then watch to make sure her daughter had sex with her new husband.
The mother was specifically convicted of inciting or causing a child to engage in sexual activity, arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence, and intending to pervert the course of justice.
The Judge’s words are worth reading in full:
Everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs and is to be encouraged to practice in accordance with those beliefs and to live a life which embraces the culture of those beliefs.
But those who choose to live in this country and who, like you, are British subjects, must not abandon our laws in the practice of those beliefs and that culture.
If they do, they will face the consequences.
Forced marriage is cruel. It deprives children, your children, of their basic human rights.
It must be and will be distinguished by the courts from arranged marriage, which is conventional in many cultures, and in which these basic rights are preserved.
[…]
You probably thought then and you continue to think now that even forced marriage was in the best interests of your daughters - one of whom in any case was a handful and who was not toeing the traditional line. That is a wholly misguided view.
I am bound to send, in the clearest possible terms, a strong message to the public that the forcing of a child into marriage against his or her will, will not be tolerated in our courts and that appropriate punishment will follow.
Where a forced marriage leading to consummation is accompanied by threats of violence and is tantamount to cruelty, the punishment will be more severe.
The role of community and religious leaders in shaping the ideas and values of their respective communities in the UK is also significant. In many cases, such leaders – who are almost always men– forcefully uphold and defend conservative ideas of honour within communities. While there are individuals working hard to eradicate honour-based violence, many community leaders are reluctant to admit that their community has any problems with this at all.
For example, Nazir Afzal, the former Crown Prosecution Service lead on honour crimes, told the CSC:
“When you talk to community leaders there are basically two responses. The first response is that they say there is no problem; that they deny that anything is wrong. The second response is that they don’t deny it and they acknowledge it as a problem but they then say that they have other priorities instead – they just see it as something that is not important to address.”
Similarly, plans in 2004 to criminalise forced marriage were dropped for fear of a backlash, with ministers admitting that any such law would be 'resented as an intrusion into minority cultures and religions'. One community group, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), opposed the plans because they felt the new laws would lead to Muslim communities being further stigmatised.
In its 2005 response to the government's Forced Marriage Unit consultation paper, Forced Marriage - A Wrong not a Right, the MCB wrote: “Any law in this regard which is promoted as a tool to help the victims and deter the offenders is most unlikely to be effective because of the nature of the problem and the cultural as well as familial sensitivities involved. A coercive tool in a family and cultural setting is rarely, if ever successful.”
While the MCB were clear in their condemnation: “a ‘forced marriage’ has no religious, moral or legal validity,” they claimed the best way to eradicate forced marriage was through education and that it had to be community led.
While I agree with the MCB on the importance of education, with upwards of 400 cases a year I don’t think there’s time to wait for community-led initiatives to trickle down into collective consciousness.
Undermining the concept of honour – and its association with the female body as a commodity and a barometer of virtue – is the single most important thing society can do to eliminate this abuse.
Criminalising forced marriage will not just act as a deterrent. Just as all societies draw their moral codes from their legislature, criminalisation will go a long way to encourage a widespread intolerance to forced marriage and the perverted concept of honour behind it.
Hannah Stuart is a Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society. She is co-author of “Islam on Campus: A survey of UK student opinions”; “Hizb ut-Tahrir: Ideology and Strategy”; and “Islamist Terrorism: The British Connections”. She is also author of “The Beth Din: Jewish Law in the UK”.

http://www.thecommen...orced_marriage_

Polygamy uncovered: What's it really like for the women who have to share a husband?
By Dawn Porter


Last updated at 1:00 AM on 19th September 2008

For decades, the domestic lives of American polygamists have remained secretive and closely guarded. But for a new TV documentary, presenter Dawn Porter was given access to two polygamous families, who both sought to present rose-tinted images of harmonious, contented communities. But when she scratched beneath the surface, what she found was a very different picture - of resentment, jealousy and bitterness...
At first glance, it is a scene of utterly normal domestic chaos. There's washing to be done, the children are running around outside, and Dad has come home from work in a terrible mood.
Martha has her arm around her husband Moroni and is clucking like an indulgent hen as she tries to coax him into a better temper. Buxom, amiable and in her mid-30s, she is every inch the average housewife and mother.

At least she is until I glance to Moroni's right, and see the second woman who is trying to placate him. Temple - in her late 20s - is Moroni's 'other' wife.

These two women share their lives, their home and their beds with the same husband, bound together by their polygamist marriages.

And, incredibly, the reason for Moroni's mood - he is sitting slumped, head in hands - is that he has been dumped by the woman he hoped would become wife number three.

He moans 'I've been heartbroken more times than I care to admit', which sparks a fresh wave of sympathetic noises from both his wives.

Not only are they happy to share this paunchy man, but they are also happy to help him pick a third wife. Finally, their coaxing seems to ease Moroni's mood.

'We'll find someone who will fit in perfectly,' Martha purrs soothingly, as if her husband were about to select a new set of curtains. 'This one obviously just wasn’t right…'

So why do I find myself here - deep in rural Arizona, meeting two wives who bizarrely claim that it is they who do the exploiting, rather than the husband who moves between their beds virtually every other night of the week?

I was asked by a TV production company to fly around the world investigating the extraordinary relationships that women choose in the name of love.

So what should we make of polygamy, which is still practised by thousands of members of the Mormon sect? Can it really bring the kind of mutual support and sense of community that its protagonists claim?

Or is it simply a throwback to a time when a man dragged a woman back to his cave if he liked the look of her?

To find out, I travelled to Arizona, where 15 years ago Moroni Jessop married Martha. It was love for both of them - and a traditional wedding.

Except that when this blushing virgin bride was making her vows, she already knew that within a few short years her husband would be looking elsewhere for another fresh-faced 'bride'.

So keen to accept this arrangement was Martha, now 35, that when Moroni announced it was time for another partner, she helped him to search.

The result was 'bride' number two, Temple, 27 - a Martha lookalike with straight dark hair, eager smile and thick glasses.

Polygamy is outlawed in America, but many polygamists live in rural backwaters. They flout the law by marrying their first wives in a traditional service and then exchanging vows with further 'wives' in spiritual ceremonies.

Until now, their lives have been shrouded in mystery. I am one of the first journalists ever to be invited into the homes, and lives, of polygamist families.



As I approach the humble three bedroom home where the husband, two wives and assorted offspring live, I expect to meet a dominant male who plays off the insecurities of his wives to brutal effect - demanding sex with whichever wife is in favour, and impregnating them like some kind of stud bull (the women have nine children between them, and Temple is pregnant again).

Instead, I am greeted by a man who is articulate, intelligent and softly spoken. True, physically speaking Moroni - named after a Mormon god - is hardly a catch.

Overweight, buck-toothed and with a wispy goatee, I can't imagine him inciting passion or jealousy.

But this construction worker is softly spoken and considerate, and it becomes clear that both wives adore him, as do the ever-present crowd of children.

Both wives listen to him with rapt attention as he explains that the purpose of polygamy is for one man to produce as large a clan as possible.

When Moroni complains that life for a polygamist husband is hard, incredibly his wives sympathise.

He says: 'It takes a lot of work and patience to deal with the emotions of more than one wife. When I became a polygamist with my second marriage, I did not have a good time at all.

'There were so many demands on me and it seemed that both of my wives were always angry with me.

'I would get home from work and park on the driveway, and then just sit in the car thinking: "OK, which one is going to be mad at me now?"

'I don't know exactly how it changed, or when, but a year later I was in the living room lying on the couch and Martha and Temple were in the kitchen playing Scrabble together and laughing. I realised then that I was happy.

'My children and my wives are the purpose of my existence. Other men might go out and have affairs and then leave wife number one to go and marry wife number two. But I have made a real commitment to both of my wives.'

I can't help asking the question: if Moroni had been in a normal, monogamous marriage to Martha, would he have been unfaithful?

He pauses and then gulps. 'Er, yes, I probably would have been unfaithful.'

So there we are - perhaps this lifestyle is simply an adulterer's refuge, for while the wives are busy making the home, Moroni is out there making whoopee in his search for a third spouse.

He says sadly: 'I can't seem to find The One. I've made a few mistakes, and when things don't work out and I've had my feelings hurt I mope around. Then finally Temple says "Just get over it" when she's had enough of my moods, and I'm forced to snap out of it.'

I watched as both wives - make-up free and wearing modest jeans and T-shirts - prepare dinner for their husband and his nine offspring. Each wife has her own bedroom, and the children sleep with their mothers or share a third bedroom.

Martha insists it's the wives who decide who will have their husband that night.

She tells me: 'We don't get jealous. We know that he loves us both equally and there's room for a third wife. Having her in the house won't mean that he loves us less.'

So how does the household actually work? The first night I sleep on the couch, but before bedtime I watch as the children dutifully kiss their parents goodnight.

Then Moroni gets up to retire, and after whispering with both wives he disappears into Martha's room.

Temple - pregnant and tired, looks relieved. Meanwhile, I am left to sleep. So many women - myself included - joke that what every woman needs is a wife and while Moroni is out at work, Martha and Temple share the childcare, the cooking and household chores, and enjoy what seems to be a real friendship.

If one has a row with Moroni, she can turn to the other 'wife' for support. But it makes me feel slightly nauseous to watch one wife lead the husband to a bedroom, while the other sleeps alone.

The next morning, Moroni once again tries to convince me that this is tough for him.

He complains: 'There are times when sex becomes a chore, because I'm trying to keep two women satisfied. I always try to be fair, and I tend to just go from Martha's room to Temple's room alternately.'

But are these women not consumed with jealousy? He shrugs. 'Sometimes there is awkwardness. I try to reassure them that I love them both by kissing them throughout the day.'

This is starting to sound like a warped version of Little House On The Prairie. I bid my goodbyes and leave - both wives smiling by Moroni's side as they wave farewell.

My next stop is Centennial Park, deep in the Arizona desert, a community of fundamental Mormons who still practise polygamy.

Here, they live an affluent lifestyle - and I draw up to the gated mansion where a wealthy businessman in his 60s lives with his three wives and 16 children.

Boyd is away on business, but I am greeted instead by two of his wives. Nancy became Boyd's second wife 17 years after he married childhood sweetheart Diane.

Shortly afterwards he married again - to third wife Ruth. It is like walking onto the set of The Stepford Wives.

Ruth and Nancy show me the enormous kitchen, the ornate dining table, the immaculate reception room and the television room.

Upstairs are ten bedrooms - including one for each wife, and a separate bedroom for Boyd.

Ruth - a blonde, Meryl Streep lookalike - tells me that she has 'eight beautiful children'.
The remaining eight are between the other wives, but she can't actually remember how many are boys or how many are girls.

We discuss marriage. I tell her that I dream about my own wedding day - walking down the aisle with the man I love, with our family and friends watching. It will be my day, so how would it feel to have another wife sitting in the front aisle, beaming as I marry her husband?

Ruth shrugs. 'Everyone has this rose-tinted view of marriage. I accepted Boyd's first two wives as part of the package. If I wanted him in my life, they were both going to be part of it too.

'In so many marriages, men just tire of their wives after a few years, so they get divorced, move on and marry again, until that first flush of love also disappears and they move on again.

'So what is wrong with a man being able to have variety and a woman having friendship and learning to share?

'Surely it is better for a man to stay with several wives and raise his children, and for them to be the main part of his life, rather than couples who simply divorce and leave their children with no family stability.

'I don't know why the world looks down on polygamy when family and love are the most important things in our life.'

Ruth certainly seems happy enough and later, as I watch her and Nancy prepare the dinner for 16 children, I'm amazed at the calm.

Both wives chat happily as they share the cooking, and the children - aged from 14 to two years old - treat both equally as their mothers.

Nancy - wife number two - explains that she was raised in a polygamous family.

She says: 'I was free to choose if that was what I wanted for myself, and I really thought about it when I was a teenager.

'I had four mothers and 40 siblings, but I could have chosen to just marry one man who was going to be monogamous.'

In the end, Nancy's religious convictions won through - she believes the polygamist ethos that somehow sharing her husband will make her a god or goddess in a second life.

Well, I guess you would need a pretty good reason to share your husband sexually with two other women. She and Ruth claim that there is no jealousy or awkwardness between them.

But as evening approaches, Boyd's first wife Diane is still nowhere to be seen, and I start to wonder if this woman, who enjoyed her husband to herself for 17 years, until she started to lose her youth and her looks, might have a different story to tell.

When I meet Diane, she strikes me as kind but a little withdrawn. She is 63 now, and tells me she raised her children with Boyd as man and wife until suddenly he announced that he wanted to take a second wife.

Thoughthey were both Mormons, after all those years together she had felt that their marriage was strong and happy and that he would feel no need to seek physical satisfaction with another wife.

His decision - taken just as Diane was losing her youth and her looks - was utterly devastating to her.

For more than a decade, she has not discussed her feelings with anyone. Now she sits trembling beside me and I realise that at last the shiny facade of polygamy is being stripped away before my eyes.

She speaks softly. 'I was married for 17 years, and it was really tough when Nancy came along. I don't agree when people claim that there is no jealousy, because that's not what happened to me.

'I'd walk into my living room and my husband would have his arm around her, and my heart would start to pound. I would think to myself: "Gosh, why did you have to walk in now and see that.'' '

It was a bitterness she has lived with for 15 years - swallowing her emotions as an even younger third wife was welcomed into the house as Boyd's latest plaything.

I find it hard to imagine the pain of this woman as she watched her husband impregnate his younger wives time and time again.

Diane tells me softly that she has suffered depression for those 15 years. It was only three years ago - when she faced a near-terminal illness - that the bitterness began to fade.

She says: 'I became really sick and the other wives nursed me. Somehow, and I don't know how or why, my animosity towards those two girls ebbed away.'

I leave her wringing her hands in miserable silence. Diane's unhappiness is overwhelming.

She is the only wife of the five I have met who is honest enough to admit that jealousy, despair and depression are the inevitable fallout when a man finds the excuse to take two or three wives and share them all sexually and emotionally.

My journey into the lives - and many loves - of a polygamist is over. The beaming children, the adoring wives and the homespun philosophy of sharing and love are the images they were keen to portray.

But it's the memory of the lonely, elderly woman forced to sit to one side as her husband cavorts with her younger rivals which haunts me.



Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1ZvAbeFWt



http://www.dailymail...re-husband.html

Six charged with terrorism offences


25 September 2011

Four men have this evening been charged with preparing for an act of terrorism in the UK, and two more with failing to disclose information. One has additionally been charged with terrorist fundraising.

The men, all from Birmingham, were arrested a week ago as part of a major operation carried out by the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit.

The arrests were unarmed, pre-planned and intelligence-led.

A seventh man from the city, aged 20 and arrested on Thursday, continues to be questioned. Officers have until Thursday September 29 to charge, release or apply for a further warrant of detention.

The six charged are aged between 25 and 32 and will appear at West London Magistrates Court (Hammersmith) tomorrow afternoon.

Those charged are:

IRFAN NASSER (14/6/81) aged 30 of 55 Doris Road, Sparkhill
IRFAN KHALID (1/3/85) aged 26 of 35 Timbers Way, Sparkbrook
ASHIK ALI (12/3/85) aged 26 of 23 White Street, Balsall Heath
RAHIN AHMED (28/7/86) aged 25 of 114 Moorcroft Road, Moseley

BAHADER ALI (4/7/83) aged 28 of 27 Turner Street, Sparkbrook
MOHAMMED RIZWAN (3/2/79) aged 32 of 75 Asquith Road, Sparkbrook


The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised West Midlands Police to make the following:

CHARGE 1; ENGAGING IN CONDUCT IN PREPARATION OF TERRORIST ACTS contrary to section 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006.

IRFAN NASSER between the 25th day of December 2010 and the 19th September 2011 with the intention of committing acts of terrorism within the UK or assisting another to commit such acts engaged in conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention, namely:

i. Travelling to Pakistan for training in terrorism including bomb making, weapons and poison making.
ii. Making a martyrdom film.
iii. Planning a bombing campaign.
iv. Planning a suicide bombing campaign/event.
v. Collecting money for terrorism.
vi. Advising and counselling the commission of terrorist acts by providing information about training in Pakistan
vii. Advising, counselling on explosives and detonators.
viii. Being concerned in the purchase of components and chemicals for a home made explosive device.
ix. Construction of a home made explosive device for terrorist acts.
x. Being concerned in recruiting persons for terrorist training.
xi. Being concerned in recruiting persons for terrorist acts.
xii. Stating an intention to be a suicide bomber.

CHARGE 2; ENGAGING IN CONDUCT IN PREPARATION OF TERRORIST ACTS contrary to section 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006.

IRFAN KHALID between the 25th day of December 2010 and the 19th September 2011 with the intention of committing acts of terrorism within the UK or assisting another to commit such acts engaged in conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention, namely:

i. Travelling to Pakistan for training in terrorism including bomb making, weapons and poison making.
ii. Making a martyrdom film.
iii. Planning a bombing campaign.
iv. Planning a suicide bombing campaign/event.
v. Collecting money for terrorism.
vi. Advising and counselling the commission of terrorist acts by providing information about training in Pakistan
vii. Advising, counselling on explosives and detonators.
viii. Being concerned in the purchase of components and chemicals for a home made explosive device.
ix. Construction of a home made explosive device for terrorist acts.
x. Being concerned in recruiting persons for terrorist training.
xi. Being concerned in recruiting persons for terrorist acts.
xii. Stating an intention to be a suicide bomber.

CHARGE 3: ENGAGING IN CONDUCT IN PREPARATION OF TERRORIST ACTS contrary to section 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006.

ASHIK ALI between the 25th day of December 2010 and the 19th September 2011 with the intention of committing acts of terrorism within the UK or assisting another to commit such acts engaged in conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention, namely:

i. Planning a bombing campaign
ii. Planning a suicide bombing campaign/event.
iii. Collecting money for terrorism
iv. Providing premises for the planning of terrorism acts and making of explosives.
v. Learning about explosives and detonators.
vi. Being concerned in the purchase of components and chemicals for a home made explosive device.
vii. Construction of a home made explosive device for terrorist acts.
viii. Being concerned in recruiting persons for terrorist training.
ix. Being concerned in recruiting persons for terrorist acts.
x. Stating an intention to be a suicide bomber.

CHARGE 4; ENGAGING IN CONDUCT IN PREPARATION OF TERRORIST ACTS contrary to section 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006.

RAHIN AHMED between the 25th day of December 2010 and the 19th September 2011 with the intention of committing acts of terrorism within the UK or assisting another to commit such acts engaged in conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention, namely:

i. Assisting others to travel to Pakistan for training in terrorism including bomb making, weapons and poison making.
ii. Collecting money for terrorism.
iii. Investing and managing money for terrorist acts.

CHARGE 5; INFORMATION ABOUT ACTS OF TERRORISM, contrary to Section 38B (1) (a) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000

BAHADER ALI between the 29th July 2011 and the 19th September 2011 had information which he knew or believed might be of material assistance in preventing the commission by another person of an act of terrorism and did not disclose the information as soon as reasonably practicable.

CHARGE 6; ENTERING INTO A FUNDING ARRANGEMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TERRORISM, contrary to Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

BAHADER ALI before the 19th September 2011 entered into or became concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property was to be made available to another, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it would or might be used for the purposes of terrorism.

CHARGE 7; INFORMATION ABOUT ACTS OF TERRORISM, contrary to Section 38B (1) (a) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000

MOHAMMED RIZWAN between the 29th July 2011 and the 19th September 2011 had information which he knew or believed might be of material assistance in preventing the commission by another person of an act of terrorism and did not disclose the information as soon as reasonably practicable.

Ends.

Note to editors: Ashik Ali and Bahader Ali are brothers.
http://www.west-midl...ase.asp?ID=2547

Truth about how UK Muslims exploit polygamy benefits revealed
ANI Sep 25, 2011, 12.12pm ISTTags:
United Kingdom|polygamy
LONDON: Two experienced Lancashire social workers say that in their estimation, there are 20,000 bigamous or polygamous unions in the UK.

Although the government says there are only 1,000 such bigamous or polygamous unions in the UK, the two experienced Lancashire social workers -- one of Indian-English heritage and the other with Pakistani origin, said multiple marriages are encouraged by a welfare system which allows a second, third or fourth wife to be treated as a single mother who gets a house and an array of other state payments for herself and her children
http://articles.time...mous-lancashire