Feeding Frenzy of the Islamist Crocodiles

Part Two (of Two)

"Clowns" and Acts of Terrorism

Al-Muhajiroun officially lasted from February 1996 until October 2004, continuing as an entity under various other names. The most recent incarnation of the group is "Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah", which like Al-Muhajiroun is headed by Anjem Choudary. Though its core membership never rose above 200 committed members and a few hundred peripheral members, Al-Muhajiroun and its front groups were able to network through Islamic forums to gain further support for their activities.

The group's spiritual leader and founder, Omar Bakri Mohammed (above), had close ties with hook-handed Abu Hamza who occupied the Finsbury Park Mosque and had his own band of activists called "The Supporters of Sharia". The close association between the two clerics allowed a "pooling" of their followers for sharing information, key activities and protests. Despite anti-Western comments by these clerics which provoked media outrage, neither the British police nor MI5 were particularly interested in tackling hate preachers and their followers. Only after the bombings of July 7, 2005 did the Labour government attempt to deal with hate-preaching clerics. The Home Secretary of that time, Charles Clarke, then discovered that the Human Rights Act 1988, introduced by his own government, prevents the easy deportation of foreign radicals.

The British government had done nothing while British Muslims went abroad to carry out acts of terrorism or to engage as fighters against legitimate nations, such as India where Islamists believed Jammu & Kashmir State should be part of Pakistan. Al Muhajiroun became a key player in establishing the means for Muslims to go to abroad to become jihadists. One of the first recorded jihad tourists was a young Al Muhajiroun associate from Birmingham called Mohammed Bilal. He went to Indian Kashmir and in December 2000 and blew himself up in a stolen car at an army barracks. Bilal killed six soldiers and three civilians.

Al Muhajiroun had an office in Lahore, Pakistan which, along with other safe-houses in the country, was used to prepare British jihad tourists to go to Kashmir. Mohammed Bilal used these Al-Muhajiroun safe houses on his route to Kashmir. The Lahore office had been set up in 1999 by a Dutch/Pakistani member called Adil Shahid, who was a a software advisor for the Pakistani military.

Shahid's two brothers Sajeel and Sohaib would help establish the base, receiving encouragement from Khalid Khawaja, a jihad-supporting former member of Pakistan's intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

In 2000, a 17-year old British Muslim was "rescued" from a militant training camp in Kashmir by his family. This individual was Omar Khyam, who would later admit his involvement with Al Muhajiroun. He said of his time at the camp: "They taught me everything I needed for guerrilla warfare in Kashmir, AK47s, pistols, RPGs, sniper rifles, climbing and crawling techniques, reconnaissance and light machine guns."

Al-Muhajiroun's Lahore office would become a vital part of the pipeline that would send British wannabe jihadists into the tribal areas of Pakistan. They would receive training there or in Afghanistan from Al Qaeda and Taliban members, before moving on elsewhere. In 2001, before the events of 9/11, officials from Russia had requested that Britain ban Al-Muhajiroun under its Terrorism Act. They maintained that the group had influenced students from the London School of Economics who went on to fight in Chechnya.

Al Muhajiroun - like Hizb ut-Tahrir under Bakri's influence - maintained a presence in Britain's colleges and universities. In late 2000 Al-Muhajiroun posters appeared in various universities bearing the slogan "The last hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill the Jews."

Hassan Butt, like many of the core leadership of Al Muhuajiroun, was a failed student. He had been expelled from the University of Wolverhampton after he assaulted a homosexual at the college. It appears that Butt became involved with Al Muhajiroun while at the university. Butt went to Pakistan in March 2001 and stayed in its Lahore office. Individuals who stayed with Butt before going on to receive terrorist training would later become famous for their parts in Western terrorism plots.

One person who stayed at the Lahore office was an American Al-Muhajiroun member, Mohammed Junaid Babar, of Queens, New York. Babar went to Pakistan shortly after 9/11 and stayed at the Lahore office for a month. He had gone to Pakistan, he said with money and instructions from Al-Muhajiroun. In December 2001, Babar bought an apartment in Eden Heights, Jail Road, in Lahore, and maintained his contacts with the Al-Muhajiroun office.

Between April 2002 until December 2002 Junaid Babar worked for a company called the Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB), which had contracts with the Pakistani military and government. Babar appears to have got this job from his links with the Shahid brothers.

Sohaib Shahid managed a company called the Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB), which had contracts with the Pakistani military and government. Shahid had been made CEO of PSEB in March 2002 until he was sacked in September 2002. According to Richard Watson, Babar used his position within the company to issue passes which gave access to tribal areas which were out-of-bounds even to Pakistani journalists. PSEB web servers at this time also hosted Islamist websites.

Hassan Butt declared himself to be Al-Muhajiroun's "spokesman". He warned in January 2002 that British and American jihadists would lead terrorism attacks upon their return. He said: "If they do return I do believe that they will take military action within Britain. One thing I've always tried to stress is the point that the mujahideen that are coming in from Britain should strike at the heart of the enemy which is within its own country, within Britain. Those mujahideen that are coming from America should strike, again, at the heart of America and I have always been in favor of this."

Butt claimed that he had recruited 200 British jihadists to fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Omar Bakri Mohammed publicly denied that Butt was the group's spokesperson. However, only a few weeks previously Al-Muhajiroun's activities of sending Jihadists abroad to fight and commit crimes had been outlawed by Britain. Butt remained in Pakistan, as did Junaid Babar, and in the summer of 2003 a group of individuals with links to Al Muhajiroun would come to Lahore from Britain. These individuals all had jihad on their mind.

These men included Omar Khyam from Crawley in West Sussex, who had been "rescued" from Kashmir by his family three years earlier. Khyam used an alias - "Ausman". Other individuals with him were Waheed Mahmood ("Abdul Waheed"), Anthony Garcia ("Abdul Rahman") and Salahuddin Amin ("Khalid"). Junaid had previously met Khyam and Garcia in 2002 at a prayer meeting, while he was on during a fund-raising trip to London.

In 2003, Junaid Babar helped to set up a terror training camp at Malakand in Pakistan's At this time, Khyam's group apparently only intended to fight in Afghanistan against coalition troops, but Al-Qaeda operative Abdul Hadi al Iraqi had sent word to them that: "if they really wanted to do something they could go back [to the U.K.] and do something there." In the garrison town of Kohat, a deputy of Abdul Hadi met Omar Khyam and urged him to carry out a major bomb attack, involving more than one bomb.

The British jihadists went to Junaid Babar's training camp in Malakand, and there they met Mohammed Sidique Khan, who would become the leader of the four-man team that blew up three trains and a bus on July 7, 2005. At that time, Sidique Khan was using the alias "Ibrahim". After attending the camp, Khyam's team returned to Lahore. Khyam and one of his accomplices made a quick visit to Britain to get money, and then set about plotting bombing exercises in an Al-Muhajiroun hostel in Lahore. Mohammed Sidique Khan, who had officially been booked into this hostel, had returned to Britain in August 2003.

When explosions were heard at the Sufi House hostel at 13, Ilyas Road, police were called. Khyam's associates claimed that a propane gas cylinder had blown up. Though Pakistani police took no action against the plotters, the ISI had informed British authorities about the noisy young men at the Al-Muhajiroun hostel.

Later in 2003 Mohammed Sidique Khan (pictured) would come back to Pakistan, accompanied by Shehzad Tanweer, and the pair attended the training camp in Malakand. Tanweer, whose parents ran a fish and chip shop in Beeston in Leeds, would also become one of the 7/7 suicide bombers.

Omar Khyam and his team returned to Britain. Khyam was known to have links with a man called "Q" who was based in Luton. Q - whose name is Mohammed Qayum Khan - had links to Al Qaeda and also was involved with fundraising for jihad. He had already been under surveillance since March 2003. Q had been recorded in 2003 talking to Mohammed Sidique Khan on a mobile phone, before Khan had gone to Pakistan. The phone that Sidique Khan had used was traced back to him by MI5, but as Khan was not listed on MI5 or police records, they did not investigate him.

Because of his links to "Q", Omar Khyam would come under intense surveillance from police and MI5. The monitoring of Khyam and his associates began in February 2004. In this month, Omar Khyam met with Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer on at least two occasions, and on March 23 the three met again. This was to be the last time, for on March 30, Khyam and several of his associates were arrested.

The day before Khyam and six others were arrested, a Canadian called Mohammad Momin Khawaja was arrested in Ottawa, Canada. Khawaja had met Khyam in London in February 2004. He had apparently been plotting to send Khyam's team radio-controlled detonators for use with bombs.

Khyam had purchased 600 kilograms (1,320 pounds) of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which he and his group were planning to use as in bomb attacks. In 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma had been blown up using this substance, killing 168 people. 2,000 kilograms (5,000 pounds) had been employed in Oklahoma, but the quantity of fertilizer held by Khyam could have caused devastating loss of life.

The fertilizer was kept in a storage unit in Hanwell, West London. When police intelligence knew what was going on, the substance was replaced by an inert substitute. An undercover policewoman named Amanda was brought in to act as the receptionist at the storage facility.

The surveillance operation against Omar Khyam and his fellow Al-Muhajiroun members was called "Operation Crevice". Five individuals - Jawad Akbar, Omar Khyam, Waheed Mahmood, Anthony Garcia and Salahuddin Amin - were convicted on April 30, 2007 of plotting to set off explosions, and were all given life sentences.

Mohammed Sidique Khan, with Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hossain went on to become the first Muslim suicide bombers to make a strike on Britain.

The warning signs had been around for some time that a Muslim bomb attack would happen in Britain. Hassan Butt had warned of home-grown attacks, and so had Omar Bakri Mohammed, spiritual leader of Al-Muhajiroun. On April 19, 2004, an interview with Bakri had appeared in the Portugese magazine Publica. Bakri spoke of a group that he called "al-Qaeda Europe" and claimed: "I know that they are ready to launch a big operation."

Bakri told the magazine: "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."

The British media had long portrayed Bakri as a buffoon, making outrageous comments that were treated as hot air and hyperbole. Underneath his smiles, Bakri knew exactly what he was doing. His words, when examined, show a calculated callousness that is hard for Westerners to comprehend.

Unheeded Warnings

Bakri should have been taken seriously in 1995, a year before he resigned, or was driven out from, the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Bakri had founded the British chapter of this group in 1986, with a fellow Syrian called Farid Kassim. Bakri was seen as a liablility by the more conservative members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The events of February 1995 were almost certainly factors which caused Bakri to leave the mainstream group.

Bakri was never averse to acts of violence committed by his followers. The first person to be killed in Britain by Muslim fanatics was a Nigerian student called Ayotunde Obanubi. He attended Newham College of Further Education, which no longer exists. Omar Bakri Mohammed had visited the college to give a lecture on Thursday February 23, 1995. The following day, Obanubi was stabbed in the arm by Abdul Qadir, a Hizb ut-Tahrir supporter, ostensibly in a row over table tennis.

Saeed Nur, the brother of Qadir, had earlier warned Obanubi not to "mess with Muslim boys and my religion." It was perceived by Hizb members that the student had somehow "insulted" Islam. I remember at the time hearing that Obanubi had laughed when he had been handed one of the group's leaflets. When Obanubi returned to college on Monday February 27, he was ambushed by armed Hizb ut-Tahrir students led by Saeed Nur. Obanubi was stabbed through the heart and his head was struck with a hammer. He died on the college steps.

Saeed Nur was not even enrolled at the college. In 1996, Nur was given a life sentence for the murder. Umran Wali Qadir, who had hit Obanubi with the hammer, was also found guilty of murder. As he had been only 16 at the time of the murder, he was sentenced to be detained "at her Majesty's Pleasure", for a recommended duration of 10 years.

There was shock at the murder, but Bakri did not receive any official sanctions from the British authorities. Two years later on April 8 1997, a documentary by journalist Jon Ronson was aired on Channel 4 TV called Tottenham Ayatollah. The show portrayed Bakri as a clown, and according to Makbool Javaid, chair of the Association of Muslim Lawyers: "The general thrust of the programme was the demonisation of Omar Bakri, and not the representation of his Islamic principles and ideology, as he was led to believe."

Makbool Javaid unsuccessfully tried to ban the show from being screened. Javaid was already an associate of Bakri, and had even signed one of Bakri's notorious fatwas. The fatwa signed by Javaid in 1998 was against the US and Britain, and urged ini Clause 11: "We the undersigned call upon the Muslims around the world including the Muslims in the USA and in Britain to confront by all means whether verbally, financially, politically or militarily the US and British aggression..."

The Sunday Mirror newspaper in August 1998 expressed outrage that Javaid had been appointed by Jack Straw, then the Home Secretary in the Labour Government, to sit on the Race Relations Forum This body had been set up to give minority groups a "voice in the heart of government". Jack Straw is now Britain's Justice Secretary. The newspaper wrote: "Mr Javaid, who used to be a legal adviser to the Commission for Racial Equality, is a member of the London-based Al- Muhajiroun group." Javaid objected to his portrayal by some newspapers as an Al-Muhajiroun member and as a supporter of Al Qaeda, and threatened to sue.

Whether Javaid was a paid-up member of Al-Muhajiroun or not, he signed its fatwa, and attempted to present Omar Bakri Mohammed as a harmless Muslim. Such behavior is not what one should expect from someone appointed to advise the government. A cursory examination of Bakri's speeches would have shown that the Syrian-born cleric was far from harmless. Bakri's fatwa suggesting that it was a "religious obligation" for Muslims to kill John Major had been made in 1991. Javaid should have known about this.

Bakri intended to expand the sphere of operations of Al-Muhajiroun beyond Britain. Private investigator and self-styled "cyber vigilante" Bill Warner, currently based in Sarasota, Florida, unearthed details about the operations of Al-Muhajiroun in the United States. Warner helped the BBC journalist Richard Watson to unravel the links of Mohammed Junaid Babar and other American Al-Muhajiroun members with a small mosque in Queens, New York.

Junaid Babar had been arrested in March 2004 in Queens as he went to a taxi-driving course. He was taken by the FBI to Room 538 of the Embassy Suites Hotel in Manhattan where he remained in negotiations for four days. Faced with a 70-year jail term, Babar agreed to give evidence against his associates. On June 2, 2004, Babar pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to provide material support, and providing that support, to terrorists. In April 2007, under heavy security, Babar gave evidence at London's Old Bailey against the Operation Crevice plotters.

Before he became an informant, Babar had been intransigent. He had been the subject of a video report by Jon Gilbert in November 2001. His mother had been in the WTC on (/11 and had narrowly escaped with her life, but Babar stated that if she lived or died would have been "Allah's will". Though Pakistani-born Babar had been granted US citizenship, he said: "There is no negotiation with the Americans. I will kill every American that I see in Afghanistan, and every American I see in Pakistan."

In the borough of Queens, as Bill Warner discovered, Babar would attend a small mosque, the Masjid al-Fatima on 37th Avenue, Woodside. At some stage in the mid-1990s, this mosque had been infiltrated by radicals from Hizb ut-Tahrir. The mosque's imam, Aqeel Khan, spoke of the problems caused by these radicals, who also stole money from the mosque's funds.

This place of worship would also become the haunt of American Al-Muhajiroun members. It was at this mosque in 1999 that Junaid Babar met Sajil Shahid, who would become a founder of the Al-Muhajiroun office in Lahore. Bill Warner also found that between June 2 and June 4, 2000, a convention was held at the Masjid al-Fatima, where Sajil Shahid gave some lectures. Another participant at the three-day convention was a person called "Brother Fahad".

Brother Fahad is Syed Hashmi. This individual was arrested on June 6, 2006 at London's Heathrow airport, as he tried to board a plane to Pakistan. Hashmi was suspected of helping jihadists in their activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hashmi officially belonged to the Islamic Thinkers Society (ITS) , which is believed by many to be - like Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah - another front for Al-Muhajiroun. ITS certainly has similar goals to Al-Muhajiroun. Hashmi had invited an Al-Muhajiroun speaker to talk at Brooklyn College. On Friday May 25, 2--7, Hashmi was deported to the United States, where he faces charges of contributing funds, goods or services to Al Qaeda. His lawyer described the material he thought Hashmi intended to take via Pakistan was "glorified camping equipment" such as sleeping bags and goggles.

When informed that I was writing about Al-Muhajiroun, Bill Warner told me: "Of course I have an opinion on our pal Anjem Choudary and Al Muhajiroun...New York City Cops take so seriously the threat from al-Muhajiroun that the NYPD keeps a Detective on full time in London working with Scotland Yard and MI5 to keep tabs on al-Muhajiroun activates and it is al-Muhajiroun no matter what other name they use. People who are recruited by al-Muhajiroun are taught by the organization that Israel, the Jews and the West are evil and that it is their Muslim duty to fight them. Al-Muhajiroun recruits heavily on the internet and YouTube, Anjem Choudary has 81 related YouTube videos currently online see here."

"Al-Muhajiroun recruits online at www.Islam4uk.com which is a reincarnation of al-Muhajiroun in all but name. It is headed by Bakri Mohammed, now living in Lebanon, and his deputy Anjem Choudary, its official spokesman. (Al-Muhajiroun still meets in Queens NY, members from Baltimore MD come into the city on weekends). My efforts are now spent shutting down jihad websites like al-Muhajiroun."

Anjem Choudary and Jihad

On March 15 last weekend, the Sunday Times reported that Anjem Choudary, former operational leader of Al-Muhajiroun and current leader of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, has been urging his supporters to send money to mujahideen fighters. The evidence appeared on an a tape recording which had been made in 2008, while Choudary addressed his supporters.

On the Islam4UK website Choudary vehemently denies the veracity of the Sunday Times article.

Choudary, lacking the panache of his hero Omar Bakri Mohammed, nonetheless shares with his spiritual leader an uncompromising contempt for Western values. Bakri has said he would support Muslims who took non-Muslim women and children as hostages. Choudary echoes the same intransigence in his speeches.

After 9/11, Choudary said: "The people of America deserved 11 September. Osama bin Laden is a hero to people in the UK. If support for al-Qaeda wasn't proscribed and people were free to air their views, many more would voice their support. Here at al-Muhajiroun we fear only God and are free to speak our view. Osama bin Laden is a hero and should be loved."

In May 2003, Choudary appeared in a BBC interview with journalist Tim Sebastian. Choudary here stated that he supported suicide bombings, which he called "martyrdom operations". He said that jihad was an obligation for Muslims. Jihad could include various activities, including suicide attacks. Choudary reiterated his contempt for non-Muslims. He said: "We have a principle in the Sharia in which a non-Muslim is not to be believed until evidence is presented otherwise...."

On April 20, 2003, two British Muslims had tried to blow themselves up in Mike's Bar in Tel Aviv, Israel. Omar Sharif from Derby and Asif Hanif from Hounslow, West London turned up at the sea front bar. Asif Hanif succeeded in detonating his explosives. He killed three people and injured sixty others. Sharif could not get his bomb to go off. Sharif ran off and was found dead and decomposing 12 days later, floating in the sea. A Hamas-produced video appeared later, where the two jihadists were shown denouncing Britain and Israel.

Choudary admitted that he had casually known Omar Sharif who had attended lectures by Omar Bakri Mohammed in Derby, but had not trained the two terrorists to carry out the bombings. It has been suggested that Asif Hanif had been seen at Bakri's Sharia Court at the Lea Valley Techno Park in Tottenham, north London.

Al Muhajiroun and other Islamist groups have been allowed to openly preach hate for the West, for democracy, to call for the deaths of others, to vilify Jews and Israelis, with what appears to most British citizens to complete immunity. A sense now exists that Muslim fanatics have "more rights" than British nationals. The vast majority of Muslim citizens would object to the extreme positions advocated by radical Islamists. Muslims fear that they will be caught in some sort of backlash against the preachers of hate.

The situation that has been created in Britain is that Islamists have exploited principles of tolerance and freedom of speech, while denying those freedoms to others. The police and the government, instead of working to uphold principles of law that should be the same for all people, have chosen to be partial and selective in how they implement justice. For years, even when confronted with evidence that Al-Muhajiroun's warlike and intransigent ideology was fueling acts of violence and terrorism, politicians turned a blind eye.

Rather than offend minorities, the British government and police are seen to ignore Islamists' open contempt for "kaffir" society, while condemning those who would criticize Islamism as Islamophobes and even racists. Jacqui Smith, Britain's Home Secretary, not content to pay lipservice to Gordon Brown's demand to ditch the words "War on Terror", has gone a step further. She has attempted to rewrite the lexicon on terrorism to re-brand Muslim terrorism as "anti-Islamic activity". Such spineless pandering to a few Muslim voters, at the expense of upholding national principles that should apply to all, undermine the fabric of democracy.

Democracy has to be practiced by honest and upfront politicians for it to survive. In the United States, Islamists are slowly but surely making inroads into the political landscape, and Democrats and others have done little to stop this. In April 2007 Steny Hoyer met with Mohammed Saad el-Katatni leader of the Muslim Brotherhood's faction within the Egyptian parliament. Nancy Pelosi was happy to cover her hair with a hijab in a Damascus market just to "show solidarity" with the inhabitants of a country whose rulers have done little to show solidarity with American politics, people, or values. Pelosi was ostensibly in Syria in April 2007 to discuss fighting terrorism, in a trip approved by former President Jimmy Carter. Is terrorism ever fought by waving a white handkerchief (or black hijab)?

When Winston Churchill spoke disparagingly in 1940 about those who refused to confront the enemies of democracy, he declared that "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last," Churchill was acting as a statesman, probably the most inspirational that Britain has ever seen. Nowadays in Britain, even the word "statesman" will soon be outlawed by British politicians, on the orders of their overlords in the European Union.

When Gordon Brown, Britain's unelected prime minister, recently visited President Obama, he brought along a seven-volume biography of Churchill. On his return to Britain, Brown was given an extra gift to take home with him. Along with the 25 DVDs of Hollywood movies, Obama decided to give back a bust of Winston Churchill that had stood in his White House office. Obama, it appears, does not want to have anything to do with Churchill. Obama, who thinks it would be good policy to talk to "disaffected Taliban" is showing the same ideological lethargy that has sapped Britain's political will to live.

Britain is currently downgrading its history and its traditions. Its governing politicians regard all of its previous cultural achievements as having no inherent values worthy of celebration. All cultures are equal, the Labour dogma maintains, and to praise one culture over another is racist. Other cultures are encouraged to have pride in their differences from British traditions, while those who try to uphold British traditions are regarded as threats.

Britain's pride went long ago, as its leaders happily fed the crocodiles, telling everyone they were being fair to everyone. Al-Muhajiroun and its followers, and the hosts of other Islamists currently wishing for the overthrow of Britain, cannot be blamed for being crocodiles. If they are being fed, they will thrive. Those who should really be blamed are the politicians and media figures who delude themselves that a well-fed crocodile is not a dangerous beast.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Feeding Frenzy of the Islamist Crocodiles

Part One (of Two)

There is a famous quote attributed to Winston Churchill, which is almost ubiquitous on the internet. I have even quoted it myself on these pages. It goes: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Sadly, the quote is garbled. It comes from a BBC radio broadcast made on January 20, 1940, where Churchill discussed the inaction of the "neutral" nations who refused to confront Nazism. He said: "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear - I fear greatly - the storm will not pass."

The players are different today, but Churchill's message is still valid. We are at war. Militant Islam declared war on the West back in 1993, when the first attack on the World Trade Center took place. Almost every week, more American soldiers and more British soldiers die in Afghanistan, fighting in this war. Back in 1940, the rules of engagement were clear. The enemy was easily identifiable, his motives unmistakable. Today there is some confusion about who are the protagonists and who are the "neutral" nations in this war.

The Taliban continue to kill American and British soldiers, to routinely oppress women and deny them education, but then we hear talk of Obama's idle musings about negotiating with the Taliban. In Britain, for the last 11 years the socialist Labour government has engaged in a pas de deux with supporters of terror. Labour tacitly accepted the terms of a "covenant of security". This gave British-based Islamists permission to plot terror, as long as those terrorist acts took place somewhere else.

As Daniel Pipes pointed out in January 2007: "British-based terrorists have carried out operations in at least 15 countries, going from East to West ... Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Algeria, Morocco, Russia, France, Spain and the United States." If one includes the exploits of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh in India, that would make 16 countries. British Islamists also took part in Mujahideen activity in the Balkans, in Kosovo and Bosnia.

On July 7, 2005, four British Muslims blew themselves up on London Transport, killing 52 innocent travelers and injuring hundreds. On August 1, 2005, the BBC aired a short news feature that shocked Britons. Bearded fanatics, born in Britain, were seen praising the activities of the 7/7 bombers and praising Bin Laden. One, who called himself Abu Uzair, declared that "the covenant of security is no longer, doesn't no longer (sic) exist."

Abu Uzair belonged to a group that formerly called itself Al-Muhajiroun. Archive footage was shown on the BBC, taken in 2004, of an Al-Muhajiroun meeting in London. Here, Uzair addressed an audience: "When they speak about September the eleventh, when the two planes, magnificently, went through those buildings, OK..."

Uzair was shown sitting beside another bearded figure. The man was Anjem Choudary (pictured below), who also spoke. He said of George W. Bush: "He said: "You're either with us or you're ... with the terrorists. And what did we Muslims say? We said we're not with you - we're with the terrorist! Allah Ackbar!" Choudary used to be the operational head Al Muhajiroun before it was disbanded in October 2004. The spiritual leader of the group was Omar Bakri Mohammed, who fled Britain in August 2005.

In 2005, Choudary was a leading member of the Saviour Sect and Al Ghurabaa (the "strangers"). The negative publicity that arose from the BBC broadcast caused the Saviour Sect to later change its name to the Saved Sect. In July 2007, both the Saved Sect and Al Ghurabaa were officially banned by the government, but Choudary and his associates continued to operate as an organized group.

In November 2005 Choudary, Abu Izzadeen and other former players in Al Muhajiroun had founded a new group in north London. This called itself "Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah". Its membership was the same as that of Al Ghurabaa and the Saviour/Sect. When Britain's Home Secretary John Reid banned these two groups, he failed to ban Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah.

Reid's failure to ban the group allowed it to continue its activities. On February 3, 2006 the group had made its first major public appearance. At a march that ended at the Danish Embassy in Sloane Square, Chaudary's mob bore banners that read: "Behead those who insult Islam", "Europe. Take some lessons from 9/11", "Europe you will pay. Demolition is on its way", "Europe you will pay. Your extermination is on its way," "Slay those who insult Islam," "Butcher those who insult Islam." No Muslims were arrested at the time, but one van driver who objected to the slogans was warned that he could be arrested if he continued to complain.

The Danish Embassy incident had drawn angry comments in Parliament, critical of the police who had made no attempt to deal with the illegal protest. The first arrests did not take place until a month later. Five people were indicted, and four of these were later tried, convicted and jailed for incitement to murder.

Choudary was given a trivial fine on July 4, 2006, for organizing the illegal demonstration outside the Danish Embassy. He had previously been sentenced for organizing illegal demonstrations in 2003. In September 2006, a few weeks after Al Ghurabaa and the Saviour/Saved Sect were banned, Choudary led another illegal demonstration outside Westminster Cathedral in London, harassing worshippers. Here, Choudary said that because Pope Benedict XVI had made a speech about Islam that some construed as critical of Islam, the Pontiff should be executed. The head of the Metropolitan Police later announced that no crime had been committed.

Last week and this week, Anjem Choudary and Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah featured in the news again. The reason stemmed from the behavior of a small group of Choudary's supporters on March 10 in Luton, Bedfordshire. 200 soldiers arriving back home from Iraq were having a parade through the town. These belonged to the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, aka the "Poachers". Among the onlookers at the parade were about fifteen Muslim fanatics, with a group of women in full burkas accompanying them.

The Islamists shouted abuse at the soldiers, calling them "Terrorists". They carried placards with slogans which read: "Baby killers", "Anglian Soldiers Butchers of Basra" and accused the Battalion of being "Criminals, Murderers Terrorists" and "Cowards". What angered many people was the manner in which the police arrested no member of the Islamist group, but instead arrested those who took issue with them. One of these was an 18-year old man who was charged with racially aggravated harassment (verbal abuse). He will appear in court on March 18. Another man in his 40s was given an £80 on-the-spot fine.

The Islamists from Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah vowed to continue protesting against homecoming soldiers. Anjem Choudary declared: "Whenever the troops come we will be demonstrating." On Saturday, March , Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah supporters took to the streets of Luton, distributing leaflets which condemned the "racist and discriminate nature of the British public".

Many Muslims, such as boxer Amir Khan, condemned the actions of Choudary's fanatics. 50 ringside seats for Khan's successful match against Mexican Marco Antonio Barrera were offered to the Poachers. Ali Abbas, who lost his arms and his family in Iraq condemned the protesters, saying: "How dare these so-called Muslims speak with so much conviction when not even a handful of them have ever set foot in Iraq?" The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah protesters have even exploited photographs of Ali in its anti-Western propaganda.

One of the Luton protesters, Jalal Ahmed, was revealed to have been employed as a baggage handler at Luton Airport for the past two years. Ahmed had his security pass suspended after the publicity, and his father defended him, saying: "He has done nothing wrong. He was just exercising his right to protest. I wouldn't stop him if he wanted to do something similar again."

Another protester - Yousaf Bashir - lived with his parents in a house in Luton. After windows in the house were smashed, Bashir was given police protection.

Anjem Choudary capitalized on the free publicity. On March 11, the day after the protest, he appeared on GMTV (morning television). He aired his views, creating another round of headlines for the subsequent day. Choudary has also been reviled for his comments such as the following: "Every woman, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, would have to wear a traditional burka and covereverything apart from her face and hands in public. In matters to do with the judicial system and the penal code, one male witness is sufficient to counter the testimony of two females. People who commit adultery would be stoned to death." Choudary also condemned British people for living "like animals in the jungle".

It has been easy for some in the media to dismiss Choudary and his cronies as eccentric but harmless fools. The Sunday Times this weekend carried an editorial suggesting that we should "just laugh at these clowns". Trivializing the threat posed by Choudary and his mob may make people feel better, but does not make the threat go away. The British government, and various police forces, have stood back and done nothing while he, his friends and his supporters have called for the death of others.

There is evidence that their preaching inspired at least one of their number to become a British suicide bomber (Asif Hanif), responsible for the deaths of three people in Tel Aviv in April 2003. The Operation Crevice members who plotted death and destruction in Britain were mostly members of Al Muhajiroun, the body that was headed by Choudary and his guru, Omar Bakri Mohammed. These terrorists, now jailed, were also in close contact with Mohamed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the four bombers who killed 52 London travelers on July 7, 2005. The "clowns" - when viewed against the scheming of their followers and associates - are suddenly not funny at all.

Anjem Choudary - Evolution of a Fanatic

Born in 1967, Choudary was the son of a market trader from Welling, on the edge of London. He appears to have lived a charmed life. He has glorified terrorism, and has presided over websites that justify the murder of people who do not submit to Islam, but has not been in jail. He has organized demonstrations where his followers called for people to be killed. On February 2, 2006, he and his followers demonstrated outside the BBC headquarters, demanding that named employees should be killed. Police stood by and did nothing.

While Choudary has walked a tightrope without falling, his close associates are now in jail. Abu Izzadeen (above) who led the Saviour/Saved Sect is currently in jail. He was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment on April 21 2008. Izzadeen was convicted of fundraising for terrorism and inciting terrorism overseas (only a crime in the UK since October 2001). Simon (Sulayman) Keeler, who was with Choudary and Izzadeen when they founded Ahlus Sunna Wal Jamaah in 2005 in a charity shop in Leytonstone, north London, was also jailed with Izzadeen at Kingston Crown Court or the same period of time.

Choudary's friend Abdul Muhid was also found guilty at the same trial of gathering money to send to insurgents in Iraq, along with another individual, Shah Jalal Hussain. Abdul Muhid had been arrested with Choudary at Stansted airport in May 2006 when the pair had tried to fly to Dublin, Ireland, contravening their bail conditions.

At the time of his conviction at Kingston Crown Court, Muhid was already serving a six year sentence for "soliciting to murder". Muhid had previously fought with police in Chingford, called for British soldiers to be killed, for homosexuals to be thrown off cliffs. He took a megaphone into a Sikh neighborhood and started to insult individuals on the street. Muhid had been arrested on various occasions, and taken to court, but until he cried out "Bomb, bomb the UK" at the Danish Embassy demonstration, his actions had led to no punishment. Other associates of Muhid who were jailed for their roles at the same February 3, 2006 demonstration are: Abdul Saleem (aka "Abu Yahya") Umran Javed and Mizanur Rahman.

Anjem Choudary qualified as a lawyer, which partly explains why he has been able to evade punishment. But his knowledge of British law does not wholly explain why Choudary has thus far avoided jail. On numerous occasions, Choudary has openly incited murder (a crime) and the reason why he has not been punished so far lies predominantly with the British establishment - its politicians and police.

The situation in Luton on March 10 last week highlighted in microcosm the processes by which fanatical Muslims are allowed to engage in forms of behavior that would see non-Muslims arrested. In Luton, people who threw insults at the Islamist protesters were arrested, while the Islamists were protected by the police.

The precedent for this recurring theme in British law enforcement happened in early1988, two decades ago. At that time, Dr Kalim Siddiqui (1931 - 1996) was instrumental in many of the protests against Salman Rushdie - indeed Siddiqui went to Iran and encouraged Ayatollah Khomeini to uphold his death fatwa. The Rushdie affair saw leading Muslim figures like Yusuf Islam saying on television that he wanted to see Rushdie burned, and hundreds of Muslims descending on Hyde Park to demand that the author repent or die. None of these people calling for the death of the author were taken to court, even though they had all breached the law that prohibited "incitement to murder".

In 1991, three years after the Rushdie affair brought bloodthirsty British Islamists into the open, Omar Bakri Mohammed issued a fatwa in which he wrote of Britain's Prime Minister: "(John) Major is a legitimate target. If anyone gets the opportunity to assassinate him, I don't think they should save it. It is our Islamic duty and we will celebrate his death." Bakri was interviewed by Britain's homeland security agency, MI5, but no charges were brought against him.

Bakri had established the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and Al Muhajiroun (the emigrants) in 1996. This was named after a group he had founded in Saudi Arabia as a front for Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is illegal in most Arab countries. Bakri had been deported from Saudi Arabia in 1988. Bakri saw no contradiction in calling for attacks against Britain while receiving state handouts.

After President Mubarak of Egypt criticized Britain's policies of allowing Islamists, including convicted Islamists to claim asylum and receive welfare, Bakri issued another fatwa, urging his murder. "As far as Islam is concerned, he [Mubarak] is now a legitimate target. If a Muslim kills Mubarak tomorrow he is performing a legitimate act because he is responding to the court's verdict."

This style of language - though obviously encouraging murder - allowed Bakri to use "Islam" as the justification, rather than expressing this as a personal wish. Choudary, who first met Bakri in 1996 at a mosque in Woolwich, London, would later copy this style. In September 2006 when he spoke of executing the Pope, Choudary chose his words carefully.

Choudary said: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment. I am here have a peaceful demonstration. But there may be people in Italy or other parts of the world who would carry that out. I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam."

In the same year, while Anjem Choudary was head of the Al Ghurabaa group, a text appeared on his website, entitled "Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad". Choudary almost certainly was involved in writing this text, and as leader of the group, he was legally responsible. This tract contains the lines: "The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is the sunnah of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able execute." The message is obviously urging people to kill, but framing it within tenets of religious dogma.

Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah now uses the website Islam4UK to disseminate its views. The same tactics are again employed. The website contains the followingHadith quote: "Muhammad (saw) said, 'I am the one who laughs while I am killing.' And because of it he said 'O people of Quraish, I have come to slaughter you.' And he (saw) said 'I have been ordered to fight people until they say laa ilaaha illallah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and if they do that then their lives and wealth are protected from me except for the Haq of Islam and the account of Allah (swt)'."

Wherever former followers of Al Muhajiroun write articles, there is usually an element of threat and intimidation. Their dogma verges on the absurd, such as their declaration that clapping should be forbidden. When discussing thugs like Abdul Muhid ("Prisoner TT6649", pictured), the language is cloying, mawkish. Muhid, who thought nothing of calling for others to die, or punching policemen, is described as someone who is "very much loved amongst those he knew. A kind and generous person whose priority was always others," a victim. And of other criminals like Muhid, the article states: "Rise to the cries of the aseer. They are crying. Their wives are crying. Their children are crying. Their mothers and fathers are crying." Sentimental balderdash, but it works on gullible readers.

In September 2006 the London Evening Standard contained revelations about Anjem Choudary's past that show how different he was when he was a student. Before he studied law, he was a medical student at Southampton University. Here he engaged in casual sex with various partners, he smoked cannabis, drank alcohol and cider, and even took LSD. On one occasion he took so much LSD he was hallucinating for 20 hours. Anjem even preferred to be called by the Western monicker "Andy" than his given name.

A fellow student from Southampton claimed: "At parties, like the rest of us, he was rarely without a joint. The morning after one party, I can remember him getting all the roaches (butts) from the spliffs we had smoked the night before out of the ashtrays, cutting them up and making a new one out of the leftovers."

These allegations were repeated again recently in the Daily Mail newspaper, with photographs. Arrogantly, Choudary would deny the reports as fabrications. Choudary only spent one year studying medicine at Southampton University. His debauched lifestyle caused him to fail his exams. He started to study commercial law instead. For his final year he went to Guildford where he qualified as a lawyer. He then went to London, marrying his wife Rubana Akhtar in 1996, shortly before he became involved with Bakri Mohammed.

Nowadays, Choudary insists that he is not only a religious figure of merit, but he is a "Judge of the Shari'ah Court of the UK" and a "Lecturer at the London School of Shari'ah." The London Shari'ah Court was founded by Omar Bakri Mohammed, and has no legitimacy other than amongst Choudary's lackeys. The London School of Shariah has no fixed abode, and runs courses that promote the understanding of "sharia" jurisdiction, even though it rejects all of the main schools of Sharia.

The British government is currently spending £90 million on trying to prevent young Muslims from becoming extremists. The government is being very secretive about which groups it is supporting in its bid to dissuade young people from becoming "extreme". However, the history of Anjem Choudary and others within Al Muhajiron and its disbanded groups shows that people who in many respects have "integrated" into Western lifestyles, albeit decadent lifestyles, can easily become fanatics. On August 7, 2005, the Sunday Times featured a detailed report on Omar Bakri's Saviour Sect. This showed that the group particularly recruited young people who had rebelled against, or had been pushed out, by their parents. These included drug takers.

In Part Two on Friday, I will describe how Al Muhajiroun and other Islamist groups exploited the weaknesses in Britain's social and political life. The current British government has allowed extremism to flourish for more than a decade. It has refused to condemn Islamists' blatant radicalism as to do so would damage their cherished and idealized notions of multiculturalism. Where Britain has created a climate where Islamist intolerance must now be officially tolerated by all, under threat of punishment, America appears to be creeping in the same direction.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

An American NHS? - Part Two

The Limits of Health

As described in Part One, the UK government agency designed to recommend medicines for use in the NHS is called "NICE". This agency has been criticized for only approving cheap drugs. The body naturally recommends generic drugs, rather than "brand-name" drugs, as they are cheaper. In Scotland, the agency that recommends drugs for NHS use is called the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC).

Decisions by NICE or SMC are almost always based on cost or "practicality". Their decisions relate to the NHS and as such, these agencies do not operate like the FDA. Decisions about legally licensing drugs for use in Britain are first made by the government's Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) or by the EU's European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA).

Many drugs which are licensed, and are known to have medical benefits, are not recommended by NICE for cost reasons alone. These drugs include medicines for bowel and lung cancers, mesothelioma and bone marrow cancer.

Initially, NICE refused to recommend the breast cancer drug Herceptin (trastuzumab) for cost reasons. After successful litigation by patients, the agency relented, finalizing its views in June 2006.

Another clinically effective drug which NICE refused to recommend because of its cost was Sutent (sunitinib), for use against certain kidney and stomach cancers. It was approved by the FDA in January 2006. Sutent, a "multikinase inhibitor" manufactured by Pfizer, was licensed for UK use in July 2006, but NICE has not recommended its use.

On October 9, 2006 and again on Feb 12, 2007, SMC advised against use of Sutent.
On July 9, 2007 the SMC repeated its decision, specifically citing costs as reasons for not recommending the drug for NHS use.

Dr Paul Nathan, a consultant oncologist, said of SMC's decision: "The NHS is saying to [patients], 'Tough luck, there's nothing we can give you'. But that is not the case. If you lived in North America you would get these drugs, but not in Scotland." The SMC decision has not been reversed. Last week NICE too confirmed that it would not be recommending Sutent for NHS use.

When the NHS denied patients potentially beneficial treatments, merely because NICE decreed that they were too costly, many patients who could afford these drugs paid for them privately. What sort of institution would justify punishing a person for seeking to supplement their health care to increase their chances of staying alive? Two institutions have done so - the NHS and the Labour government.

Linda O'Boyle suffered from bowel cancer. She decided to pay for the drug Erbitux (cetuximab) which was unavailable on the NHS. This drug had been licensed for UK use in June 2004, but in January 2007, NICE refused to recommend it for NHS use.

In 2007, Alan Johnson who is (still) the British Health Secretary, ruled that he would not allow patients to "top up" their treatment by paying privately for extra drugs. He justified this on the grounds that such a situation would create a "two-tier Health Service". I demonstrated in Part One that he presides over an NHS that is multitiered, providing varying levels of care and drug treatments in different regions.

When Linda O'Boyle chose to pay for a drug that the NHS refused to fund, the NHS decided to make her pay - literally. Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust forced her to pay for the other care that she was receiving. Over two months, Mrs O'Boyle had to pay £11,000 for care that would have been free, had she not opted to pay for the drug. A spokesman for the trust said: "It is explained to the patient that they can either have their treatment under the NHS or privately but not both in parallel." Mrs O'Boyle died at the end of May, 2008.

News that Linda O'Boyle had died ignited a media storm. She had been the first patient to die while fighting for the right to top up their care. At the time, six other people were legally challenging Johnson's NHS guidelines.

The outcry following Mrs O'Boyle's death led to a review by Professor Mike Richards, published on November 4, 2008. On the same day, Alan Johnson made a speech to parliament, in which he announced that the top-up ban was ended. He declared that "NHS care should never be withdrawn" and said that private and NHS care should be kept separate. He said that "there must be tight controls to prevent the NHS becoming a two-tier system."

However, last month, an official from the government's Department of Health admitted that it was a "theoretical possibility" that patients in neighboring NHS beds with the same illness could be receiving different treatments, based upon their ability to pay.

The NHS prides itself in being - like most public bodies in Labour's socialist-controlled Britain - against all forms of discrimination. Racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia are all officially outlawed in the NHS. But on the issue of religion - the NHS appears to blatantly discriminate against Christians, while indulging minority religions.

Religious Inequality

Abortion is a controversial topic, but it is carried out by NHS doctors for "social" as well as medical reasons. It is illegal to carry out abortions in the third trimester (after 24 weeks) unless there is a valid medical reason, such as endangerment of the mother's life. In 2004 an enquiry was ordered after it was discovered that a charity funded by the NHS was recommending that women in their third trimester should go to an abortion clinic in Spain to obtain late abortions. The charity, British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) received £12 million per year from the NHS.

The religion of those going to the clinic was not recorded, but it is known that one girl who had a late abortion at the Ginemedex clinic was forced to attend by her Muslim father. He was later convicted, along with the girl's two brothers, of the "honor killing" of her boyfriend, Arash Ghorbani-Zarin (pictured). Arash had wanted to help raise the baby, but Manna Begum's father wanted her to undergo a forced marriage to a stranger.

In 2005, a doctor was offered compensation by an NHS trust at an employment tribunal. Dr Joseph Erian had been forced out of his job as an NHS opthalmologist at Pilgrim Hospital in Boston Lincolnshire, when his Muslim co-workers discovered he was a Christian. Unsurprisingly, no action was taken against the Muslims working in the NHS who had driven Dr Erian from his job.

Omer Butt, a dentist in Bury, Greater Manchester, forced one woman to cover her head Islamically, before he would give her NHS treatment for her toothache. Butt - whose brother Hassan had been a spokesman for the pro-terrorist group Al-Muhajiroun - was found guilty of misconduct by the General Dental Council's professional conduct committee. He was only given an admonition, and was free to continue practicing dentistry.

In Preston hospital, Lancashire, Muslim women patients are being offered a costume that - despite its similarities to a biohazard suit - is a NHS-designed burka. The costume was dreamed up by an employee of Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In August 2007 NHS regional bodies in Scotland, advised that non-Muslim NHS staff should show consideration for Muslims who might be fasting during Ramadan. Suggestions included not eating in front of Muslims, and to move food trolleys away from Muslims. NHS Lothian issued a statement to decry the media furor. However, as pointed out by Theodore Dalrymple, the statement could not deny that such comments had been made.

In December 2007 it was reported that hospital staff in wards controlled by Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust had been ordered to regularly move Muslim patients' beds so that they could be aligned to Mecca. The order had originally required that all Muslim beds should be moved five times a day, and only at Dewsbury and District Hospital, West Yorkshire. A few days after the initial decree, the NHS trust declared that only the beds of terminally ill Muslims should be turned to align with Mecca.

Britain's commitment to multiculturalism means pandering to the religious conventions of Britain's minorities, and the NHS is no exception. Young Muslim women who are not virgins on their wedding day face vilification. I knew a Muslim woman who - a decade ago - paid £1000 to have her hymen "replaced". Nowadays, such an operation costs upward of £4000, if done privately. But at least 24 such operations were carried out on the NHS, paid for by tax-payers, between 2005 and 2006.

Some Muslims exploit their alleged victimhood to force laws to be changed. In September 2008 a female Muslim radiographer at Royal Berkshire Hospital refused to abide by hygiene rules, claiming they discriminated against her. She would not roll up her sleeves, and voluntarily left her job on August 1, 2008, vowing to campaign against the "discriminatory" hygiene policy.

When the new hygiene rules had been issued in January 2008, there were complaints by Muslim medical students in several hospitals.

In January this year, a document was issued called "Religion or Belief: a Practical Guide for the NHS." This tells all NHS bodies that they must display a "multi-faith" calendar so everyone knows the dates of faith events, and advises that staff training should not take place where alcohol is served (for fear of alienating Muslims).

Despite officially making allowances for NHS workers' faiths, apparently for fear of being sued, the NHS still discriminates against Christians. On December 17, 2008 45-year old Caroline Petrie, a community nurse from Somerset, was suspended without pay from her job by her NHS employers. She had been visiting an elderly woman at home two days earlier, and had offered to pray for the patient. The patient had mentioned the incident, leading to Petrie's suspension by North Somerset Primary Care Trust.

Caroline Petrie said: "I simply couldn't believe that I have been suspended over this. I knew I hadn't done anything wrong. All I am trying to do is help my patients, many of whom want me to pray for them."

Last month, Petrie was allowed to return to work. The elderly patient had NOT complained, showing that the NHS trust had decided to discriminate against the nurse.

I have had an NHS dietician coming to my home to visit my mother, bringing with her a female nursing trainee wearing a hijab, the Islamic headscarf. If this trainee can flaunt her religion openly, it seems harsh to discipline someone - and deprive them of income - for merely offering to say a prayer.

NHS Discrimination

The elderly, and particularly the elderly with mental health problems, are often treated badly by NHS nurses and doctors. There are 3.5 million elderly British people with mental health problems, stated an independent report in August 2007. 25 per cent of those over 65 have depression, while for those over 85, the figure rises to 40 per cent. 20 per cent of those over 80 has dementia. Conditions like depression can be treated, but the condition is rarely recognized, and thus treatment is rarely offered.

The social and health needs of the elderly - irrespective of their mental condition - are generally neglected. A recent report by the Commission for Social Care Inspection has stated that many elderly people are forced to sell their homes or to plunder savings to pay for their care.

300,000 people in Britain suffer Alzheimer's or similar forms of dementia. This condition is recognized by government as a growing problem, but care for those with dementia is rarely adequate.

In June 1998 while visiting my mother, I noticed she was having problems with memory. Neighbors told me she had been going repeatedly to the same shops to buy items she had already bought. I found a total of £1,500 cash in envelopes secreted around the house. I put the cash into my mother's bank, and took her to a specialist NHS doctor who diagnosed her as having Alzheimer's-type dementia. I was still living in London then, and there followed the disruption of winding down my work in the city while commuting to the countryside where she lived.

My mother could not continue to live alone and - apart from the odd trip to London to see clients - I lived with her. Aricept was unavailable on the NHS so I would take her on a 24-mile round trip via public transport to a private doctor, who would prescribe the drug. This then cost £96 for a month's supply. £16 of this price was "value added tax."

In October, after I had been looking after my mother for nearly four months, an NHS occupational therapist came to the house. She tried to impress upon me that she knew what was best for my mother. On one of my trips to London, this therapist went into my room with my mother's solicitor and had found £120 that was by my bed. The pair took this money, which was my own. They left a receipt, stating it had been put into my mother's bank account. I began to get a strong dislike for this occupational therapist.

She insisted that my mother have a care worker come to visit her. This care worker did nothing, other than talk at my mother, not with her. I spoke to the occupational therapist about this, but she insisted that it was good to "put things in place," and having a visiting care giver was good for my mother as she had someone to talk to. I questioned the cost of spending £7.50 an hour, "just to have a conversation." The therapist answered: "Your mother can afford it." My dislike of the therapist increased.

My mother had stopped "wandering" and trusted me to cook and wash. In many ways she was more stable, due to the Aricept. The therapist became more intrusive and officious. Once she arrived on the doorstep, with a naive NHS trainee beside her. I said that she did not have an appointment. She answered: "But I made an appointment with your mother." My response was harsh: "But she's got Alzheimer's." This embarrassed the woman in front of her trainee, and our relationship deteriorated further. On one occasion I sarcastically said: "What happens if I need to go out? Do I lock my mother in the house? Maybe if I had a coal hole I could lock her in there."

A few days later, my mother's official NHS psychiatrist, who had never met either me or my mother, came to the house. He asked if I had ever threatened to "lock my mother in the house." I cussed at him. He then accused me of only wanting my mother's money - though he had no evidence of this. Again, I swore at him. As a result, the NHS psychiatrist and the therapist tried to have me evicted from the house in April 1999.

I wrote letters, copied these to various agencies, and went to the local Member of Parliament's office. The MP's assistant, Andrew Pennington, was very helpful. He listened to my mother, who told him she wanted me to care for her at her home, and argued our case. The fiasco cost my mother £1,200 in legal fees, and the NHS occupational therapist was taken off my mother's case. The psychiatrist happened to be the chairman of the local branch of the Alzheimer's Society, a charity meant to help carers. Because of this, I had no dealings with this charity for the nearly 11 years that I was my mother's caregiver (apart from writing repeatedly to the charity HQ demanding that the psychiatrist resign from his chairmanship - which happened after about three years).

The input of the MP's assistant, combined with my stubbornness, ensured that there were no further NHS attempts to "take control" of my mother and her affairs. The assistant who had been so helpful, would frequently phone me to ask how we were at home. He was murdered on January 28,2000, as he tried to protect the MP from a lunatic. His fingers were sliced off with a samurai sword and he was impaled six times on the blade. Andrew was later awarded the George Medal for bravery.

Aricept kept most of the worst effects of my mother's Alzheimers at bay for two years. She eventually became agitated and then she was prescribed Exelon by the private doctor. She is pictured in August 2001, while she was still able to communicate. She watched 9/11 as it unfolded, and I think this worsened her condition. She would subsequently hear the news of the war in Afghanistan and thought that World War II was repeating itself. She became bladder incontinent in late November. I went to the local doctor's surgery, and told of how she was flooding the bed. I wanted proper incontinence pads. The NHS doctor wrote me a prescription for "Tena Lady" panty-liners. This product was not available on prescription and certainly was not designed for full bladder incontinence. Soon she became bowel incontinent. I cleaned her when necessary, and care givers arrived on a regular basis.

In 2002, my mother's condition worsened, and we no longer gave her drugs for the condition. She went through a violent period for about six months - threatening to kill care-givers. In April 2003, we began to give her Ebixa, again prescribed by the private doctor. The drug appeared to have a miraculous effect. In June, I took a short holiday, temporarily booking my mother into a care home for a fortnight. When she went in, she could walk and talk. When I came to take her home, she was crippled by a stroke. No-one at the care home had noticed this. I vowed to never let her go into a home.

I told one meeting in December 2008 that I would not follow parts of the care plan that I did not think were right. The care plan stated that my mother's feed rate was set at 125 ml an hour, even though since 2004 she had never had it higher than 102 ml per hour. Such a high rate, which I refused to comply with, would have harmed my mother. The care plan also stated that I should apply hair-removing chemicals to my mother's face, even though her facial skin was so sensitive that soap could not be applied. I said I would not apply depilatory creams.

I also told the meeting that I was worried that the mild stool softener that the doctor had prescribed was inefficient. She had been given it before and had become immune. I told the meeting that on three occasions my mother had been taken to hospital after throwing up bowel material, which is why I wanted to continue using the senna and fig laxative. A social worker dismissed my concerns, saying: "Throwing up can be caused by anything."

I demanded that the social services give me all the data that they had which mentioned me by name. I sent the request on January 13, 2009. Under Britain's Data Protection Act, I should have received the information within 40 days (by February 22). I am still waiting for it. My mother's new care plan had been introduced under the government's Mental Capacity Act 2005, where NHS and social services can share data.

In January, my mother became constipated, as I had warned. For two weeks she had no bowel movements. In the last of those two weeks, she threw up black material on three occasions. The NHS doctor and the NHS community nurse refused to give her an enema. On January 16th, the NHS community nurse did a pH test upon the black vomit. She confirmed it was bowel material, with a small amount of blood. My mother was taken to hospital.

In the hospital, my mother caught a hospital-based infection (norovirus) and appeared to recover from that. On the day she went into the hospital, she had breathed in (aspirated) some of the black bowel material into her lung. On February 9th, I was talking with a doctor on the ward, saying that my mother was not given any stimulation, and that she needed to be more upright. He said that was a nursing matter. At no stage did he say she was dying. The next night I was called into the hospital as her condition was serious. I spent the entire night with her in a side room on the ward. In the morning, I was told that my mother was on an "end of life" care plan. A nurse showed me the notes. These stated that on Monday, I had been "informed" about the end of life care plan, and that I had understood it. Either the doctor had been lying or incompetent.

On February 12, 2009, aged 82, my mother died after 48 distressing hours of struggling to breathe (above). Her "death rattle" became a gurgling like a faulty washing machine. On her death certificate, the cause of death is given as a): "sepsis", b): "aspiration pneumonia" and c): "stroke". That which I had warned about, which had been ignored, had finally killed her.

Sadly, each previous time that my mother visited the NHS hospital, I noticed that she received "second-class" treatment. This hospital had treated Prince Charles after a polo accident and was generally respected. Doctors would always try to force me to sign a "do not resuscitate" order. Other elderly patients on the wards were treated similarly - when a patient asked for a commode, nurses would say "yes" and then walk off, uninterested in something so unexciting as a poor old woman wanting to empty her bladder or bowels. This caused the patients visible distress.

I continue to fight, with the assistance of my Member of Parliament (not a Labour MP, of course) to gain an apology, or at least an explanation, of why my mother was forced onto a care plan that ultimately caused her more harm than good. I have been slandered, and yet no one will admit as much. Evidence that I have been libeled lies in notes, which I am not allowed to see, even though I am legally entitled to them.

The second-class treatment of an elderly patient with dementia is nothing new. Deborah Moggach is a journalist - her mother developed Alzheimers and though there were no attempts to vilify her, she noticed how NHS hospitals and staff seemed unable to cope with elderly dementia patients. She wrote: "Funding cuts and staff shortages were part of the problem, but there was a more profound lack of care, too.
The nurses' backs were always turned – they were on their mobiles, they were filling out forms, they were talking to each other."

My experiences of the NHS could have been easier if, at the start, I had been less sarcastic, less "direct". At the end I felt that, through NHS and social services' attempts to make me give up caring (possibly to make my mother sell her home and go into a nursing home) I had been cheated. More importantly, my mother who started work as a teacher in 1948, the year the NHS had been started, had been cheated. She had to pay up to the limit for all of her care at home (apart from care which I provided). She had paid her National Insurance stamps since 1948, before those who made decisions about her had even been born. Yet at the end of her life, she did not get a good return from that investment.

It is up to you in America to decide what you want for your future. Ultimately, there can never be an ideal "National Health Service" - its care will always be predicated upon the least cost and the greatest convenience for those who provide it.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Since Family Security Matters has redesigned its website, all of the earlier articles by Adrian Morgan can now be found at the archive. All of those articles can also found on Western Resistance.

An American National Health Service? Part One

President Obama recently selected Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas, to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. With more than 45 million Americans lacking health insurance, Obama has promised reform of health care. He chose Nancy-Ann DeParle to be the director of the White House Office for Health Reform. For those already possessing health insurance, Obama pledged during his election campaign to reduce an average family's insurance costs by up to $2,500. For those without health insurance "you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options."

It was estimated that $50 to $65 billion would be needed to fund the planned schemes, which included "preventative services" such as cancer screenings. Some of this funding would come from removing earlier tax breaks that had been given to those annually earning a quarter of a million dollars or more. Annually, the United States already spends proportionally twice the amount on healthcare than is spent by other affluent nations. On February 26 this year, Obama promised to to make a down payment of $634 billion to achieve these desired reforms over a ten year period.

Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle will have a tough job to make good on Obama's promises, especially as the economy in both the US and globally shows no sign of improving. When Gordon Brown, Britain's unelected prime minister, recently visited Obama there was no public mention of Britain's National Health Service (NHS). The NHS is certainly not a good example for America to follow.

The Birth of the NHS

The NHS was originally brought into existence on July 5, 1948, and was to be funded by universal health insurance ("National Insurance" or NI). The NHS initially aimed to provide free health care at point of delivery, from "cradle to grave" but within only three years it was forced to modify its promises.

The British politician who guided the NHS into existence was a Welsh socialist called Aneurin or "Nye" Bevan (1897 to 1960). The basic principles behind the NHS and the "welfare state" as a whole had been outlined by the economist William Beveridge in 1942, in a report entitled "Social Insurance and Allied Services", now referred to as the Beveridge Report. This report had been commissioned to reassure troops that when war was over, they and their families would have real benefits, rather than the insecurities experienced in the 1930s.

The Labour government of Clement Atlee was elected in 1945, and it immediately began to implement Beveridge's recommendations. There were initial objections from doctors. Nye Bevan famously said that by offering these doctors limited hours on NHS work while keeping their private patients, he had "stuffed their mouths with gold" . With the dawn of the NHS, the British government became responsible for all medical planning and implementation, and treatment and medical prescriptions were free for all. As well as covering serious illness, the NHS initially provided free dentistry and optical care.

Before it came into being, planners assumed the NHS would annually cost £110 million to run. In its first year of operation its actual cost was £280 million. By 1950, that cost had risen to £358 million. The government had reserved £2 million for spectacles over the NHS' first nine months but demand was too high. This fund had been exhausted within six weeks.

The runaway costs of the NHS raised fear of its disbandment. In 1950 the Conservatives came to power under Churchill, promising to retain the NHS. By 1951 charges had been introduced. A medical prescription cost a patient one shilling, and dental treatment cost a flat fee of one pound, even though false teeth were issued free of charge. In protest, Aneurin Bevan resigned from government. The NHS now costs British taxpayers an annual fee of £105 billion.

In its sixty years of existence, the NHS has given lackluster provision to its patients. The Simpsons 1993 episode where the "Big Book of British Smiles" appears, though satirical, is a sad indictment of the traditional quality of NHS dentistry. In August last year, a report showed that - following government reform - NHS dentists were performing more tooth extractions and fitting more dentures than they had done before Brown's government started meddling.

The NHS now employs 1.3 million people. It is now the third largest employer in the world, following Indian State Railways (1.5 million) and the Chinese Army (2.3 million). Control over regions has been given over to 148 "primary care trusts" and in 2007, a third of these were said to provide "inadequate financial performance". In 2006 there was a financial deficit of £547 million. In January 2009, British members of parliament claimed that many trust managers lacked the necessary skills to implement high-quality care. Back in 2002, ten per cent of managers admitted falsifying figures to feign compliance with government targets.

Successive British governments have tinkered with the edges of NHS policy, always claiming to be engaging in practical reform. That an organization has been in constant need of reform for its entire six decades of life suggests that it is fundamentally unmanageable. All reforms by all governments, no matter their political persuasion, have ensured that the NHS has become ever more costly and - more worryingly - increasingly unable to provide consistent care in all regions.

Inequality of Provision

Prescriptions for NHS medicines were initially free, but as of April 1, 2009, a standard prescription charge will cost £7.20 ($10.15 at current rates of exchange). Those with illnesses requiring multiple drug prescriptions can now purchase a "prepayment certificate" (PPC). This will cost, as of April, £102.50. As the cost of prescriptions rises, so will the cost of visiting a NHS dentist for a check-up (not including treatment). That will rise to £16.50 on April 1, 2009.

The latest increase of twenty pence to prescription charges, commencing in April, is expected to raise £435 to £437 for the NHS in the financial year ending in April 2010. The increases have been criticized by pharmacists. The British Medical Association has recommended that, in fairness, such charges should be abolished altogether. Some people, such as the elderly, unemployed or those on low income, are exempted from prescription fees.

Everyone in the United Kingdom pays tax from the same tariff, no matter where they live. However, Gordon Brown's Labour Party has tampered with the fundamental structure of the nation and now people in certain regions do not have to pay for prescriptions. Labour introduced "regional parliaments" for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Welsh regional assembly voted to scrap all prescription charges, commencing on April 1, 2007. In Northern Ireland, prescriptions will be free by 2010, and by 2011 they will be free for all residents of Scotland. The civilians who live in England will be the only ones who will pay. Worse, their fees will fund the medicines of those living elsewhere. This is far removed from the lofty principles of fairness that were enshrined in the 1942 Beveridge Report or the ideals of Nye Bevan.

There is massive disparity in levels of care provided from region to region. Even the drugs which can be prescribed on the NHS are not available in all regions. This is down to the fact that the 148 regional primary care trusts set their own budget expenditure. Some drugs that can be paid for by one trust are deemed too expensive by another trust. This is what is called in the media the "postcode lottery".

The unfairness of the postcode lottery hit the British press in the last decade. One drug that caused NHS controversy was Herceptin, used to treat breast cancer. This drug was not on a list of "approved" NHS drugs, because despite its effectiveness it was deemed too expensive. As a result, it was available from some of the more affluent NHS trusts but not in others. This unhappy situation forced women suffering from breast cancer to take their primary care trusts (PCT) to court. One such woman was Ann Marie Rogers from Swindon, Wiltshire. She had been originally prescribed Herceptin by her cancer specialist, a decision that was then over-ruled by her PCT. Her court battle ended in the High Court in 2006, when a judge ruled that her local PCT's approach was "irrational and unlawful". Ms Rogers died last week.

In 1999 the Labour government introduced a body called the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). This body was conceived as an antidote to postcode lottery provison, and was set up to advise the NHS on what drugs were "recommended". In 2005 NICE merged with the Health Development Agency to become the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Far from resolving the issue of inequality, NICE's recommendations have been viewed as limiting the nature of medicines available on prescription. For the most part, newer, more expensive drugs do not get NICE approval until evidence has shown without a doubt that they work in most circumstances.

Privacy - What Privacy?

Once upon a time, doctors were expected to keep patient's details confidential. Part of the Hippocratic Oath reads: "Whatever I see or hear, professionally or privately, which ought not to be divulged, I will keep secret and tell no one." In Britain today, such concepts are meaningless. At the end of last year, my own doctor (GP Dr David Price of Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust) was unashamedly discussing details about myself with other people, including those who were total strangers to me. I was only told of this by one of the people present who could be fired by the NHS for "breaching confidentiality" if I disclose my informant's name. My confidentiality, of course, means nothing. My doctor was acting under new laws introduced by the Labour Party which allow different agencies to share information, which I shall discuss later.

Firstly, and as a matter of concern to Americans who are considering expanding control over health care, keeping data confidential becomes less possible the larger the system becomes. The larger the bureaucratic body and the more components within that system, the greater the increase of entropy. In the NHS, with 1.3 million people serving an entire population of more than 60 million people, data loss is becoming more and more frequent. With a socialist government that has no respect for personal privacy ultimately controlling such a system, private data is being lost or leaked at an alarming rate.

The scale of the problem began emerging when two computer discs were reported missing on November 8, 2007. These discs were sent by government tax officials, but contained details of 25 million people claiming child benefit, including their National Insurance numbers and bank details. The discs, which included the names, ages and home addresses of every child in the country, had been lost in the post. Earlier warnings about the sensitivity of such information appear to have been ignored.

There then followed revelations about lost NHS data. In December 2007 it was revealed that nine NHS trusts had lost patient records. A minimum of 168,000 patients were affected. 160,000 of these were the names and addresses of patients at City and Hackney Primary Care Trust.

On June 18 2008, a laptop computer was stolen in Scotland. This contained the names, post codes, dates of birth and medical data of more than 20,000 people who had been treated at Colchester University Hospital in southern England.

In the same month, the Scottish Ambulance Service admitted that they had lost data by sending it by courier. 900,000 records, including patients' addresses, names and phone numbers, had been lost.

Again in June 2008, it was revealed that six laptop computers had been stolen from St George's Hospital in south London. These computers bore the personal data and brief medical summaries of 20,000 patients.

In May 2008 it was revealed that data on 38,000 NHS patients had been lost by a courier firm. The data had been sent from London to the Isle of Wight when it went missing.

In August 2008 it was revealed that in Scotland since 2005 there had been at least 192 instances of patient data being lost. The information only came to light after inquiries were made under the Freedom of Information Act. The information was revealed in the same month that it was disclosed that data on Britain's entire prison population had been lost.

Such breaches of data have also affected those who are employed by the NHS. In September 2008 it was announced that computer discs from four London NHS trusts had gone missing in June of that year. These discs contained the names, personal and employment details of 17,990 NHS staff. The discs had been "lost in the post".

Americans should note that this system entropy - when expanded five times to match the scale of the US population - would get inherently worse when applied across the much larger US.

America has a written constitution which protects personal freedoms in a way that Britain - with no written constitution - sorely lacks. A nationwide system of health control, involving amassing extremely personal data on every man woman and child in every state, could still be open to abuse by unethical individuals and politicians. In Britain, where ethical politicians are an endangered species, the Labour government has introduced numerous new laws in its dozen years in office.

Many of Labour's laws do not exist to protect the individual, only the state. For example, the police can photograph anyone, but it is now illegal to photograph a policeman since February 16, 2009. One of the Labour government's numerous intrusive laws is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA for short). This law was introduced to allow agencies to share information, to prevent or expose serious criminal or terrorist activity.

When the RIPA act was first introduced, it allowed surveillance of individuals to be carried out, and information shared between only nine agencies. Now, at least 792 agencies, including the NHS are allowed to spy on individuals and to share information with each other. The RIPA laws are being used by local councils to carry out surveillance on individuals for reasons as petty as dogs fouling footpaths.

And where does this leave the NHS? The National Health Service, originally designed to "reform health care" and make a healthier society, now has trusts that are actually providing guidelines on how to conduct surveillance of individuals. One senior individual in the NHS's "counter-fraud service" was recently reported to have given written permissions for those under him to carry out any action "which might be deemed [covert] surveillance".

The UK government has introduced more laws which allow patient's data to be shared between agencies, such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, where decisions affecting the treatment or care of people with limited mental skills can involve sharing "confidential" information with other individuals with no connection to the NHS. My doctor was acting under this act, ostensibly on behalf of my mother who was also his patient, when he discussed my details with others.

The latest planned abuse of patients' data by Gordon Brown's government is contained in the proposed "Coroners and Justice Bill." Clause 152 of this act allows confidential medical records to be shared with other government departments and even sold on to private companies, such as insurance businesses. Is this what you want in your country?

The Elderly

The most dramatic aspect of the inequality of healthcare service provision in Britain is found in the issue of healthcare for the elderly who are infirm of mind or body. In Scotland, their regional government has approved free nursing care to people of any age and free personal care for anyone over 65 who is considered to be in need of such care.

In England, the situation is not the same at all. An elderly individual must possess more than £22,500 in liquid assets before care is completely free. This care is generally paid for by a local council. For those elderly individuals in England who need care at home similar rules apply. The individual must self-fund until they have only £22,500 left. Means-testing requires that the recipient pays up to a set figure defined by the local authority (usually around £300), and if their care needs exceed that cost, only then will the extra care at home be provided free of charge. This does not apply to those who live in care homes - a person in a care home must be entirely self-funding, though the NHS may then donate £101 per week towards that person's nursing costs.

The British government is aware that there will soon be a large section of the population - comprising former baby boomers - that is elderly. And with the increasing numbers of elderly people will come the diseases of old age. One of the most costly forms of age-related illness is dementia. Last month Alan Johnson, Britain's Health Secretary, announced a "National Dementia Strategy" that would be implemented. This would set up "memory clinics" in every town, where people could be sent by their doctors to be tested for signs of dementia.

Johnson claimed that early diagnosis would mean that people would be able to benefit from early treatments. In theory, that sounds good. However, in practice, it means nothing for a sufferer of dementia. There are many drugs which are proven in many instances to be beneficial for suffers of Alzheimers, a common form of dementia.

One of the aspects of Alzheimers involves the neurotransmitter acetylcholine being destroyed in the brain's neuron receptors by large amounts by the enzyme acetylcholinesterase. Drugs such as donepizil (Aricept) effectively reduce the actions of this enzyme. Similar medications are rivastigmine (Exelon) and galantamine (Nivaline). Memantine (Ebixa) works on other receptors in the brain, affecting glutamate uptake.

These four drugs, though highly effective in particular forms of dementia, are NOT recommended by NICE for early forms of mild Alzheimers. Memantine is not recommended at all by NICE, unless it is used as part of a clinical trial. Therefore, Alan Johnson's claim that early recognition of dementia in "memory clinics" will enable people to receive "treatment" is therefore unrealistic. NICE will review its decisions in September 2009.

I have a special interest in Alzheimers. My mother was diagnosed with the condition in June 1998. She finally died on February 12, 2009 after a short illness. For more than a decade I looked after her myself at her home, with help from visiting care assistants. I would like to say that I received help and support from the NHS. That is not the case. There have been some individuals from the NHS who have been good, but most have been officious, arrogant and sexist - i.e. prejudiced against male carers. 10 years ago, NHS officials even tried to have me evicted from the family home.

On Thursday in Part Two, the conclusion of this article, I will recount what I and my mother experienced directly at the hands of the NHS. It is a story that I promise you will find hard to believe, but it is a cautionary tale that anyone concerned with reforming US health care should read. Additionally I will describe the policies which allow Muslims within the NHS to have their religious beliefs respected, while NHS rules simultaneously discriminate against Christians.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Since Family Security Matters has redesigned its website, all of the earlier articles by Adrian Morgan can now be found at the archive. All of those articles can also found on Western Resistance.

Jamaat-ud Dawa - Truth and Fiction. Part Two

The Kashmir Conflict

Jamaat ud-Dawa has long denied its involvement in terror attacks, even though it was recently designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations. It is described as a front for the notorious terror group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, or LeT. The designation was made under the terms of UN Resolution 1276, which was introduced to deal with groups related to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, also spelled Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Toiba, was proscribed by the UN in May 2005.

Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, who heads Jamaat ud-Dawa, originally founded LeT and a group called Markaz Daw'a wal Irshad (MDI), a precursor of LeT. On December 11 2008, Saeed was placed under house arrest. He has been placed under house arrest on several occasions, but never formally indicted for any major crime.

When President Musharraf of Pakistan outlawed LeT on January 12, 2002, funds from LeT were transferred directly to Jamaat ud-Dawa (JuD). At that time Saeed was undergoing his first experience of house arrest in Pakistan. He would be released on parole in February 2002, and officially released on March 31, 2002. The former spokesman for Lashkar-e-Tayyiba was a man called Yahya Mujahid (pictured). At the start of 2002, he became the main spokesman for JuD.

In 2005, Mujahid told Australian documentary show Dateline: "Even before Lashka-e-toiba was banned it became Jamat-ud-Dawa in Pakistan. The chief of Jamat-ud-Dawa is Professor Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. Lashka-e-toiba was operating under his name. He said quite emphatically they have no connection with Lashka-e-toiba. Lashka-e-toiba is doing jihad for the Kashmiris. And it has been handed over to a Kashmiri executive body. They run it. And that executive body is looking after it. They are responsible for running it. They also run the organisation in Indian-controlled Kashmir."

Muhajid subsequently contradicted this claim. He declared in an interview for the same Australian broadcasters that "Even when I was the spokesperson for Lashkar e-Toiba, I stressed that the organization was not involved in activities, including international activities - we are limited to Pakistan, only (involved) in legal activities."

On October 26, 1947, weeks after the independence of Pakistan and India, Jammu and Kashmir was officially handed to India. A few days earlier, Pakistani troops had entered Kashmir. War broke out between the two newly-independent nations. Despite UN rulings, Kashmir has been split in two. A Line of Control divides the Indian state of Jammu & Kashir from Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK). Pakistan has never accepted India's legal claim on Kashmir, and has staged and sponsored numerous covert and overt military actions.

Indian sources claim that Pakistan has sponsored ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir. LeT first came into being around 1990 but was first recorded in 1993 following an incursion across the Line of Control by Pakistani and Afghan LeT members, working with a local Islamist group calling itself Islami Inquilabi Mahaz. From 1996 to 1999, LeT mainly specialized in massacring Hindu civilians in both POK and Jammu & Kashmir state.

In May 1999 during a time of "accord" between Pakistan and India, the Pakistani army embarked upon an ill-fated crossing of the Line of Control. They reached as far as Kargil before being confronted by Indian troops. This incident became known as the Kargil War, and was the latest of the three wars between the two countries. At the time Pervez Musharraf was head of the Pakistan army and Nawaz Sharif was the Pakistani prime minister. It has been suggested that Israel assisted India at Kargil , allowing them to prevail in the brief conflict. Perhaps it is for this reason that the terrorists in the recent Mumbai attacks targeted the Orthodox Jewish center called Nariman House.

In July 2000, LeT admitted it had been involved with the Kargil conflict. Zafar Iqbal, a senior LeT leader at the group's Pakistan headquarters in Muridke in Lahore, made the claim. He had also said that LeT had training camps near Muzzafarabad in POK, and students from the Muridke compound had been sent there.

In July 1999 at the end of the Kargil conflict, LeT leader Hafiz Mohammed Saeed claimed: "This was round one which we have won. Now round two of jihad has started." He rejected Pakistan's call to withdraw troops, stating: "Now the jihad will spread all across Kashmir, it will spread to every peak, every forest and every path... The liberation of Kashmir is close now. No one can stop that."

There are numerous Islamist groups whose main aim is to "liberate" Kashmir from Indian control. Most of these are small, such as the group calling itself Islami Inquilabi Mahaz. LeT is among the top five. There is much cooperation between these groups - they have an alliance called the United Jihad Council, which is headed by Syed Salahuddin, aka Syed Mohammed Yusuf Shah (pictured). Salahuddin is head of the group Hizbul Muhajideen, the largest of the Kashmiri Islamist fronts. LeT is one of the 15 members of this alliance.

Though LeT and Hizbul have worked together, there is also some rivalry, which has occasionally broken out into open conflict. Shortly after Hafiz Mohammed Saeed "resigned" from LeT to concentrate on the Pakistan-based Jamaat ud-Dawa, it was reported in the Indian media that Pakistan's intelligence agency, called ISI (Inter-Sevices Intelligence) was financially supporting LeT. Originally, ISI was said to have preferentially sponsored Hizbul Mujahideen.

It appears that - due to its control of certain regions of Kashmir - LeT became a more useful strategic ally to Pakistan than Hizbul during the Kargil conflict, but it is rumored that - long before Kargil - LeT was founded with assistance from ISI. Hamid Gul was the head of the ISI from 1987 - 1989. Gul, whose hatred of the West and democracy is well-attested, recently denied allegations that he had been a political patron of LeT. The current president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, claimed this month that Gul was "more of a political ideologue of terror rather than a physical supporter".

Zardari said: "Hamid Gul is an actor who is definitely not in our good books. Hamid Gul is somebody who was never appreciated by our government." In 1989 Zardari's wife, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, had sacked Gul from his post as ISI Director General. Zardari admitted that the ISI had earlier been involved with Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, but these links had been forged "in the old days when dictators used to run the country."

On December 7, 2008, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to CNN's Wolf Blitzer. When asked what relationship LeT had to "the Pakistani Government or the intelligence or military services," she confirmed: "Well, there have been historic ties. There's no doubt about that. But Pakistan is a different place now with a civilian government and an army leadership that is working in concert to try to bring an end to extremism within Pakistan."

Despite public suggestions that ISI's links with Lashkar-e-Tayyiba have historically ended, privately some US officials suspect otherwise. A report in the New York Times from December 8, 2008 mentions their belief that ISI "shared intelligence with Lashkar and provided protection for it." It is suspected by officials from the US and India that one senior LeT member - Zarrar Shah - liaised with ISI and may have been involved with the recent Mumbai terror plot. On Wednesday December 10, 2008, Pakistan announced that it had placed Zarrar Shah under arrest.

Jamaat ud-Dawa's leader and terrorism

The Kashmir conflict molded the early aims of LeT, but after the Kargil War, the group became more ambitious. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, who founded LeT, claims that he has never supported terrorism. Many Islamist terrorists who deny their terrorism often claim that "innocent" people are never killed. LeT and Saeed are no exception. Unfortunately, the Hindu civilians that LeT murdered in Kashmir were seen as "invaders" of a Muslim land, as "guilty" as the Indian military. LeT had a monthly publication called "Majalah al Dawa" in which it would record deaths of Indian soldiers at the hands of militants. Between 1999 and 2000, this publication claimed, LeT carried out 98 suicide attacks in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

While he was still the official "amir" of LeT, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed must have been aware of the escalating scale of LeT's attacks against India. On the evening of Friday December 22, 2003, a group of six LeT activists staged an ambitious attack against India's historic Red Fort. This building, constructed in the 17th century, is a major landmark in Delhi. The gunmen invaded an army supply depot inside the fort and shot dead an army guard, a soldier and a barber employed by the army. Four days later, some of the assailants were captured. One of the LeT terrorists was shot dead during the arrests. The senior member of the arrested LeT terrorists - Pakistani national Ashfaq Ahmed - claimed under interrogation that he had been sent to Delhi by Pakistan's ISI to create a base for "subversive" operations. He had set up a computer center in the city with his wife.

On Monday October 31, 2005, Ashfaq Ahmed, also known as Mohammed Arif - was sentenced to death. Six others - including Ahmed's wife - were given jail terms. On September 13, 2007 some of the accused, including Ahmed's wife, were acquitted. Two men had life sentences upheld, and Ashfaq Ahmed's death sentence was upheld.

On December 13, 2001, the Indian parliament building was attacked by Islamist gunmen. Nine Indian nationals, including five policemen, were killed. This attack pushed India and Pakistan to the brink of war. The Indian government blamed Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. The latter group is led by Masood Azhar, who was arrested by Pakistani authorities on December 29, 2001. He was released a year later on the orders of the Lahore High Court.

Hafiz Mohammed Saeed was apprehended on December 21, 2001, and kept under house arrest. He would be released on parole in February 2002 , officially and rearrested on May 15 of that year, after a terror attack killed 35 people in Indian Kashmir. On July 31, both the Pakistani government and the Punjab provincial government claimed not to have any knowledge of Hafiz Saeed's whereabouts. Saeed's wife Maimoona withdrew a petition for his release on October 29, 2002. She had earlier claimed that the ISI were holding her husband, and refusing to release him unless she withdrew her petition. She later filed a compensation suit against the federal and Punjab governments for her husband's "illegal" detention.

Musharraf took action against LeT, it seems, predominantly to avert a war with India. Hafiz Saeed officially abandoned his links to LeT, and continued to lead Jamaat ud-Dawa from its main compound at Muridke, a few miles north of Lahore in the Punjab. Saeed and his close entourage insisted that they denounced terrorism. However, shortly after his first experience of house arrest in 2002, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed had said: "The U.S. is an international terrorist, and it is wrong to suggest that I should not talk about jihad. The Muslim world should take notice that the U.S. threat extends beyond Iraq, to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We will continue jihad. It is the sole weapon of Muslims to defend their rights and honor."

Jamaat ud-Dawa claimed to be an organization that carried our humanitarian work. It continues to be supported by members of some minority groups mainly because it provided them with much-needed medical and welfare assistance. Jamaat ud-Dawa provided welfare to these people knowing that such contact could engender "dawah" - missionary actions and conversion.

On its website which is still active, Jamaat ud-Dawa's record of providing inoculations against Hepatitis-B, its creation of hospital wings, provision of ambulances and other good deeds are charted. Until its desgination by the UN, JuD operated 156 dispensaries throughout Pakistan. The group performed much of its medical charity work through its front group "Idarah Khidmat-e-Khalq". This group, along with Jamaat ud-Dawa, was designated as a terror front for LeT by the US on April 28, 2006.

Even though JuD claims now that it is solely involved with charitable ventures, the attitude of its leader is still aggressive. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed continued to extol armed jihad long after he officially "abandoned" LeT. The Jamaat ud-Dawa website claims that in January 2007, a medical seminar was held in Lahore, attended by medical staff associated with JuD. Hafiz Saeed addressed the audience. He described non-Muslims as "Kuffar" who cheat, and said that the world "has become familiar with their ugly, criminal, reality, that they are unwilling to allow Muslims to live in peace."

The JuD website carried an angry condemnation of an interview with Hafiz Saeed. This interview had originally been published in Outlook India. The interview had been conducted by Pakistani journalist Amir Mir. The JuD website claimed that the interview was fake, and had never taken place. Letters written to Outlook India by Abdullah Muntazir, JuD's international spokesman, were presented. I tried to ring Muntazir on the phone number provided (+92-334-4051132). The phone rang, but no-one answered.

Claims were made in the Indian press that although the JuD compound at Muridke was officially closed, along with other offices throughout Pakistan, it was still open for business four days after closure.

The JuD website carries a bizarre claim about the recent Mumbai attacks. It maintains that they were the work of Atma Ghataki Pathak (Hindu Suicide Squad), a Hindu terror group linked to Shiv Sena. There is no credibility to such a story, even though it fits within the canon of Islamist conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 being perpetrated by the US and Mossad.

Another editorial on its website lists Pakistani figures who support Jamaat ud-Dawa. JuD is a Salafist organization, so it is not surprising to find that the Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadeeth is listed as a supporter. The British branch of this group was exposed for its extremism in a Channel 4 documentary in January 2007.

Fazlur Rehman of the Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Islam expressed his support for JuD - this individual has demanded sharia law throughout Pakistan. His party belonged to the MMA coalition of Islamist parties. The Sindh provincial amir of Jamaat-e-Islami, another member of the MMA, also supported JuD. Liaqat Baloch, who lives in Lahore, also supports JuD. Baloch is vice-president of the national Jamaat-e-Islami party. In May 2007, this party introduced a draft bill into the Pakistani parliament, which proposed that apostates from Islam should be killed.

Pakistan's tolerance of, or inability to suppress, those who plot violent jihad has once again placed it into a position of potential war with its neighbor India. Lashkar-e-Tayyiba was just one of the internationally harmful groups supported by Pakistan's ISI. When the current government decided to place the ISI under civilian control on July 26, 2007, the move was retracted a mere six hours later. It remains under army control, led by Lt Gen Nadeem Taj.

Yahya Muhajid claimed that LeT and JuD activity had only been within areas of Pakistan (including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir). Disturbingly, LeT members have been actively plotting to support or initiate armed jihad on the soil of the United States, Britain, Australia, Germany and France. A former "Civil Rights Coordinator" for America's "advocacy group" CAIR participated in a Lashkar jihadist network centered in Virginia.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Since Family Security Matters has redesigned its website, all of the earlier articles by Adrian Morgan can now be found at the archive. All of those articles can also found on Western Resistance.

Due to a family illness and then bereavement, this article did not conclude its "third part", and for the same reason, postings on this site have been less frequent. My apologies.

Jamaat-ud Dawa - Truth and Fiction. Part One

The recent horrors at Mumbai (Bombay) shocked the world's media with their savagery. On November 26, 2008 at 9.20 pm local time, coordinated attacks at carefully-selected locations initiated an orgy of violence that would last for three days. When the sieges ended, all but one of the 10 armed assailants were dead. They had murdered at least 173 people and wounded hundreds more. The killers, high on cocaine during the assaults, had claimed they were acting in response to alleged Indian atrocities in Kashmir.

Kashmiri politics could not explain why the Orthodox Jewish center called Nariman House was targeted. Lubavitch Jews have had nothing to do with the occupation of Kashmir. Eight Jews were killed, including Rabbi Gavriel Noach Holtzberg and his wife Rivka, martyrs to the virulent anti-semitism that dominates the minds of many jihadists. In Mumbai's Taj Mahal hotel, terrorists sought out American and British residents, who again had nothing to do with Kashmir.

Mumbai had been attacked by terrorists before. In 1993, Dawood Ibrahim, a Muslim gangster, had organized bombings in the city on March 12 of that year. Those attacks, allegedly orchestrated by Abu Saleem Ansari, had cost the lives of 257 people and had injured 1,400. The 1993 blasts were alleged to have been a response to earlier Hindu attacks upon Muslims.

Ibrahim, according to the US Treasury, had also funded the Islamist terror group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (aka Lashkar-e-Toiba, Lashkar-e-Taiba, meaninig "Army of the Righteous"). LeT had been designated as a terror organization by the US in December 2001. Dawood Ibrahim himself was designated by the US as a terrorist on October 16, 2003.

On July 11, 2006, trains packed with commuters were hit with seven bombs. At least 182 people were killed. Initially, an unknown group calling itself Lashkar-e-Qahhar (Lashkar-e-Qahad or "Army of Fury") claimed responsibility for the attacks, but soon it became clear that Lashkar-e-Taiba were the most likely culprits. The 2006 train bombings had apparently been staged as a response to Hindu attacks upon Muslims.

When the November 2008 Mumbai attacks took place, an unknown group calling itself the Deccan Muhajideen initially claimed responsibility. Inventing a fictitious front group appears to be a recurring tactic of LeT; after a triple bombing in Delhi on October 29, 2005, a group calling itself "Islami Inquilabi Mahaz" (Islamic Revolutionary Group) announced that it had masterminded the attacks, which killed 59 people. LeT's leadership had even condemned the Delhi bombings, until evidence suggested they had been the instigators of the attacks.

Many Islamist groups and individuals associated with terrorism or extremism use aliases. Hizb ut-Tahrir has several front groups, and Al Muhajirun's membership founded several alias groups when their parent group was banned. The Muslim Brotherhood similarly has various charities and institutions around the globe, whose names appear innocuous. International charities accused of funding terrorism, such as Al Haramain and the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS), have used numerous aliases to channel funds from one location to another.

During and after the recent Mumbai attacks, India claimed that the terrorists had come from Pakistan. The only surviving assailant was a young man called Ajmal Qasab. His photograph had been widely distributed at the start of the Mumbai incident. His father Amir, who lives near Lahore, in Pakistan's Punjab province, later confirmed that the youth in surveillance photographs was his son. According to Indian officials, the young terrorists had each been promised 100,000 Pakistan rupees ($1,262 US) for committing the Mumbai attacks.

The money was to have been donated to the terrorists' families by Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. Ajmal Qasab, under questioning, had said that LeT had provided the training for the Mumbai terrorists.

Amir Qasab claimed he had not seen his son for four years, following an argument. It has since been claimed on Pakistan's Geo TV that Ajmal Qasab had gone to his family home this year. The young terrorist had apparently gone to his home village of Faridkot, in Punjab province on September 26, before the Mumbai attacks. He had gone to seek his mother's blessing for jihad, it was claimed.

A bizarre allegation was made by a Pakistani lawyer, who asserts that Ajmal Qasab (Kasab) had been kidnapped by Nepalese security forces in 2006, acting under Indian instructions. It is alleged that Qasab was an "innocent" who was placed at the scene of the Mumbai attacks by the Indian government. Photographs of Qasab at Mumbai train station do not show a person acting under duress.

India's claims of a Pakistan link to the attacks were initially denied by Pakistan, leading to a cooling of relations between the two nations. India, supported by America, pressed for a Pakistan-based organization to be banned. This group, calling itself Jamaat-ud-Dawa, has its main headquarters in Muridke, near Lahore, in Pakistan's Punjab province.

On Thursday December 11, 2008 the United Nations Security Council declared that Jamaat-ud-Dawa ("Party of the Calling") was a terrorist organization, a front for Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. Official sanctions were immediately imposed upon JuD by the UN, under UN Resolution 1276. Additionally four individuals were designated as terrorists. These men, who were said to be senior figures in LeT, were named.

They included Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi, who was said by India to have masterminded the Mumbai attacks, Haji Mohamed Ashraf, a financier for LeT, and Mahmoud Mohamed Ahmed Bahaziq, who had been a financier for LeT, based in Saudi Arabia. The fourth man to be named was said to be LeT's senior chief . Hafiz Mohammed Saeed (pictured from 2001) had founded LeT. He was also the amir, or leader, of Jamaat ud-Dawa. The four individuals designated by the UN had been placed on the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control list in May, 2008.

The Pakistan government, on the day before UN sanctions were imposed, had said that it could ban Jamaat ud-Dawa if Resolution 1276 was invoked against it. After the decision by the UN, offices of JuD were closed throughout Pakistan.

Pakistan had launched an operation against some JuD activists on December 7. The Pakistan army had arrested Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, said to have planned the Mumbai attacks, and 20 others. On December 12, Hafiz Mohammed Saaed was placed under house arrest in Lahore, Pakistan.

How had Jamaat-ud-Dawa been able to operate in Pakistan with impunity? How had its leader, who by his own admission had formed the terrorist group LeT, been allowed to openly spread his doctrines in Pakistan?

Jamaat ud-Dawa in Pakistan

According to the US Treasury, LeT had been founded in 1990. It was established as the armed wing of an anti-US Sunni group called Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad (MDI), which had been formed in Pakistan in the previous year. The leader of MDI had been Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, who also became head of LeT. Terrorist actions against troops in Indian Kashmir (Jammu & Kashmir state) began in 1993. The main aim of LeT was to drive out Indian forces (and the few remaining Hindu civilians) from Kashmir. Since then, LeT committed numerous attacks, including kidnapping and bombing, until designated by the US Treasury on December 20, 2001 under Executive Order 13224.

It has been claimed that when LeT was first founded it had some support from the CIA, who were then supporting other Mujahideen who were against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed had sent hundreds of Islamist fighters into Afghanistan. Saeed and his organizations have frequently been described as "Wahhabist". When he founded LeT, he was a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Engineering and Technology in Lahore

The current Muridke headquarters of Jamaat ud-Dawa is on an 80-hectare plot of land north of Lahore. This land had been given to Saeed and his followers by the military dictator and Islamist General Zia ul-Haq before he died in a plane crash on August 17, 1988. Before founding MDI, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed had been involved with an extremist Sunni group calling itself Jamait Ahl-e-Hadis. Indian sources maintain that LeT had originally been set up to allow Pakistan's "Inter-Services Intelligence" (ISI) to have a role in terror operations in Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistan's ISI has been involved in numerous shady operations, including helping to set up Afghanistan's Taliban and funding the Sikh separatist "Khalistan" movement in Punjab state, India.

The American intelligence think-tank CFR also claims that "experts say LeT received instruction and funding from Pakistan's intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in exchange for a pledge to target Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir and to train Muslim extremists on Indian soil. Pakistan's government has repeatedly denied allegations of supporting terrorism."

After LeT was officially designated by the US a terrorist organization at the end of 2001, Pakistan officially banned the group in January 2002. It was at this time that Jamaat ud-Dawa came into existence. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed officially claimed he had renounced the violent tactics of LeT, and founded Jamaat ud-Dawa. With Saeed no longer at the helm, leadership of LeT continued under the aegis of a secretive individual who calls himself Maulana Abdul Wahid Kashmiri.

President Pervez Musharraf placed Hafiz Mohammed Saeed under house arrest in October 2002. However, on November 19, 2002, Saeed was released. Lahore High Court had declared his house arrest to be unlawful. Musharraf responded by placing Jamaat ud-Dawa on a watch list, but no official sanctions were brought against it by the Pakistan authorities.

In the summer of 2004 it was reported that there had been a spilt in the ranks of Jamaat ud-Dawa. Two individuals, Abu Shoib and Maulana Qari Abdul Hafeez, split away to found a group calling itself Khair-un-Nasv, or People's Welfare.

In May 2005, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba was placed on the United Nations Resolution 1276 list. Jamaat ud-Dawa continued to function freely. At the complex in Muridke, Lahore, a mosque and madrassa were used by the group to preach an uncompromising version of Islam, full of contempt for the West.

On April 27, 2006, the US Treasury designated Jamaat ud-Dawa as a terrorist organization. It simultaneously designated a related group called Idara Khidmat-E-Khalq. The United States claimed that both groups were front groups for LeT. Idara Khidmat-E-Khalq was led by a man called Hafiz Abdur Rauf Said, who claimed that if helping the poor was "terrorism" then he would continue to practice terrorism.

The reaction from the Pakistan government to the US sanctions was surprising. Less than a week after the US designation, Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam, refused to contemplate banning Jamaat ud-Dawa. She said: "We are not required, and we do not put any entities on the terrorist lists, if action is taken under the domestic US law. However, if the UN Security Council's sanctions committee were to designate any organization, then it becomes a legal obligation to take action."

When an earthquake measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale had struck northern Pakistan on October 8, 2005 and killed more than 70,00 people, one of the first groups to be able to mobilize funds and assistance to the region was Jamaat ud-Dawa. The group had a large office in Fawara Chowk in Peshawar and another in Muzaffarabad in Kashmir, both close to some of the worst scenes of devastation. The JuD were given UN supplies to distribute to earthquake refugees. The reputation of JuD as a provider of charity had become firmly entrenched in the minds of many Pakistanis. On May 16, 2006, Hindus and Christians protested in Karachi against the US designation of JuD.

Despite its reputation for charitable acts, evidence was continually mounting to indicate that JuD had a darker side. In May 2006 the Sunday Times newspaper reported that Christian boys who had been kidnapped were being sold into slavery by a man with links to the Jamaat ud-Dawa complex at Muridke. Several of these children had been rescued by Christian missionaries and returned to their families. The man accused of brokering their freedom is called Gul Khan, who is apparently a wealthy affiliate of JuD.

In October 2006, the Telegraph newspaper reported that many of JuD's charity workers were jihadists, veterans of the fight against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Many orphans of the 2005 earthquake had been sent to madrassas, breaking government guidelines. At one madrassa, children had been taught to sing: "When people deny our faith, ask them to convert, and if they do not, destroy them utterly."

Politically, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed acted as a radical. In early 2006 he had been arrested for inciting violence during protests against the Danish cartoons. In October 2006 Jamaat ud-Dawa issued a death fatwa against Pope Benedict XVI. The fatwa urged the Muslim community to kill the Pope, as a punishment for comments he had made in his Regensburg address in the previous month. Speaking at a conference in Karachi in Sindh province, one JuD leader called Hafiz Saifullah Khalid claimed that jihad was obligatory for all Muslims.

In August 2006, Saeed had been placed under house arrest. This move had no connection with the Mumbai train blasts of the previous month. It had been connected to a rally that he had wished to stage in Lahore. As India had been calling for Pakistan to arrest Saeed, his house arrest served to soften prickly relations between Pakistan and India.

Hafiz Mohammed Saeed certainly has more respect for fanatical religion than he does for the rights of women. He vehemently opposed the Women’s Protection Bill. This law had been introduced to put an end to Pakistan's brutal "Hudood" laws. Introduced by Zia ul-Haq, the Hudood laws meant that a woman who had been raped would automatically be jailed if she complained. Only if she could produce four male Muslim witnesses could she be presumed innocent of "zina" (illegal intercourse).

Jamaat ud-Dawa has maintained, and continues to maintain, that it has nothing to do with terrorism. It has been claimed by some that Hafiz Mohammed Saeed has never personally been involved with acts of terrorism. If this is true, then the brutal attacks made by LeT under his leadership would never have taken place.

In part two, I will show how Saeed could not have been unaware of the terrorist acts of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. I will also track the bizarre relationship that existed, and continues to exist, between Jamaa ud-Dawa and senior figures in Pakistan's establishment.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Since Family Security Matters has redesigned its website, all of the earlier articles by Adrian Morgan can now be found at the archive. All of those articles can also found on Western Resistance.

Buy it, read it and pass it on.

I've informally polled most of the people I've run across over the last few days on how they would feel about a non-violent take over of the government in the near future. All of them from the educated professionals to the behind the counter clerks express real worry over the current state we're in with the bail-outs, the war, the debt and the mortgage crisis. Interestingly, most were willing to explore the idea with me, not just crack a joke about it and move on. Most comments about the idea of revolution range from "let's give Obama a chance . . . ." to "it wouldn't break my heart . . . ." Some doubted it could be pulled off completely without violence but still were willing to contemplate the idea! I asked if them would be willing to participate in a government takeover and most said possibly, IF things get really bad.

It's too early to tell if our situation deteriorates into a depression but it's not too early to start planning and organizing a government take-over if we get to that stage. The goal should be to non-violently take over all three branches of the government from the federal to the local level. We'll dismantle and then re-build with a government more in tune with the Constitution. And a smaller government. Much, much smaller. This is our chance to change things somewhat to answer to a few of the problems we have experienced in the last 200 years such as lack of long term planning associated with short term elected officials.

Just a few ideas for to chew on:

More than 70 per cent of the poll's respondents were in favour of promoting "Britishness" in schools. 46% also thought that allowing children to wear religious symbols was contrary to British values, and potentially undermined schemes to promote racial and religious harmony.

The head of Teachers TV, Andrew Bethell, was quoted by the newspaper as saying that the poll showed a "shift away from multiculturalism" in "post 7/7 Britain....There seems to be an increasing feeling among teachers that simply embracing difference is no longer enough. Pupils need a sense of common identity and 'Britishness' is a big part of this."

The newspaper also noted that in July, a school which had banned a Sikh girl who wore a bracelet for contravening its jesellery regulations, was overruled by a court. In November, 2007, Sarika Singh of Aberdare School in South Wales had been excluded for not removing her bangle. Her case had been represented by Liberty.

Previously a Muslim girl whose brother belongs to the extremist and anti-democratic Hizb ut-Tahrir group fought her school through the courts. Shabina Begum of Luton had been a pupil of Denbigh High School and in March 2005 had won a ruling against her school which would not allow her to attend while wearing a head-to-toe "jilbab". Her lawyer was Cherie Blair, wife of Tony Blair. On March 22, 2006, the school won its appeal against the ruling after petitioning The House of Lords.

The current Telegraph article quotes John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of College and Student Leaders, who believes schools should decide for themselves what uniform codes are in place. He spoke of his concern that courts might "prevent schools in future from setting appropriate uniform standards."

One could also add that it is hardly in the best interests of any school or the interests of society for educational establishments to be hiring lawyers to defend themselves against challenges to the decisions that school governors make regarding uniforms.

The Devil In Miss Jones

Over this weekend, the London home of a publisher was subjected to a gasoline attack. Dutch-born Martin Rynja owns publishing company Gibson Square Books which prints "books that are able to contribute to a current debate." Rynja had announced on September 3 this year that in October he would be publishing a controversial novel, called "The Jewel of Medina".

The author of the book is American journalist Sherry Jones. In 2007, Random House had purchased the rights to publish this book and its sequel for $100,000. The book would have been published as an imprint of Random's Ballantine Books. The Jewel of Medina is Jones' first published novel. In May, Random House decided to pull out of the contract.

Sample copies had been sent out for review and the feedback had been negative. It was felt that the book would cause a reaction from Islamic fundamentalists. Thomas Perry of Random House acknowledged that it "could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment", and withdrew the publication offer on the grounds of safety. An official statement claimed: "We consulted with security experts as well as with scholars of Islam, whom we asked to review the book and offer their assessments of potential reactions..... and in this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."

The Jewel of Medina was published in Serbia by Beobook on August 1. However, on Sunday August 17, five days after Random House's had earlier intended to release it, the Serbian copies were withdrawn. The reasons for the novel's termination in Serbia stemmed from the threats made by a group calling itself "The Islamic Community." The group had threatened protests.

The "mufti" of the group is Muamer Zukorlic who claimed that the book insulted Muslims. The traditional leader of Serbian Muslims is Adem Ziklic of the "Islamic Community of Serbia." Ziklic said: "This way Zukorlic has imposed himself as the only protector of Islam and causing this much stir over the book will only result in a bigger demand for the novel. I doubt that the mufti has read the book and it seems he is acquainted only with the parts which directly refer to scenes from the Koran."

Ms Jones claimed to be mystified at Zukorlic's response, stating: "...I was confused. Did these Muslims, after reading my book, really think I had "degraded" Muhammad and Aisha? I'd thought I was doing the opposite. My intentions were to celebrate these great historical figures while dispelling misunderstandings about Islam."

The Islamic world, it seems, should have been grateful to Sherry Jones for dispelling misunderstandings. There is something quite quaint about Jones' shock at negative reactions to her book. Her novel is a "historical fiction" which purports to describe the life of Aisha, the last wife of Mohammed.

Jones stated that she thought that Beobook was "more courageous, it seemed, than Random House," when it decided to publish her book. Around the same time that Gibson Square announced it would publish the book, news came that a German publisher would release the book in an English-language version. The identity of the publishing house was kept secret, for fear of violence. Jones then responded: "To claim that Muslims will answer my book with violence is pure nonsense. Anyone who reads the book will see that it honors the prophet and his favorite wife." Since that naive statement was uttered, extremists certainly have tried to not only commit violence, but murder, on account of her book.

It is possible that a Danish publisher called Trykkefrihedsselskabets Library may also print the book.

Firebombing

In the early hours of Saturday , a firebomb attack was made upon the north London home of publisher Martin Rynja. Police apparently had prior knowledge of the plot to firebomb the address in Lonsdale Square, Islington. Earlier on Friday evening, 44-year old Rynja had been warned to leave the house, which he also uses as his office. If police had not been aware of the plot, the consequences could have been disastrous.

Three people were subsequently arrested and held under the terms of the Terrorism Act following the incident. These were males, aged 22, 30 and 40. Two were apprehended in the immediate vicinity, and the third was arrested at nearby Angel tube station. Four properties were searched, and a woman was additionally arrested for obstructing police.

Rynja was unharmed. Jones denies that the firebombing has anything to do with her novel. She said: "The planting of that bomb was not about my book. It's not about the content of my book. It's not about the ideas in my book. It must be about the rumours and innuendos... [This is] obviously a response to the misinformation."

Jones is bitter about the way that her novel was "misrepresented" by others. In particular, she is angry at the actions of the academic Denise Spellberg, associate professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Spellberg is a self-professed "expert" on the life of Aisha. Spellberg appears to have been instrumental in whipping up hostility against the book from Muslims. She was one of the recipients of a pre-publication copy of The Jewel of Medina, sent out by Random House.

According to the Guardian newspaper: "In April, Shahed Amanullah, an editor of a popular Muslim website, claimed Spellberg had told him the book 'made fun of Muslims and their history'." Amanullah then forwarded Spellberg's concerns via email to students of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies. Amanullah himself appears as a guest speaker on Spellberg's courses.

If Amanullah's account is true, he and Spellberg have acted little differently from Danish fundamentalist Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban and Ahmed Akkari, who sent copies of the infamous Danish cartoons of Mohammed to leading Muslim representatives in the Middle East. The cartoons had originally been published in Jyllands-Posten newspaper on September 30, 2005, with little fuss. Following the interventions of the late Abu Laban, the Danish cartoon protests began in earnest in February 2006 and led to 50 deaths around the globe.

If Amanullah is correct when he claims that Spellberg stated Jones had "made fun" of Muslims, then the academic has been dishonest. Sherry Jones certainly appears not to have intended to cause offense to Muslims.

In the online edition of the Wall Street Journal, Asra Q. Nomani discussed the details that offended Spellberg. The academic was offended by the description of Mohammed consummating his marriage with Aisha, where "the pain...soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion's sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life." Spellberg described the book as a "very ugly, stupid piece of work" and stated: "I don't have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."

The Child Bride

There is a fundamental problem with Sherry Jones' approach to history. I would not object to "bodice-ripper" novels set in any time and involving any historical figure, as long as their claims to be "historical" novels are based mostly upon history. Ms Jones has never visited the Middle East, it appears. That is excusable, as no living author or historian has visited the seventh century. But Jones makes one mistake that I find inexcusable. She claims that Mohammed consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was fourteen years old. Most modern parents would object if a man in his fifties wanted to bed their fourteen-year old daughter, even if he claimed to be a prophet of God. Back in the seventh century, Aisha's father (Abu Bakr) was unwilling to have his "brother" Mohammed marrying his daughter.

There is NO reliable source that maintains that Aisha was fourteen at the time of her consummation of marriage with Mohammed, and here Jones is either grossly dishonest or being so cavalier with her sources that her book is entirely worthless on moral and historical terms.

Denise Spellberg claims the story of Aisha and Mohammed is "a sacred history". I wonder if Spellberg would describe the deflowering of a child in today's world as "sacred"?

The most reliable source of Hadiths (documents on the life of Mohammed gained from oral transmission) is Bukhari. Often called "sahih" (authentic), Bukhari lived in the 9th century AD, and collected 300,000 Hadith over a period of 16 years. He deemed only 2,062 of these to be genuine.

Bukhari wrote in Volume 7, Book 62 (Number 64) of his collection: "Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)." The same account also appears as Number 65 in Bukhari's compendium. Again in Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88, Bukhari relates that: "Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)."

Tabari (d. 923) was called the "Livy of the Arabians" by the historian Gibbon and his Hadiths are extensive. Tabari wrote (IX:131) that Aisha narrated: "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought in while the Messenger was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. Then the men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.

This echoes a Hadith from Bukhari (Vol 5, Bk 58, Number 234) in which AIsha had related: "Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."

I have encountered on the internet numerous lies and justifications to avoid the unpleasant truth expressed in these Hadiths. Some Muslims have claimed that "in hot climates, girls mature faster", implying that Aisha was not physically a "real child". Children who suffer from precocious puberty are still emotionally children. There is NO evidence from any sources that Aisha was a physically menstruating nine-year old with pubic hair. Even if there was such evidence, she was still a child, who played with dolls.

I have even heard the excuse that - in the way that haggling takes place in Arab bazaars and figures are inflated - the given age of nine years old really meant "nineteen". One scholar (Muhammad Husein Haykal) wrote that Aisha was eleven when her marriage was consummated, conveniently failing to provide documentary evidence.

Sherry Jones - so eager to "honor" Mohammed and Aisha - has committed the same error. She has avoided an unpalatable fact and replaced it with what can only be described as a lie. She claims to have studied extensively in her research - but unless she can provide a valid Hadith that states that Aisha was fourteen, I can only condemn her. Such actions fly in the face of truth. Jones knows that no decent Westerner would want to accept that a child of nine would accept her physical violation by an older man as "the bliss I had longed for all my life." A fourteen-year old who expressed such opinions would (rightly) be grounded, but it would be inconceivable to think of a nine-year old believing such vile nonsense.

And here, Jones proves that either her research was flawed, or she has set out to deceive her readers and the world at large, all for the sake of selling a book. By doing so, she betrays girl children across the Muslim world.

An Awful Truth

By the terms of Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), marriage of anyone under the age of 18 is considered "child marriage". Most Western countries place their ages of consent at 16, though some nations like France allow sex between minors at the age of 14.

At the time that Aisha was alive, the Metonic lunar calendar was used. Nine years meant nine "lunar years" - or eight (solar) years and nine months. The example of Mohammed, as recorded by Sahih Bukhari and by Tabari, has led to widespread abuse of the rights of young girls. Concepts of Sharia (Islamic jurisprudence) have accepted that Aisha's marriage to Mohammed must have been legal. To state differently would cast doubt upon the whole validity of Islam's messenger. I know of no schools of Islam that contradict the testimony of Bukhari's Hadiths.

Afghanistan still has a massive problem of girl children being married to older men, as does Pakistan, even though such unions are officially illegal.

In Iran - the situation is made worse by the Penal Code, which was ratified in November 1991. According to Article 49 of the Iranian Islamic Penal Code, a child is not criminally responsible. However, the definition of adulthood differs drastically from the UN definition, and shows disparity between the sexes. For a male, adulthood comes at 15 years, and for a girl, at nine lunar years. Adulthood gives the legal sanction to judicial hangings and to marriage, although some visible evidence of "physical maturity" must be shown by the "adult" nine-year old girl.

The British charity Karma Nirvana exists to assist young children from Indian/Bangladeshi/Pakistani backgrounds who are forced into marriage. This often means they are taken out of Britain to be married, away from the prying eyes of the authorities. Official data from the UK government's Forced Marriage Unit reveal that since 2004, 60 children under the age of sixteen are known to have been subjected to such forced unions. The true figure is higher.

This weekend, Karma Nirvana revealed that one nine-year old girl from the East Midlands had been taken to Pakistan to be married. For many children of Pakistani families, they are forced into marriage contracts when they are far too young to understand the ramifications. Such "Nikah namah" contracts, made beneath the legal age of consent, are considered legally binding by families, because Mohammed ensnared Aisha in such a contract when she was only six. Forcing someone to abide by a contract made when a young child is an abuse of basic rights.

Reactions

I always stress that the majority of Muslims are decent and law-abiding. But though Islamic scripture is interpreted by some to mean a message of "peace" and "tolerance", for others it is a message of violence and intolerance.

The issue of Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses" created an ugly precedent. Fanatical Muslims in Britain and India felt able to openly call for the death of an author, merely because Ayatollah Khomeini had issued a death fatwa on February 14, 1988. Such fanatics were never punished, even though calling for murder is illegal in Britain and India. Hitoshi Igarashi, Rushdie's Japanese translator, was stabbed to death in July 1991, and in the same month Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was stabbed, but survived.

Daniel Pipes has stated that in 2002, when Jerry Falwell called Mohammed a "terrorist", churches were burned, and at least 10 people were killed in India. In 2005, when a baseless report claimed that a Koran was flushed down a Guantanamo toilet, 15 people died.

The cartoon protests led to the death of dozens of people in 2006. After September 12, 2006, when Pope Benedict XVI made a speech in Regensburg, violence again ensued. Benedict had quoted Byzantine emperor Manuel Paleologos. The quote that aroused anger was this: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. God.. "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."

The full speech led to the murder of Chaldean Christians in Iraq, and the shooting of an Italian nun in Somalia. On November 2, 2004, Dutch documentary maker Theo van Gogh was stabbed and shot to death in an Amsterdam street for "offending" Islam. Van Gogh was "punished" for condemning the cruel treatment of women under Islam. His killer, Mohamed Bouyeri, showed no remorse for what he had done.

It only takes a few murders, or threats of murders, for widespread self-censorship to take place. Muslim fanatics know this. They were able to promote death in 1988 with impunity and since then the fanatic's intolerance has worsened. As Islamic intolerance has become more vicious, the West has become more supine and submissive. Britain has a thriving population of artists who like to "shock", but as artist Grayson Perry opined: "I've censored myself. The reason I haven't gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat."

Merely for criticizing Islamists and their supporters, I have received two death threats. The price of free speech today is reaching inflationary proportions. In Europe in particular, many of our Western luminaries are too cheap to foot the bill for defending our freedom of expression.

After the firebombing at the home of Martin Rynja this weekend, a statement was made by Anjem Choudary, former co-ordinator of pro-terrorist group Al-Muhajiroun. He said the book was an insult to the prophet Mohammed's honor, and said that such an action should invoke a "death penalty".

Many former members of the now-disbanded Al-Muhajiroun group are now in jail, but Choudary - a former lawyer - manages to remain free, despite inciting murder. After the Pope's Regensburg address, Choudary said that: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment. I am here to have a peaceful demonstration. But there may be people in Italy or other parts of the world who would carry that out. I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam."

It was Choudary who organized the notorious demonstration in London on February 3, 2006, when Muslims protested against the Danish cartoons. They carried placards which read: "Behead those who insult Islam", "Europe. Take some lessons from 9/11", "Europe you will pay. Demolition is on its way", "Europe you will pay. Your extermination is on its way," "Slay those who insult Islam," "Butcher those who insult Islam."

Choudary was a leading figure in the group called Al Ghurabaa, which authored an article entitled "Kill Those Who Insult the Prophet Muhammad (Saw)." This describes how Mohammed supported the killing of those who offended him, and suggests that deadly violence is a logical response to verbal insult.

Sherry Jones has launched herself onto the world stage with a debut novel that so far has come close to having one publisher killed. Yet she seems oblivious to the climate that exists in the modern world. She appears to believe that by saying she is "honoring" Mohammed the Muslim world will honor her in return. Jones is in severe need of a reality check - regarding the age of Aisha at consummation, that is one reality that Jones has deliberately left at the door.

The prologue to the "Jewel of Medina" can be found here. The style of writing, from the extracts I have seen, is not to my taste. Jones' "Aisha" claims that before she experienced the bliss she had "longed for all my life", she felt that "This was the beginning of something new, something terrible. Soon I would be lying on my bed beneath him, squashed like a scarab beetle, flailing and sobbing while he slammed himself against me. He would not want to hurt me, but how could he help it? It's always painful the first time."

The WSJ Forum printed some responses to the article by Asra Q. Nomani. One of the commenters was Dr. Anver M. Emon who specializes in Islamic law at the University of Toronto. He condemned the manner in which Jones has "completely butchered history."

My comments there mention Aisha's age, and also discuss the horrible facts set out by Bukhari in Volume 1, Book 4, Numbers 229 to 233 of his collection. These refer to the semen stains that were left on Mohammed's clothes: "Narrated 'Aisha: I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible)."

I wondered whether, in the interests of history, Jones would deal with this aspect of Aisha's life, but assumed: "Maybe if Sherry Jones has written a novel based on the known facts of Mohammed's later life, it is understandable that many fanatical Islamists would not want these - quite frankly revolting - details to be made widely known."

Those who threaten death should be punished to a degree that would deter others, and I would staunchly defend Jones' absolute right to write sensationalistic rubbish, including erotic rubbish. I can understand how upset she must have felt when her debut novel was pulled. However, her comments that Random House were not "courageous" smack of hypocrisy. If she had more personal courage, she would have told the truth about Aisha's age at consummation.

As a working journalist she must have known that her novel would attract negative publicity. Her claims that she intended to honor Mohammed and Aisha will not alter the fact that "all publicity is good publicity". Rushdie's turgid work "the Satanic Verses" (in which he compared all Mohammed's wives to prostitutes) benefited from massive sales after threats of death were issued. If Jones really wanted to "honor Mohammed and Aisha", then perhaps she should convert to Islam. There is a maxim that all novelists are told - "write about what you know". From the fragments that I have seen of this book, I am still wondering where Jones' special area of expertise lies...

I sincerely hope that no-one gets killed, and I hope that Jones herself remains safe. But I cannot excuse her for making a book which claims to present a historical picture of Aisha yet deliberately distorts known history. For that, Jones should be ashamed of herself.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Since Family Security Matters has redesigned its website, all of the earlier articles by Adrian Morgan can now be found at the archive. All of those articles can also found on Western Resistance.

Trial and Retrial

On Monday September 8 at Woolwich Crown Court in south London, three Muslims were found guilty of conspiracy to murder. The three men had been among eight individuals who had been on trial since April 3 this year.

The charges against the eight men concerned an alleged plot to blow seven US-bound planes out of the sky over the Atlantic. This plot had been monitored by police and MI5 for about a year before arrests were made in August 2006. The surveillance operation was code-named "Operation Overt". In August 2006 thirteen people had faced various charges related to the alleged plane-bombing plot, but only eight eventually faced trial.

Though the recent trial has resulted in some convictions, there was disappointment that the jury failed to be satisfied that the plot to blow up planes was adequately proved in court.

The three men who were convicted of conspiracy on Monday were Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain. On July 14 the same individuals had admitted conspiring to cause explosions, even though they had denied intending to set off explosions on planes. Ali, Sarwar, Hussain and two other defendants, Ibrahim Savant and Umar Islam, had additionally admitted in July to conspiring to cause a public nuisance. This "public nuisance" would have been the release of videos that they had made, in which they appeared to be making farewell speeches prior to setting off bombs.

The police who had placed the suspects under surveillance prior to their arrests in August 2006, and also the prosecution, make no secrets of their disappointment at the results. The combined costs of the investigation, which involved US and Pakistani intelligence, and the trial have come to 10 million pounds ($ million).

Andy Hayman was the Metropolitan Police's assistant commissioner for special operations until he resigned in December 2007. He said: "This was one of our strongest cases - there will have to be an intensive debrief. But now is not the time for that, now is the time to prepare for retrials."

On Wednesday September 10, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that seven of the eight men who were on trial would be retried. 27-year old Mohammed Gulzar was the only individual who was not found guilty of any of the charges against him. He alone will not face retrial. The other seven individuals - Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Assad Sarwar, Tanvir Hussain, Ibrahim Savant, Arafat Waheed Khan, Waheed Zaman, and Umar Islam - will again face trial. They are being charged with conspiracy to murder "persons unknown by the detonation of improvised explosive devices on board transatlantic passenger aircraft".

The plot, as outlined by the prosecution in the recent trial, had been led in Britain by Abdulla Ahmed Ali, who sometimes went by the name "Ahmed Ali Khan". The "farewell videos" had been made in his apartment at 386, Forest Road in Walthamstow, northeast London. Though the jury failed to agree on the issue of there being a specific plot to blow up planes, the conviction of the three men on charges of conspiracy to murder showed that they were convinced that the bomb plot was real. The "failure" of the trial appears to stem from issues of technicalities. The motives of the three men who were found guilty on Monday were clearly perceived to be murderous.

The videos that had been produced in Ali's apartment were played to the jury. These showed the hatred that the main defendants had to the West. Ali's apartment had been bugged with listening devices by the police, who heard the speeches being made for the videos during their surveillance.

Abdulla Ahmed Ali, who acted as the group's London leader, tried to copy the hand gestures used by Mohammed Sidique Khan in his "farewell video". Lacking Khan's skills in communication, Ali's efforts are clumsy, even amateur. Yet his words leave no doubt as to his feelings about the country into which he was born: "...And also I'm doing this because of the rewards, the big rewards that Allah has promised us - we'll step on his path and Inshallah (Allah wiling) become martyred and the best amongst us is in the world is the guarantee of Jannah (Heaven) for myself and those that are close to me. And on top of this, it's to punish and humiliate the Kuffaar (non-Muslims), and to teach them a lesson they will never forget - is to tell them that the we - the Muslims - are a people of honor - we are a people of 'Izza (domination over non-Muslims). We're not cowards, and enough is enough. We have warned you so many times to get out of our lands, and leave us alone. And you have persisted, in trying to humiliate us, kill us, and destroy us - Sheikh Osama warned you many times to leave our lands or you will be destroyed. And now the time has come for you to be destroyed. You have nothing but to expect but floods of martyrdom operations, a volcano of anger and revenge erupting amongst your capital so yes - taste that which you have... made us taste for a long time. And you will build the fruits that you have sown."

Of the eight men whose trial had started on April 3, only one man was found not guilty of taking part in any conspiracy. This individual is Mohammad Gulzar. Other individuals admitted conspiracy to cause a public nuisance by creating videos threatening bomb attacks. These were Arafat Waheed Khan, Waheed Zaman, Ibrahim Savant and Umar Islam (who had been known as Brian Young before he converted to Islam).

Ibrahim Savant said in his video: "I have participated within this blessed raid for.. upon the enemies of Islam for several reasons - I have sacrificed my life cheaply, within the sake of Allah noticing myself from the life the trials and tribulations but now will fulfill a covenant and promise with Allah almighty - and to make his deen (way of faith) reign supreme."

Umar Islam was a convert to Islam. He had formerly been known as Brian Young. He came from a West-Indian family. He started his video speech with passion, but halfway through began to read from a piece of paper in front of him, stumbling over certain words.

His speech included the following: "We are doing this in order to gain the pleasure of our lord Allah Subhanna wa Ta'ala (glorified and exalted) as Allah Subhanna wa Ta'ala loves those who strive in his path. And Allah Subhanna wa Ta'ala loves the mujahideen. And Allah Subhanna wa Ta'ala loves us to die and kill in his path. And anyone who tries to deny this then read the Koran and will not be able to deny this, because this is the words in the Koran and the words of Allah Subhanna wa Ta'ala - and we will not leave this path until you leave our lands and until you feel what we are feeling (he looks down at script and reads) This is revenge.. for the actions of the USA in the Muslim lands, and their accomplices, such as the British and the Jews."

"This is a warning to the non-believers that if they do not leave our lands there are many more like us and many more like me, ready to strike until the law of Allah Subhanna wa Ta'ala is established on this earth. To all the non-believers, to all the non-Muslims let it be known that you can never win in this war. never can you win in this war. Even if it seems that you are winning, because of your military strength know that we count it as a victory, as long as we remain steadfast, fighting jihad against you. Know that without doubt that your dead are in Hellfire while the Muslims who die, due to your attacks, will be in the Paradise insha- Allah (by the will of Allah)."

Liquid Explosives

Because the jury failed to agree that a specific plot to attack aircraft had been made by the accused, there were calls for restrictions on liquids to be lifted. Currently only containers holding 100 ml or less of fluid are allowed onto UK flights. Virgin Atlantic is now urging for a review of safety procedures, and even the British government's Ministry of Transport is considering lifting the restrictions on carrying liquids onto flights, coming into force next year.

The threat of liquid explosives is real. One Japanese businessman, Haruki Ikegami, had been blown into two pieces on an airplane flight from Manila on December 11, 1994. He died after terrorist Ramzi Yousef left a small device containing liquid explosives under the seat that Mr Ikegami would sit in. Yousef had planned the World Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993, which killed six people.

The killing of Mr Ikegami had been a test-run for a plot which had been designed by Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (who would later plan 9/11). This plot was called Operation Bojinka and included a plan to use liquid explosives to bomb 12 US-bound planes while over the Pacific in late January 1995. Details of the plot were found in an apartment in Manila. Ramzi Yousef and two other men were found guilty of the Bojinka plot on September 5, 1996.

In August 2006, the notion of a plot to blow up a plane using liquid explosives was certainly plausible. Days after the arrests of 24 people in Britain, Jamestown revealed that recipes for liquid explosives were proliferating on Islamist websites.

Only a small explosion is enough to cause a pressurized aircraft cabin to rupture. On November 24, 2005 an Algerian who called himself Abbas Boutrab was found guilty of having information "for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism". Boutrab (almost certainly not his real name) had downloaded details of a small device and copied it onto 25 compact discs. On December 24, 2005, Boutrab was jailed for six years.

An explosives expert from the FBI, Donald Sachtleben, had testified at Boutrab's trial. He had made three test bombs. The mixture for these could be disguised in a bottle of baby powder. A detonator could be provided by a battery from a CD player. Sachtleben said that "a person of average intelligence and average mechanical skills" could create the device. In a pressurized cabin, he said, it would "more than likely...cause catastrophic failure".

In the Walthamstow apartment owned by Abdulla Ahmed Ali there were several empty plastic bottles of soft drinks. The prosecution had maintained during the trial that Ali and accomplices had intended to refill the bottles with explosives. According to the argument of lead prosecutor Peter Wright, the explosive fluid would have been detonated with HMTD, which would have been hidden in hollowed-out AA batteries. The power to ignite the HMTD would have come from a wire, or a flash bulb from a throwaway camera.

HMTD (Hexamethylene triperoxide diamine) is only stable when pure. Home-made HMTD is rarely of this quality and can easily combust.

The explosive mixture itself would have been made mainly from hydrogen peroxide, a substance that is easily available, and was used in the London bombings of 7/7, 2005 - killing 52 innocent people - and also in the mixtures that failed to detonate a fortnight later, on July 21, 2005.

In the recent trial, it was said that surveillance of Assad Sarwar, one of the three men convicted of plotting murder, showed him taking empty hydrogen peroxide bottles to a recycling center. Sarwar, who lived in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, stored six of the "suicide videos" in his garage. He bought much of the bomb-making material. He had hidden a suitcase in Kings Wood in High Wycombe. When this was eventually retrieved on August 15, 2006, it was found to contain materials for manufacturing explosive devices.

Dr Sidney Alford, an explosives specialist, was commissioned by the BBC's Panorama documentary series to show how dangerous a liquid-explosive device could be. Dr Alford followed the manufacturing procedures explained in the trial. A small sports drink bottle was filled with the hydrogen peroxide=based liquid explosive. After this, a powdered drink concentrate called "Tang" was added to give realistic color to the fluid. The bottle was placed next to the wall of an airplane fuselage which the BBC had retrieved from a scrap merchant. The ensuing explosion blows a hole in the fuselage. The footage can be viewed on video here. Dr Alford explained that if this had happened in flight in a pressurized cabin, the damage would have been far greater.

It has been argued that the US had urged the British authorities to make arrests before they had enough evidence to clearly prove in court the intentions of the alleged plane-bomb plotters. The jury at Woolwich Crown Court, after 50 hours of deliberation, failed to find conclusively that planes were the target for the bottle-bombs.

On July 14, 2008, Assad Sarwar, Tanvir Hussain and Abdulla Ahmed Ali admitted plotting to set off bombs at Heathrow airport, but denied that they had intended to kill anyone. One of the main reasons that the jury failed to find sufficient evidence for a plane-bombing plot was because no tickets had been purchased at the time of the arrests. Two of the accused had still been waiting for their passports in August 2006.

Other targets had apparently also been considered by Abdulla Ahmed Ali and his associates - these included power stations, a gas pipeline, and the national electricity grid. Such plans bear similarities to those hatched by the Operation Crevice plotters.

The failure to successfully convict in a case that possibly represented the most ambitious and potentially deadly terror plot in Britain's history used up time as well as financial resources. As Philip Johnston wrote in the Telegraph newspaper: "More than 200 mobile phones were seized, together with 400 computers and a total of 8,000 CDs, DVDs and computer disks, containing 6,000 gigabytes of data. Nearly 70 homes, businesses and open spaces were searched."

Rewind to August 10, 2006

The alleged plot to blow up planes with liquid explosives burst onto the world's press on the morning of Thursday, August 10, 2006. Arrests had been made from late Wednesday and continued even as then Home Secretary John Reid announced: "Overnight the police, with the full knowledge of ministers, have carried out a major counter-terrorism operation to disrupt what we believe to be a major threat to the UK and international partners. The police, acting with the Security Service MI5, are investigating an alleged plot to bring down a number of aircraft through mid-flight explosions, causing a considerable loss of life."

Abdulla Ahmed Ali and Assad Sarwar were the first to be apprehended. They were arrested at a car park in Walthamstow. Ali had with him a memory stick. This contained details which he had gathered from an internet cafe concerning flights to North America. Though Ali maintained these flight details concerned a possible holiday, the prosecutors at the trial were convinced these were the targets. The flights were all scheduled to leave Heathrow's Terminal 3 within 35 minutes of each other and for a large part of their journey they would all have been airborne simultaneously.

The listed flights were:
1415 UA931 LHR-SAN FRANCISCO (United Airlines)
1500 AC849 LHR-TORONTO (Air Canada)
1515 AC865 LHR-MONTREAL (Air Canada)
1540 UA959 LHR-CHICAGO (United)
1620 UA925 LHR-WASHINGTON (United)
1635 AA131 LHR-NEW YORK (American Airlines)
1650 AA91 LHR-CHICAGO (American)

Passengers were refused permission to carry liquids onto airplanes. Mothers with nursing babies were only allowed to carry bottles of milk on board if they themselves took a sip to prove the fluid was harmless. Airports across Britain were in chaos as passengers were subjected to stringent checks on their hand luggage.

By 8pm at the end of the day, a total of 21 Muslims had arrested in Britain, mainly from addresses in London, High Wycombe and Birmingham. In al, 24 people would be detained. On August 12, 2006 an open letter in several leading newspapers. This blamed the British government for Muslim terrorism at home, and urged Tony Blair to "change our foreign policy". It stated: "It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad."

The credibility of the "air-terror plot" was not doubted by national authorities. George W. Bush publicly stated that the West was at war with "Islamic fascism". It had soon emerged that the arrests had followed surveillance of individuals by British, American and Pakistani intelligence services.

The key figure who was then assumed to be, and is still thought to be, the leader of the plot was a man called Rashid (Rachid) Rauf. This man was arrested in Pakistan shortly before the arrests in Britain. According to NBC, he was apprehended on instructions from America. The date of his arrest is debatable, as is the location.

Rauf was either arrested on Wednesday August 9, at a location along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, or on Friday August 4, 2006 at Rawalpindi, not far from the Pakistani capital. Another account maintains that he was arrested on August 8 at Lodharan Pathak in Punjab. Another version states that Rauf had been arrested at Zhob in Baluchistan province. The Pakistan government denied other claims that Rauf had been arrested in Bahawalpur, and asserted that he had been arrested in Rawalpindi.

His brother Tayib was among those subsequently arrested in Britain, but was never put on trial.

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/Rauf1.jpg

Rashid Rauf had lived with his family in St Margaret's Road, Ward End, Birmingham. His father Abdul owned a bakery business, Classic Confectionery Supplies. At the back yard of the house was a makeshift madrassa, where the family gave free classes on Islam. The house had been searched after Isaiah Young-Sam, a young black Christian, had been stabbed to death by a Muslim gang during ethnic riots in October 2005.

Rashid had attended Washwood Heath Secondary School and had been a sixteen-year old student there in 1996, when Muslim teacher Israr Khan caused a media storm by berating Muslim pupils for taking part in a school carol service. On August 15, 2006, the Mirror newspaper quoted a teacher who was at the school then. He said: "I'm not at all surprised that someone from the school has been implicated. There were some very influential radical elements there."

On April 24, 2002, one of Rashid Rauf's numerous uncles, 54-year old Mohammed Saeed, had parked the delivery vehicle he used for his work. He was walking to his home, when he was set upon. Saeed was stabbed five times in the stomach and died. Rashid Rauf was - and still is - the prime suspect for Saeed's murder. At the start of May he fled from Britain to Bahawalpur in Punjab province, Pakistan.

On August 12, 2006, two days after British airports were mired in chaos and arrests had been made in the UK, the Pakistan Daily Times claimed that money which had been gathered to assist in relief work had been diverted to fund the alleged plane-bombing plot. Large sums had been sent to three individuals in December 2005 in Pakistan by a charity called Muslim Charity. This charity (registered No. 1078488), founded by Shaykh Muhammad Imdad Hussain Pirzada, is based in Retford Nottingham.

Rauf's father Abdul had been a founder of a charity called Crescent Relief but had stepped down from the charity in 2001. On August 26, 2006, the Australian newspaper reported that the UK Charities Commission had frozen this charity's assets. Earlier, the commission had made a statement that "We are aware of the speculation suggesting links between UK charities and the bomb plot. However, we use our legal powers on the basis of evidence."

It is unknown whether the original Daily Times article about links between the alleged plotters and UK charities has any substance. Many conflicting statements were made in the media at that time. On August 19 2006, the same Pakistani newspaper stated that Abdul Rauf had been arrested at Islamabad International airport. Abdul Rauf later forced an apology from a British newspaper that repeated the claim.

Rashid Rauf was said to be linked to Al Qaeda through an individual called Matiur Rehman. This individual, who was said to command the terror group Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, was said to have come from Bahawalpur. Rehman was mentioned frequently in news reports in the West and also in Pakistan. In the immediate aftermath of the British arrests, most information on Rehman originated from ABC News and their "news consultant", Alexis Debat.

GlobalSecurity.org lists the reliability of information on Rehman as having "low confidence". This is related to the credibility of Alexis Debat who has been accused of journalistic fraud. After the end of 2007, when Debat's crediblity was questioned, stories of Rehman in the Pakistani media ceased. A militant leader called Matiur Rehman who was killed in Waziristan in April 2008 is certainly another personage.

According to his wife, Rauf had come to Pakistan to "preach Islam and get religious education. He took admission in a seminary in Multan. He married in 2003 and had two children. Then, he started living in Bahawalpur." He was planning to set up in business, it was claimed.

Though the stories of Rehman being a direct link between Rashid Rauf and Al Qaeda are now doubted, Rauf's own reputation as a figure with strong links to Al Qaeda has not changed. Rashid Rauf remained in custody in Pakistan after his arrest. On Saturday December 15, 2007, a day before Pakistan's state of emergency came to an end, Rauf appeared in court in Islamabad for an appeal hearing about his detention. At the end of the hearing, he was due to be returned to his cell in Adiala jail in Rawalpindi, the garrison city about half an hour's drive from the capital.

Rauf was escorted back from court by two policemen, and also one of his uncles, Mohammed Rafiq. Along the way, the policemen allowed him to eat at a MacDonalds restaurant, and then allowed him to enter a small Rukhshanda mosque where, with his handcuffs apparently removed, he escaped with his uncle. The uncle was arrested, and the two policemen were also arrested.

The uncle had apparently become friendly with the policemen and on other occasions had invited them to his house when they were officially escorting Rashid Rauf. There have been (unsubstantiated) suggestions that Pakistan's military intelligence service, the ISI, had a hand in the disappearance. Rauf is still at large.

The similarity of the alleged air-bombing plot to Operation Bojinka hints at Al Qaeda inspiration. On August 15, 2006 Dawn newspaper quoted a Pakistani "intelligence source" who claimed Al Qaeda was behind the air terror plot. He said: "It is not Osama bin Laden and it’s not Ayman Al Zawahiri, but someone close to the rank of Abu Faraj Al-Libbi... Without arresting Rashid Rauf, it would not have been possible to foil the plot." The source confirmed that Matiur Rehman had nothing to do with the (alleged) air-terror plot.

What is known for certain is that there were phone communications between Rashid Rauf and Abdulla Ahmed Ali which were monitored. The information gleaned from these phone communications led to Rauf being arrested, apparently on orders from the United States.

Links to terrorists and extremists

Abdulla Ahmed Ali had traveled fairly extensively before his arrest in a car park. In February 2003 he was in Pakistan, involved in "refugee work". He went on pilgrimage to Mecca in January 2004, and from August 2004 until January 2005 he was again in Pakistan. During this time Mohammed Sidique Khan, leader of the cell that killed 52 people in London on July 7, 2005, was also in Pakistan. Additionally, Muktar Ibrahim, leader of the failed bomb attacks of July 21, 2005, was also in Pakistan at that time.

Abdulla Ahmed Ali was back in Pakistan in June 2005, and in May 2006 he was in Pakistan for a family-relateld matter. During the trial, Ali spoke in June of assisting a charity at Chatsworth Road in Hackney. He said that three other defendants joined him there - Ibrahim Savant, Arafat Waheed Khan and Tanvir Hussain.

He told the court: "They needed volunteers to go to Pakistan and deliver some of this aid and administer it and I volunteered to do that". It was in connection with this charity that he was in Pakistan in 2003 and 2004. He said that Assad Sarwar and Umair Islam had also gone to Pakistan to assist with this charity. This charity is called the Islamic Medical Association.

There is a charity called the Islamic Medical Association, which is based in Walsall, registered number 280764. Its main spokesman lives in Palmers Green in North London. This man, Dr A. Majid Katme, is a psychiatrist with some dubious views that can be seen as extremist. Katme's contributions to medical health include recommendations that Muslims avoid "un-Islamic" vaccinations. However, his charity - which makes so little money it would struggle to keep a tumor alive - may not be connected with the charity shop at 19 Chatsworth Road, London E5 0LH, that bears the same name.

The charity shop lies near the Homerton end of Chatsworth Road, where the road becomes Brooksby's Walk. In the 1990s, I used to live a stone's throw away from this location, when it used to be a yellow-painted Islamic bookshop. It lies within view of the Homerton University Hospital's VD annex. In spring of 2006, the shop was asking readers of the Islamist forum "Ummah.com" for donations.

In August 2006, the youngest of the suspects to be arrested in connection with the alleged air-terror plot was aged 17. He was indicted for the following: "On a day between 1 October 2005 and 10 August 2006 within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court had in his possession a document or record, namely a book on improvised explosives devices, some suicide notes and wills with the identities of persons prepared to commit acts of terrorism and a map of Afghanistan containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism (contrary to Section 58 (1) (b) of the Terrorism Act 2000)."

This young suspect went on trial in the Fall of 2007. On Friday, October 26, 2007, he was sentenced to six months in jail. His name is Abdul Muneem Patel. He was freed early from Glen Parva jail on January 7.

Abdul Muneem Patel's father - Mohammed Patel - runs the Islamic Medical Association charity shop in Chatsworth Road. During the recent trial that saw Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain found guilty of conspiracy to murder, Mohammed Patel was mentioned. According to the Press Association, the prosecution "unmasked Afghan war veteran Patel as an extremist sympathiser who used his contacts to smooth the path for Ali and others."

It is of no small interest that this particular location in Chatsworth Road is mentioned in a terror trial. In the mid-1990s, it was formed as an Islamic bookshop - the al-Koran. The bookshop's founder was Mohammed Hamid. This individual also ran an Islamic bookstall on busy Oxford Street in London's West End. Mohammed Hamid called himself "Osama bin London". Hamid was also involved with assisting at the Islamic Medical Association store in Chatsworth Road. He had taken seven containers to Afghanistan in early 2002. On Tuesday February 26, 2008, 50-year old Hamid was found guilty on three counts of "soliciting to murder" and three counts of providing terrorist training in Britain. On Friday March 7, 2008, Hamid was sentenced to an "indefinite" jail term, of not less than seven and a half years.

Assisting Hamid to run the stall in London's West End was Muktar Ibrahim, who led the cell that attempted to commit suicide bombings in London on July 21, 2005. Ibrahim was photographed with the other 21/7 cell members at a training camp in the Lake District of northern England on May 3, 2004. This camp had been organized by Mohammed Hamid.

Eritrean-born Ibrahim, who was convicted on July 10, 2007 and jailed for life, also knew Abdulla Ahmed Ali. Ibrahim had been in Pakistan between December 2004 and March 2005. Ahmed Ali had been in Pakistan from August 2004 until January 2005. According to journalist Richard Watson on BBC's Newsnight on September 8, 2008, "Ahmed Ali was in phone contact with Muktar Ibrahim out there (in Pakistan)."

Mohammed Sidique Khan, leader of the 7/7 cell, had gone to Pakistan with his fellow-suicide bomber, Shehzad Tanweer, on November 19, 2004, returning on February 8, 2005. There is no evidence of Mohammed SIdique Khan being directly involved with Abdulla Ahmed Ali, but he and Tanweer certainly knew the main figures in the Operation Crevice plot. The Crevice cell planned to use liquid fertilizer to carry out bomb attacks in Britain. Members of the Crevice cell had spent time in terror training camps in Pakistan.

There appear to be extensive links between British-based jihadists, and for many of these, Pakistan is a place where they receive training in explosives manufacture. Richard Watson stated: "We found out that the man who drove the burning Jeep into Glasgow airport - Kafeel Ahmed - last year, he has a connection with a man called Abbas Boutrab, a convicted terrorist, an Algerian terrorist, who was under surveillance in Northern Ireland in 2003."

There are other links connecting some of these extremists. Kafeel Ahmed later died of burns he had sustained in his attack on Glasgow airport on June 30, 2007. In his native Bangalore in India, Kafeel Ahmed was linked to a proselytizing group called Tablighi Jamaat.

Richard Reid, the British terrorist who tried to blow up a Miami-bound plane with a bomb hidden in his shoe, was involved with Tablighi Jamaat. Three of the 7/7 bombers, including leader Mohammed Sidique Khan, had attended the Markazi mosque at Savile Town in Dewsbury. This mosque is the headquarters of Tablighi Jamaat in Britain, built in 1980 with Saudi financial assistance.

Assad Sarwar, one of the three men convicted of conspiracy to murder on Monday September 8 was also involved in Tablighi Jamaat. His brother said: "He was at Tablighi Jamaat, which is a sect in Islam which encourages the youth to grow beards, pray five times a day; and how the prophet lived on a daily basis. He thought religion is more important than study."

One of the men who was convicted at the same trial of conspiracy to "cause a public nuisance" and who will be re-tried for plotting to cause explosions on board planes is Waheed Zaman. He frequently attended Tablighi Jamaat meetings near his home in Walthamstow.

Muktar Ibrahim, who was in direct phone contact with Abdulla Ahmed ALi, also attended a Tablighi mosque in east London. The fifth member of the 21/7 cell, Manfo Asiedu, also had involvement with Tablighi. This organization is ideologically linked to the extremism of the Deobandis, and it should be remembered that the Taliban leadership were graduates from Deoband madrassas. In May 2006 when Tablighi Jamaat held a convention in Waziristan, Pakistan, the local Taliban ordered a ceasefire to give attendees safe passage.

In Newham in London, Tablighi Jamaat have been attempting to build a "mega-mosque" near the site of the 2012 Olympics. In France, Tablighi Jamaat have been responsible for radicalizing Muslim prisoners, causing French intelligence officials to call it the "antechamber of fundamentalism". Michael Heimbach of the FBI has said: "We have a significant presence of Tablighi Jamaat in the United States and we have found that al-Qaeda used them for recruiting now and in the past."

Journalist Patrick Johnston argued that it was "enough" that hundreds of lives had not been lost - the obvious consequence if a plane-bombing campaign had been brought to fruition. In the short-term this may be true. But Britain has allowed preachers and young radicals to act with impunity for two decades. Muslims from Al Muhajiroun and other groups have preached the legitimacy of hatred and murder. Many of those individuals, such as Abu Izzadeen, are now in jail. But their sermons of hate have influenced others. Some of the Crevice plotters were Al Muhajiroun members, and the group is linked to the 2003 suicide bombing in Mike's Bar in Tel-Aviv, in which 3 innocent people were killed.

Islamist terror plots have sprung up like mushrooms from the compost originally laid down by the godfathers of British Jihad - Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abdullah el-Faisal. Their words inspired the second generation of British jihadists and already a third generation of would-be terrorists is emerging. Tolerance of intolerance has got Britain nowhere in the fight against extremism. So-called "moderate leaders" have spun tissues of lies to mislead and distract the authorities away dealing with from the Islamist danger in British society. From Islamist ideology terrorism naturally evolves. For that reason, a retrial is essential, if only to send a tough message to those who may be on the verge of adopting radicalism.

by Adrian Morgan

at timestamp 6:50 - 7:55.

Pakistan's Musharraf Resigns - What Is His Legacy?

Last week, on August 14, Pakistan celebrated its Independence Day. Exactly 61 years previously, it had become autonomous, freed from British rule. At that time, under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan was officially secular. Jinnah died after only thirteen months in power, and soon a succession of Islamist and military governments destroyed his ideal of a secular democracy.

On August 14, 1947, Pakistan stretched beyond its current boundaries. What was then called West Pakistan is now modern Pakistan. East Pakistan fought a bloody battle for its own independence, in which an estimated 3 million people were killed. In 1971 it became the autonomous secular nation of Bangladesh.

Last week's Independence celebrations, in marked contrast to previous years, were muted. A few cultural events were announced, but there was little enthusiasm. In Peshawar, the main city of troubled North West Frontier Province (NWFP), the celebrations were held indoors. NWFP, the home of Pakistan's Taliban, as well as the core leadership of Al Qaeda, has become more riddled with unrest than it was under the last government.

On Monday, February 18, 2008 Pakistan held elections. The previous government had been dissolved on November 15, 2007 during a state of emergency instituted by President Pervez Musharraf. Despite the imposition of martial law from November 3 until December 16, 2007, the outgoing government was the first since independence to have completed a full term of office.

Musharraf had participated in presidential elections on October 6, 2007. He won the vote, but the Supreme Court warned that he could not become president until a legal challenge had been addressed. During his state of emergency, Musharraf sacked numerous judges and replaced the Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, with Abdul Hameed Dogar, a political ally.

The general election should have taken place in January this year. A solution favored by America had been for a power-sharing deal with Musharraf as president and Benazir Bhutto, head of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), as the prime minister. Bhutto was assassinated on December 27 while campaigning. Her murder threw the country into social and political chaos. Many PPP supporters blamed Musharraf for her death.

In the week that Independence was being celebrated, there were loud calls for Musharraf to resign, calls that had commenced on August 7. Finally, on Monday August 18, Musharraf announced on television that he would be resigning immediately. In a one-hour address, he said: "This is not time for individual bravado. I lose or win in impeachment proceedings, the Pakistani nation will be the loser."

Musharraf's temporary replacement will be Mohammed Mian Soomro, who acted as caretaker prime minister in the interregnum between the current and the last governments.

The decision by Musharraf to resign the presidency came hours before a motion to have him impeached was to be presented in the National Assembly. The decision to move to impeachment came from discussions between the leaders of the two parties that comprise the current coalition government.

Musharraf has been leader of Pakistan for almost nine years. After 9/11, he assured the United States that Pakistan would be a close ally in the War on Terror. While he was head of the army, Musharraf committed thousands of troops to NWFP to combat insurgents from the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but the Islamists still proliferated. The current government has attempted a policy of accords and appeasement to the Islamists in NWFP, and the region is now more volatile than it was a year ago.

A Weak Government

After Benazir Bhutto died, she left a handwritten will. This claimed that her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, should become head of the Pakistan People's Party. Zardari became the chairman of the PPP, but stated that he would not stand as prime minister if his party won the elections. Zardari has spent time in jail in Pakistan, and several countries have accused him of corruption. When his wife was prime minister and he was a minister in her government, he allegedly siphoned off payments from import contracts. He was also accused on two occasions of murder, charges that were never proved.

The other coalition partner in the government, PML-N (Pakistani Muslim League-Nawaz) is headed by Nawaz Sharif. This individual was ruled legally ineligible to hold a position of power. He had been a prime minister until ousted by Musharraf in a coup. In 1999, Sharif had tried to prevent Musharraf from returning to Pakistan. For this action against the head of the army, Sharif was convicted under terrorism laws and jailed for life. He was also given a jail term for corruption and tax evasion.

Later, after negotiations by the Saudis, Nawaz Sharif was freed on condition he left the country. After interventions in August 2007 by then-chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Sharif returned from his exile in Saudi Arabia on September 7, but was immediately deported. Musharraf allowed him to officially return on November 25, 2007. On December 3 it was ruled that Sharif's previous convictions ruled him ineligible to contest the election.

In the February 18 general election, Musharraf's PML-Q party suffered a massive defeat. The PPP won most votes, with PML-N in second place. The person who was chosen by the PPP to be prime minister was 55-year old Syed Makhdoom Yusuf Raza Gilani.

Gilani's effectiveness as a leader, already compromised by being head of a coalition government, is further weakened by the interference and machinations of Asif Ali Zardari.

On May 12, after the government failed to reinstate the judges who had been deposed by Musharraf, Sharif announced that all PML-N government ministers would resign.

Since the general election, Nawaz Sharif has tried to stand in by-elections held on June 26. On June 1, he was given permission to contest these by-elections, ut less than a week before the by-elections, Lahore High Court barred his participation. The Lahore constituency that Sharif hoped to contest had its by-election suspended while there were disputes over his eligibility for political office. So far, Sharif has not gained a seat in the National Assembly

The pressures made by Zardari and Sharif to force impeachment of Musharraf clearly show that these two figures, who hold no valid position within the government, see themselves as the true political leaders of Pakistan.

North West Frontier Province

When Nawaz Sharif was prime minister, his government imposed sharia law on NWFP, even though this action was ruled unconstitutional. The current weak government of Pakistan has tried to appease the Islamists of NWFP, in a vain attempt to bring peace to the region. The Pakistani Taliban claimed on March 30 that it would be willing to talk with the government.

The British government, whose Foreign Office sees nothing wrong with appeasing Islamists, announced in April its support for Pakistan's policy of negotiating with Islamists.

Swat is one region in NWFP that has been troubled by Islamist insurgents. The Swat Islamists' annexing of police stations and their sucucessful attacks upon Pakistani troops were among the reasons cited for the initiation of the November 3 state of emergency. On May 21, 2008, Gilani's government signed a peace accord with tribal leaders in Swat.

Shortly after the signing of the Swat accord Zardari, the power behind the throne, announced that more reconciliation would follow.

The Swat accord dissolved as militants fought with troops. At the end of July nine civilians were killed during clashes between militants and troops. The fighting has continued unabated. This weekend, nine Islamists and one civilian were killed in further clashes in the Swat valley.

Unlike the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) which lie directly alongside the Durand Line dividing Afghanistan and Pakistan, Swat used to be regarded as peaceful. Sometimes called the "Switzerland" of Pakistan, the scenic Swat valley was until last year a popular tourist resort for Pakistanis. This month, Pakistan should be officially withdrawing its troops from the region, following the May 21 agreement. The chances of this happening while fighting continues seem remote.

The Future

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the son of Benazir Bhutto, claimed that with Musharraf's resignation "The biggest hurdle in the way of democracy is gone. Now the coalition government can move on and solve the problems of the people." Too young to take part in Pakistani politics, Bhutto Zardari has spent more time away from Pakistan than inside it.

In July 2008, Pakistan had an inflation rate of 24%. As well as the political and military problems facing the country, there have been problems with the supply of food and power. Prices of flour have been at their highest ever. Since December last year Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, has been beset by frequent interruptions of its electricity supply. Assuming the problems of leadership and the problems of terrorism can be solved, Pakistan will still have to address its financial worries.

Since 2001, the nation has received more than $10 billion in US aid, with millions also donated by countries within NATO. In the 2007 fiscal year, more than $900 million of US money was invested into Pakistan's economy. Despite accepting massive handouts and allowing foreign investments, a culture of patronage prevails in the nation, and corruption is endemic.

Anne W Patterson has been the US envoy to Pakistan since May 2007. Before Musharraf's resignation, she had urged Nawaz Sharif to allow the former president "safe passage" out of Pakistan. Sharif had claimed at the start of last week that there should be no "safe passage" for Musharraf. On Monday last week Patterson met with Musharraf. It is believed she suggested he should resign, rather than undergo the process of impeachment.

On Friday August 15, the Saudi head of intelligence, Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz, visited Pakistan and urged a peaceful solution to the situation of Musharraf's departure from office.

Last week, Anne Patterson promised that the United States will continue to support the coalition government, but there have been tensions as a result of the way in which the government has handled the control of extremists in the borderlands of NWFP, adjoining Afghanistan. On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice ruled out any possibility that Musharraf could be granted political asylum in the US.

Many questions remain - there are claims that Musharraf himself diverted US funds which were for countering the insurgency in NWFP. He may go to Saudi Arabia, or stay in the country. If Nawaz Sharif decides to embark upon a punitive approach towards Musharraf, his own credibility will be called into question. He has reasons to have a personal grudge against Musharraf. Personal resentments should be secondary to the needs of the country. Gilani also has reason to resent Musharraf - in 2001 he was jailed for five years for corruption.

Musharraf's fate is uncertain, but so is the fate of Pakistan, and also the relationship between this government and the West.

On November 15 last year, Musharraf handed over control of the army to General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. This individual was the head of the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), Pakistan's intelligence agency, between October 2004 and October 2007. Kayani is regarded as a "moderate" and was widely touted as an ally of the West.

The ISI has long had a poor reputation. Many of its former leaders have espoused Islamist ideas, and the Taliban was founded with the assistance of the ISI. This group is also accused of numerous disappearances of civilians. On Saturday, July 26, prime minister Gilani announced that it would place the ISI under civilian control. However, the decision was reversed six hours later. ISI, currently headed by Lt Gen Nadeem Taj, would remain under military control.

Whether the government and the leadership of the army of Pakistan are genuine allies of the West or not remains to be seen. In April this year, NATO leaders claimed they wanted to be "deepening" their engagement with Pakistan and to "support efforts to improve security and stability along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border."

Though NATO leaders are diplomatic about Pakistan's effectiveness at controlling the extremists along the Durand Line, neighboring Afghanistan is less reserved in its criticism. Last month, Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta directly blamed cross-border violence upon "the de facto truce in the tribal areas beyond the border."

The head of Pakistan's Taliban is Baitullah Mehsud. In December last year, he was on an army hit-list. In May, he felt confident enough to give a press conference in his native region of Waziristan.

The Taliban do not recognize the Durand Line as a real frontier, and since the fall of the Afghanistan Taliban, they have freely passed across this border and back with impunity. On July 10 this year, Pakistan's foreign minister warned that Pakistan would tolerate no foreign troops inside its territory. Shah Mahmood Qureshi was referring to NATO foreign troops, rather than Afghan Taliban forces.

On the same day that the minister made his statement in the UN, Pakistani Taliban mounted a cross-border operation from a village in Wana in South Waziristan. They fired shells at a NATO post in Machi-dad in Afghanistan. The NATO forces retaliated with shells. One these hit a Pakistani military post, injuring three soldiers. In retaliation, the Pakistani army fired back, injuring Afghan soldiers. Two civilians were injured when an Afghan shell hit a market.

Two days later, prime minister Gilani repeated Qureshi's claims about Pakistan's sovereignty.

The future of Pakistan is now more uncertain than ever. If, as it claims, the coalition government can now act without impediments from the presidency, its performance will be placed under scrutiny. The coalition's performance so far has been less than lackluster, and a change of president will not suddenly inject it with efficiency and brilliance. Coalition governments are rarely dynamic or inspiring.

With Musharraf no longer around, the government can no longer use him as a scapegoat for its own inefficiency and poor leadership. The PPP and PML-N parties made common cause around their opposition to Musharraf and his policies, such as the removal of senior judges. Their policies are not entirely compatible. With both party leaders being personally ambitious but not ensconced within the National Assembly, there is a credibility gap that cannot be bridged. The glue that holds the coalition together could easily, under enough pressure, split apart.

For a while there will be a semblance of unity, and while there is apparent unity, there will be hand-outs from the international community. However, sooner or later the government must fulfill its pledge to deal with Pakistan's almost insurmountable domestic, social and religious problems. There are no guarantees that it can deliver on this promise.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Part Two (of Two)

Part One can be found here.

The Labour government's friends

In Britain, the Muslim Brotherhood has made its presence felt through its front groups and individuals who play double roles in society. The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) is widely perceived as a front-group of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was co-founded in 1997 by Kemal el-Helbawy the European spokesman of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

In 2004, at the invitation of the MAB, the Muslim Brotherhood's "spiritual leader", Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, arrived in London. In 2001 Qaradawi had issued a fatwa that condoned the murder of Israeli civilians, a fatwa that was repeated on Hamas' website to justify their attacks against Israeli civilians.

During his 2004 visit, Qaradawi was publicly welcomed by extreme left-winger Ken Livingstone, who was then Mayor of London. Later, on September 13, 2005, Livingstone was asked to give evidence to the government's Select Committee on Home Affairs. Livingstone and others were giving evidence in the aftermath of the London bombings that had happened two months earlier, on July 7, in which 52 innocent people died.

Here, Livingstone said: "I find myself in complete agreement with the internal Foreign Office document that was prepared as a brief for the Home Office on the subject of Dr Qaradawi, which completely corroborates the stand I have taken on every single point."

The document Livingstone alluded to can be found here. It had been leaked to the Observer newspaper and had been published on September 4, 2005. The document was written by Mockbul Ali, an employee of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who had previously praised the killing of Israeli civilians.

Mockbul Ali, who will be discussed later, had suggested that Qaradawi should not be prevented from making future visits to London. Qaradawi is banned from entering the United States - with good reason. In August 2004, shortly after his visit to London, Qaradawi said: "The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately."

The Foreign Office memo stated: "He (Qaradawi) is the leading mainstream and influential Islamic authority in the Middle East and increasingly in Europe, with an extremely large popular following and regular shows on Al Jazeera.... Excluding Qaradawi would give grist to AQ (Al Qaeda) propaganda of a western vendetta against Muslims and would undermine Qaradawi's counter terrorism messages. Qaradawi would be the first port of call when encouraging statements against terrorism and the killing of Muslim civilians in Iraq, as requested recently by Iraq Policy Unit. He has repeatedly and authoritatively condemned terrorist attacks - after 9/11, Ball, Madrid, Beslan, the Bigley kidnapping and recently after the bombings in Qatar, as well as on other occasions."

Despite Qaradawi's rabid anti-Semitism and his pro-Islamist views, the Foreign Office and the Labour Mayor of London presented him as some kind of savior figure. Ken Livingstone told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that "The truth is Sheik Qaradawi, if I can think of a parallel that Christians would understand, is I think very similar to the position of Pope John XXIII—ie, absolutely saying Islam must engage with the world, we must have democracy in the Middle East, we must actually accept the changing role of women. He is, of all the Muslim thinkers in the world today, the most powerful, progressive force for change and engaging Islam with Western values. If we cannot talk to Qaradawi, you will not really be talking to anybody from the Muslim community."

Another person giving evidence to the same Select Committee on Home Affairs was Iqbal Sacranie. This individual was then the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, or MCB. The MCB, like the MAB had also been co-founded in 1997 by Muslim Brotherhood senior member Kemal el-Helbawy.

Sacranie claims to be a moderate, but he famously said of Salman Rushdie at the time of his 1989 death-fatwa that "Death, perhaps is too good for him." More worryingly, Sacranie had attended a memorial service at the Regents Park Mosque to celebrate the life of Sheikh Yassin, the founder of terrorist group Hamas. Little of Sacranie's evidence was practical in formulating a strategy against future terrorist attacks. He began by claiming the 7/7 bombings had nothing to do with Islam, and went on to suggest that a "true believer" could not have carried out any bombings.

Sacranie had been knighted in June 2005, a month before the London bombings. The MCB, the umbrella group that he headed, had considerable influence within the Labour government. even though several of its 400 representative bodies - such as the 41 branches of Ahl-e-Hadith - supported, and continue to support, extremism. On its website in 2005, the Ahl-e-Hadith urged its followers to not be like Jews or Christians whose "ways are based on sick or deviant views".

Another group under the MCB "umbrella" is the UK Islamic Mission (UKIM) which has more than 40 branches across Britain. Founded in 1962, UKIM acts as a UK mouthpiece for the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami. In Pakistian in May 2007, this group introduced a draft bill into the National Assembly which would have made apostasy from Islam punishable with death. The foudner of the Jamaat-e-Islami party is Syed Ala Maududi, and on UKIM's website, writings by Maududi can be downloaded. Maududi is widely seen as being influential upon the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another group under the MCB umbrella is "The Islamic Foundation" of Markfield near Leicester, also known as the Markfield Foundation. This body was founded by Kurshid Ahmad in 1973, who was then a leading member of the Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami party. Now, Kurshid Ahmad is Vice-President of the Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami party, supporting bills introduced by the party such as the draft Apostasy Act and Pakistan's blasphemy laws which make criticism of Mohammed punishable by death. In Part One I mentioned that Azzam Tamimi, a leading Hamas-supporter and member of the Muslim Association of Britain, had been a lecturer at the Islamic Foundation.

Several of the texts by Maududi which appear on UKIM's website are translated by Kurshid Ahmad, such as Jihad fi Sabilillah. This includes the statements: "non-Muslims and Muslims alike to fail to understand the real nature of Jihad fi Sabilillah ('Holy War for the Cause of Allah')... Those who affirm their faith in this ideology become members of the party of Islam and enjoy equal status and equal rights, without distinctions of class, race, ethnicity or nationality. In this manner, an International Revolutionary Party is born, to which the Qur'an gives the title of Hizb-Allah* (literally, "The Party of Allah"), otherwise known as the Ummah (Nation) of Islam. As soon as this party is formed, it launches the struggle to attain the purpose for which it exists. The rationale for its existence is that it should endeavour to destroy the hegemony of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place the rule of that social and cultural order which regulates life with balanced and humane laws, referred to by the Qur'an by the comprehensive term 'the Word of Allah'."

The MCB acted until late 2006 as the Labour government's main adviser on Muslim affairs, even though it represents groups that are vehemently opposed to Western notions of democracy and freedom of speech.

The Foreign Office And Policies of Islamist "Engagement"

The MAB - which still acts as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood - and the MCB have their own agenda - to promote Islam in Britain. It is worrying that either of these groups have been seen to represent "moderate" Islam and especially so that the MCB has acted as adviser to the Labour government. It is far more alarming to know that within the secretive Foreign and Commonwealth Office, radical Islam has been supported and encouraged.

Foreign Office employee Mockbul Ali wrote his memorandum supporting the granting of a visa to Yusuf al-Qaradaw on July 14, 2005, exactly seven days after four Islamist fanatics had blown up themselves and 52 civilians on London's transport system. The memo had landed in the hands of journalist Martin Bright, who wrote for both the Observer and the Guardian newspapers.

Bright soon received several more documents, almost all of which showed that the British government, through bodies such as intelligence agency MI6 (SIS) and the Foreign Office, was supporting a policy of appeasement to, and collaboration with, extreme Islamists, particularly those of the Muslim Brotherhood.

One of these documents was written by William Ehrman, the leading intelligence official at the Foreign Office, and addressed to Sir David Omand, Security & Intelligence Co-ordinator and Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office. It suggested a policy of creating messages aimed at "radicalised constituencies who are potential recruits to terrorism". These individuals, Ehrman suggested, "might, however, listen to religious arguments about the nature of jihad, that, while anti-Western, eschew terrorism." Ehrman stated: "I presume there are opportunities for engaging in the debates on Islamist websites, unattributably."

This leaked document clearly spelled out a plan from the Foreign Office to promote anti-Western views to disaffected Muslims, in the hope that these could be dissuaded from terrorism. It was condemned by journalists Melanie Phillips and Nick Cohen, but documents continued to be leaked that showed the Foreign Office had no intention of abandoning its flirtations with radical Islam.

At the time, the source of these leaked documents was not named. Soon, there were enough of these for Martin Bright to have the bulk of them published by right-wing think tank The Policy Exchange. The mole who had supplied Bright other journalists with photocopies of documents was later exposed as Derek Pasquill (pictured), who was employed at the Foreign Office. At the end of January 2006, Derek Pasquill was arrested, and the supply of leaked documents from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office dried up.

Pasquill was charged In October 2007 with breaking the terms of Britain's Official Secrets Act. Strangely, in January 2008, Pasquill's trial at the Old Bailey was abruptly abandoned. The government's prosecutor had admiited that internal documents by senior officials at the Foreign Office admitted that Pasquill's leaks had not been harmful to British interests and had even led to a constructive debate. It seems that certain Labour politicians additionally did not want to to be called to court to give evidence. After the court case was abandoned, Ppasquill said: "I am relieved I have now been completely vindicated in my actions exposing dangerous government policy and changing its priorities."

The stories that Pasquill had leaked over a period of six months from 2005 - 2006 were shocking. Among Martin Bright's anthology of leaked Foreign Office documents is one (page 37) from Angus McKee of the Foreign Office's Middle East and North Africa department. McKee wrote: "Given that Islamist groups are often less corrupt than the generality of the societies in which they operate, consideration might be given to channelling aid resources through them, so long as sufficient transparency is achievable."

In another document, a letter from June 23, 2005 from Sir Derek Plumbly, Britain's ambassador to Egypt, addressed to John Sawyer, political director of the Foreign Office, was written: "We will continue to look for opportunities to talk to Islamists here (in Egypt)." Another paper, co-written by Basil Eastwood, a former British ambassador to Syria, and Richard Murphy, a former official in the Reagan administration, the claim is made: "For a year now we have been engaged with a dialogue with a small group of people familiar with some of the different national branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, with Hamas and Hizbolllah. They do not formally represent these movements, but we believe that they do speak with authority."

A confidential document authored by Julie McGregor of the Foreign Office's Arab-Israel North Africa Group, dated January 17, 2006, recommended more frequent dialogue with members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. McGregor stated: "Engaging with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood will help increase our understanding of political Islam generally, as well as in the specific Egyptian context. Incremental enhancement of contacts may help in discouraging radicalization".

After Pasquill had been arrested and effectively silenced, other journalists, and even politicians, had been alerted to the strange policies that were endorsed by the Foreign Office, and further disclosures were made.

It was revealed in July 2006 that the British government had wasted tax-payers' money on sending the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, on an expenses-paid trip to Istanbul in Turkey. Qaradawi and his wife had been flown from their home in Qatar to a conference on Islam, and had been put up at a five star hotel. The Foreign Office had funded the conference that Qaradawi attended, which was held at the Ceylan InterContinental Hotel in Istanbul.

In December 2006 it was disclosed that the Foreign Office had sent groups of Muslims overseas to meet other Muslims. This information was revealed by a Member of Parliament, and not by Pasquill. The groups went to 18 nations, including Morocco, Egypt, Bahrain, Singapore, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar and Sudan. Other tours went to Bosnia, Spain, Germany, France, India and Holland. One group met with Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader, in Qatar. In Sudan, a group of British Muslims met Hassan al-Turabi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose policies of forcing sharia law upon unwilling non-Muslims led to a civil war in which 2 million people died. Between 1991 and 1996 Turabi gave sanctuary to terrorists Osama bin Laden and also Carlos the Jackal.

A Foreign Office official explained the ethos of the missions: "The idea is to promote British Muslims overseas, to try to get rid of the myth that British Muslims are oppressed, and to give Muslims in the UK the experience of how Muslims in other parts of the world live."

Such pointless excursions continued until this year. In May 2008, a group of British Muslims went to Afghanistan. In June 2008, six British Muslims were paid to visit Pakistan, " to share their experiences of life in the UK and engage in constructive dialogue to increase mutual understanding."

Pasquill's leaks had caused a spotlight to be shone upon Mockbul Ali, the author of the memorandum that suggested Qaradawi should enter Britain. One of the documents in Martin Bright's "collection" indicate that against advice from other Foreign Office members, Mockbul Ali was advocating that Bangladelshi politician Delwar Hossain Sayeedi should be allowed to enter Britain. The discussion took place in September 2005. Ali suggested that Sayeedi should come to Britain because he had "a very big following in the mainstream Bangladeshi community."

Sayeedi, a policy-maker within the Bangladeshi branch of the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, has expressed virulent contempt towards Hindus and members of the Ahmadiyyah sect of Islam. On a previous visit to Britain in , Sayeedis followers physically attacked five elders within the British Bangladeshi community. Sayeedi eventually was allowed into Britain in July 2006. Sayeedi visited the East London Mosque, whose chairman, Muhammad Abdul Bari, had recently replaced Iiqbal Sacranie as head of the Muslim Council of Britain. Bari, like Sayeedi, was born in Bangladeshi.

The British government appears to have no qualms in allowing hate-spewing Islamists into the country, although in June 2008 it refused permission to Martha Stewart to enter Britain. Ms Stewart is politically harmless and has served her time in jail - but individuals like Sayeedi, who advocate that Americans in Iraq should convert to Islam or die, are given free passage to enter the UK, where they are allowed to incite.

Mockbul Ali comes from a Bangladeshi family. In 2005, when he wrote a memorandum advising that Qaradawi should return to Britain, he was only 25. He was then heading a department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office called the Engaging With the Islamic World Group (EIWG). In 2007, the EIWG group's list of "priority" countries included Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Kenya, Somalia Syria, Indonesia, Philippines, Palestine and Nigeria. Originally, Bangladesh was top of the list, but in late 2006 the corruption of Islamists within its last government caused its democracy to be suspended.

Mockbul Ali himself has a past that should have rightfully excluded him from a senior post within the Foreign Office. Only a leftist government like Labour could put a fox in charge of a hen house. While a student at the London School of Oriental and African Studies, he belonged to the Union of Muslim Students, (UMS) a group that reprinted articles by Qaradawi.

Ali edited the UMS newspaper, which on one occasion praised the "heroic operation" of a Palestinian woman suicide bomber. In 2002 in Jerusalem, this "bride in the dress of martyrdom" had murdered two Israeli civilians in a supermarket. Mockbul Ali had caused Sharif Hasan al-Banna, president of UMS, to be sent to Islamic conferences in Indonesia and Nigeria, trips paid for by the UK taxpayer.

When on May 8, 2006 Conservative member of parliament Michael Gove tried to ask questions in parliament about how Mockbul Ali had been given such an influential position within the Foreign Office, he was fobbed off. Kim Howells, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told him: "It is not Foreign and Commonwealth Office policy to comment publicly on the employment contracts for individual members of staff, nor on advice sought or not sought before offering a member of staff employment. Staff are recruited according to strict guidelines under free and fair, open competitions."

Derek Pasquill claimed that: "I also became increasingly unhappy about the activities of Mockbul Ali, the FCO's Islamic issues adviser. He had been seconded to Labour to work on the 2005 election campaign - something that raised eyebrows in the department. His relationship with the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, was thought to be close. Mockbul Ali had a habit of dismissing respected western academics as "orientalists" and had little time for civil servants. More seriously, he also described Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its south Asian offshoot Jamaat-e-Islami as mainstream. This is, at the very least, a contentious assertion, as was his support for the radical Egyptian scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the Bangladeshi Islamist Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, both of whom had condoned violence."

The Foreign Office continues to support engagement with Islamists. The 81-yeyar old terror-supporting cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, wanted to come back to Britain, it was announced in January 2008 that "senior civil servants in the Home Office and Foreign Office have recommended that ministers approve an application by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is banned from entering the United States, to come to London for medical treatment".

On January 29, 2008 in parliament, the unelected prime minister, Gordon Brown, faced a barrage of verbal sniper fire from Conservative leader David Cameron over the Qaradawi visa. Brown appeared weak and indecisive, but eventually the government refused to give the Muslim Brotherhood cleric a visa. Many of those behind the 2008 Islam Expo - themselves affiliates or supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood - were outraged at the government decision.

Islam Expo

In Part One I described some aspects of "Islam Expo" the annual exhibition of Islam which was held in July at the Olympia exhibition center. Its main organizer is Mohammed Sawalha, a former president of the Muslim Association of Britain, and a former fund-raisier for the terrorist group Hamas who went under the code-name "Abu Abada".

Hamas and MAB both have their origins in the Muslim Brotherhood. British politicians, and ciivil servants within the Foreign Office, have plainly bought into the lie promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood, that it is a "peaceful" organization. If it was a genuinely peaceful organization, the Muslim Brotherhood would not have as its slogan: "Allah is our goal; the Messenger is our model; the Quran is our constitution; jihad is our means; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our aspiration."

Jihad, despite some people's dubious semantics, means what it says - Holy War. In 1948 the MB in Egypt supported terrorist attacks, and in the 1950s it supported assassinations. In 2007 the supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Mahdi 'Akef', called for terrorist attacks in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to MEMRI, in May 2008, Mahdi Akef gave an interview in which some of his more extreme ideas were expressed. He said that Osama bin Laden was a "supreme Jihad fighter". He also said that no Copt (Egyptian Christian) could become leader of Egypt, and reiterated his belief that the Muslim Brotherhood would - if allowed - send fighters to Iraq and Palestine.

The Islam Expo this year, more than in previous years, had tried to present itself as the true face of British Islam. It invited several non-Muslim speakers to the event. Some of these were supporters of radical Islam, such as Ken Livingstone. The left-wing think-tank called Demos, which has previously influenced Labour policy, held seminars at the event. The leader of Demos, Catherine Fieschi, resigned on the last day of the Islam Expo event. She wrote enigmatically: "I won't go into a detailed exposé of why Demos refused to pull out of IslamExpo; suffice to say that the events we held were challenging and pandered to no one."

Other individuals had their own reasons to pull out of the event. Martin Bright and Charles Murray - an ardent opponent of Islamism - both pulled out when news came that Mohammed Sawalha had threatened to sue a British weblog. Harry's Place is firmly on the left, but unlike most British left-wing groups, it is a sharp observer and critic of Islamism. Martin Bright started a Facebook group entitled "IslamExpo is a Hamas Front."

The cause of Sawalha's ire against Harry's Place was an article in the blog which asserted that Sawalha had mentioned in a speech to Al Jazeera that he expressed resentment at the "evil Jew/Jewish evil" in Britain. The words were taken from Al Jazeera's Arabic-language website, and were later replaced with the words "Jewish lobby", stated the weblog.

David T, author of the offending piece, wrote: "Put it this way. There's clear evidence what the Al Jazeera article originally said. It would be wholly unsurprising that a man who is apparently a Hamas activist would give an interview in Arabic in which he railed against "Jewish evil". That is, after all, one of Hamas’ favorite themes." The right-wing journal The Spectator urged support for Harry's Place.

The threats to sue the weblog were not the reason motivating Labour politicians, especially Muslim politicians, from attending the event. As explained in the Times newspaper, the main factor preventing Labour politicians from attending the event was communities secretary Hazel Blears.

Stephen Timms, Minister of State for Employment, was to have given a speech at the opening of the Islam Expo event. He stepped down, along with Labour member of the House of Lords Lord Ahmed (who said he had a bad back), and Muslim members of parliament Shahid Malik, who is international development minister.

The reason why the Labour politicians were urged to resign from the event was more to do with the support from the Islam Expo organizers for the group Hamas. Currently, the government has embarked on a massive program of spending in Britain, to defuse radicalism in Muslim communities.

About 80 million pounds will be spent on funding "moderate" Muslim groups, even though the Labour government has been unable to distinguish between moderate and Islamist groups. Communities minister Hazel Blears recently caused alarm when she claimed that it was "common sense" to pay less importance to Christianity than to Islam. She said on BBC radio that Britain has "got an issue where we have to build resilience of young Muslim men and women to withstand an extremist message."

As a result, funds are being spent on communities with Muslim populations, in an attempt to bribe Muslims into being less radical. In High Wycombe, one senior Muslim has suggested that these government funds are being aimed at five-year olds.

Obviously, for an unpopular government that is spending tax-payers' money on Muslim groups in the hope that they do not become radical, it would appear shocking if the same government was seen to support an event led by supporters of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

So for the moment, the government pretends that it does not do deals with extremists. But as I have shown, elements within the government have certainly supported extremists in the past, and probably continue to support them. There is no evidence to suggest that this government and its civil servants will cease from supporting extremists in the future. Without a mole like Derek Pasquill to report on its clandestine operations, there is no accounting for what this government might do.

I apologise to readers for not writing for the past few days. I took a holiday. Normal service should now be resumed.

"This literature contains appeals not to observe the laws of non-Muslim states, such as Russia, and to liquidate peoples with other religious convictions," Roman Silantyev said at a press conference in the Ural Mountain region city of Chelyabinsk.

Silantyev said that a major problem is that Muslim leaders in Russia pursue their own radical agenda by claiming to speak for the nation's Muslims, many of who in fact do not practice the violent 7th century Arabian cult founded by the bloody warlord, Mohammed.

"We often see a Muslim leader speaking with radical statements or threats, and claiming to speak for the majority of Muslims,'' said Silantyev. Many of these leaders, however, have very shady backgrounds.

"According to the Russian public prosecutor's office, for instance, the co-chairman of Russia's Mufti Council, Nafigullah Ashirov, was twice convicted for robbery and disorderly conduct," Silantyev said.