England MP Lord Ahmed Threatens UK Democracy With 10,000 Terrorists

Jerusalem --- February 14, 2009...... Illustrating Islamic Jihad in England, MP Lord Ahmed has threatened to mobilize 10,000 Jihadists against the English Parliament.

Hamas supporting Ahmed was responding to a member of the England House of Lords to invite colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Wilders is an elected member of the Dutch parliament who was invited to screen his anti-terrorism movie Fitna.

Wilders branded the British Government “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe” after he flew in to Heathrow yesterday and was promptly put on the first plane back.

"I am going to Great Britain because I was invited by another politician [the UKIP peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch]. I am a democrat. I am serving freedom of speech. They are not only being nasty to me, they are being nasty to freedom of speech. They are more Chamberlain than Churchill," said Wilders.

The MP had been invited to attend a showing of his 17-minute film at the House of Lords by Lord Pearson. The film features verses from the Koran with images of terrorist attacks in New York, London and Madrid, and calls on Muslims to remove “hate-preaching” verses from the text. Lord Pearson said that the screening would go ahead regardless.

The decision to refuse Wilders entry provoked Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Foreign Minister, to call David Miliband, the UK Foreign Secretary, to protest against the decision. “The fact that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country is highly regrettable,” Mr Verhagen said.

The House of Lords is a venerable British institution, but what does one get if one accepts Muslims in?

A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Wilders’ opinions with him.

Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place last Thursday was cancelled. But after several hours of discussions on freedom of speech the event was placed back on.

Lord Ahmed immediately went to the Pakistan press to boast about his achievement, which he calls “a victory for the Muslim community.”

A victory for the Muslim community, but a defeat for British democracy where topics to which Muslims object cannot even be debated. That, apparently, is what one gets when one accepts Muslims into the UK House of Lords.

Lord Ahmed is considered to be a “moderate” Muslim. The Pakistan born Nazir Ahmed became the United Kingdom’s first Muslim life peer in 1998. He is a member of the Labour Party and was appointed to the Lords by Tony Blair. Lord Ahmed took his oath on the Koran. He led one of the first delegations on behalf of the British Government on the Muslim pilgrimage of the Hajj, to Saudi Arabia. In February 2005, Lord Ahmed hosted an inciteful, hate smitten book launch in the House of Lords for anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir. In 2007, he responded to the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie by stating that he was appalled, saying that Rushdie had “blood on his hands.”

Lord Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up “to promote world peace in the aftermath of 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance.”

Thomas Landen of the Brussels Journals states: "What does “dialogue” mean to those who make discussion about controversial issues impossible? Thank you, Mr. Blair, for bringing “diversity” to the House of Lords."

If anyone had doubted the extent to which Britain has capitulated to Islamic terror, the banning of Geert Wilders into England, the home of the Magna Carta, should surely open their eyes. Wilders, the Dutch member of parliament who had made an uncompromising stand against the Koranic sources of Islamist extremism and violence, was due to give a screening of Fitna, his film on this subject, at the House of Lords on Thursday. This meeting had been postponed after Lord Ahmed had previously threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak. To their credit, the Lords authorities had stood firm and said extra police would be drafted in to meet this threat and the Wilders meeting should go ahead.

But shortly afterwards the British government announced that it was banning Wilders from the country. A letter from the Home Secretary’s office to Wilders, delivered via the British embassy in the Hague, said: "the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

The Times states today: "Again and again we are told that Islam is a religion of peace and equality; how does that tally with some of what the Koran says?

What makes such anxieties really toxic is the feeling that they are suppressed and ignored by our government. Critics of Islam, however reasonable, know they are likely to fall foul of the many new Labour laws against freedom of expression, in particular against incitement to religious hatred, which was enacted under Muslim pressure.

Yet despite these laws, which silence critics of Islam, Muslims are allowed to teach views that are illegal in public mosques. The awkward truth is that certain teachings in the Koran are against the law in this country – teachings about homosexuality and the position of women, for example. In some places the Koran and some other Muslim teachings are sexist, homophobic and likely to incite religious hatred.

To call the Koran “fascist” as Wilders has done is stupid, empty and needlessly offensive. However, to say that some of its teachings, taken literally, are unacceptable in this country is merely to report a fact.....Wilders was kept away because of tacit threats from some British Muslims who won’t accept criticism of any kind. I don’t think the ban had much to do with the equally, but differently, agitated feelings of the non-Muslim majority: if Smith had considered them, she might have realised that it was equally inflammatory not to let Wilders in. David Miliband, our gaffe-prone young foreign secretary, was quick to point out that Fitna is “ a hate-filled film designed to stir up religious and racial hatred and is contrary to our laws”. But he then had to admit that he hadn’t seen it either."

The Independent in an editorial says: "Joan Smith: Free speech has to be for all, Home Secretary. Let's start by getting a couple of things clear: Jacqui Smith is an idiot for banning Geert Wilders, and even more of an idiot to do it after the Government was lobbied to ban him by Lord Ahmed. The Home Secretary's argument for refusing to admit Mr Wilders again (he was here in December) is feeble; the only way his presence might threaten public security is if there was an intemperate reaction by people who don't like his views. Demands for a ban are based on the same perverse reasoning that led to Salman Rushdie's being accused of having "blood on his hands" – by Lord Ahmed – because some idiots chose to respond violently to his novel The Satanic Verses. According to this sophistry, it isn't someone's fault if he loses his temper and hits me; it's mine for upsetting him in the first place. It's got so bad that when Channel 4's documentary Undercover Mosque showed imams preaching hate in British mosques, the Crown Prosecution Service and the West Midlands Police began investigating the film-makers, coming to their senses only when they found themselves on the wrong end of a libel action. I don't like Mr Wilders' politics, but he doesn't advocate killing people, unlike Sheikh Qaradawi, who was allowed into this country until someone belatedly noticed that he supports suicide-bombing."

And the Telegraph states: "Geert Wilders may be obnoxious, but he was elected; Lord Ahmed was not. Lord Ahmed claims that Wilders is guilty of incitement. He isn't. Being obnoxious is not a criminal offence. To find someone guilty of incitement, you need to show that they, you know, incited someone. Some of the preachers that Wilders excoriates are guilty of incitement in this sense, but this never seems to impede their entry and re-entry into the UK. No doubt in future all members of the Saudi Arabia ruling class will be denied entry, too. They do not call for the banning of the Bible and outlawing of Christian worship in their kingdom - they have done it. "

So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.

It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs. The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.

It was the same reasoning that led the police on those pro-Hamas marches to confiscate the Israeli flag, on the grounds that it would provoke violence, while those screaming support for genocide and incitement against the Jews were allowed to do so. The reasoning was that the Israeli flag might provoke thuggery while the genocidal incitement would not. So those actually promoting aggression were allowed to do so while those who threatened no-one at all were repressed. And now a Dutch politician who doesn’t threaten anyone is banned for telling unpalatable truths about those who do; while those who threaten life and liberty find that the more they do so, the more the British government will do exactly what they want, in the interests of ‘community harmony’.

Wilders is a controversial politician, to be sure. But this is another fateful and defining issue for Britain’s governing class as it continues to sleepwalk into cultural suicide. If British MPs do not raise hell about this banning order, if they go along with this spinelessness, if they fail to stand up for the principle that the British Parliament of all places must be free to hear what a fellow democratically elected politician has to say about one of the most difficult and urgent issues of our time, if they fail to hold the line against the threat of violence but capitulate to it instead, they will be signalling that Britain is no longer the cradle of freedom and democracy but its graveyard.

Lord Ahmed, has not only taken aim at Salmon Rushdie and Geert Wilders but is openly advocating the arrest of British Jews.

"I asked Her Majesty's government if they were aware of British citizens who may have been involved with the war crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Force and Israeli Defense Reserves. Her Majesty's government did not have any figures because dual nationals do not have to inform the government. However, there are reports in the Daily Mirror and The Sun with the names of British citizens who have been fighting in Gaza," said Ahmed.

"The point I was making is that war crimes have been committed, white phosphorous has been used and if there are people who have broken the 4th Geneva Convention, then whoever they are, when they return to this country, they should be arrested and charged - unlike the Major General who escaped in 2005."

Press TV asked Ahmed: "Are you certain these are up to date reports about British citizens serving in Israel?"

Ahmed responded: "These are very new reports, dated January 2009, of British citizens who have gone out to fight against the Palestinian people as part of the IDF. Their names and ages are mentioned in these reports. We know that there are student unions that have been actively recruiting young people in Britain to join the Israeli Defense Force and we also know that there are young Jewish students who go and serve on the kibbutz and also in schools, who are also then doing national service in Israel."

Ahmed attempts to play divide and conquer with British Jews quoting England MP and self-hating Jew Gerald Kaufman. "We know that very fine members of parliament like Gerald Kaufman MP, who is himself Jewish, very openly said that just because these people were victims of the Holocaust does not mean they should perpetrate another holocaust on the Palestinian people." Gerald Kaufman is one of England's leading Jewish critics of Israel. Kaufman has called for economic sanctions and an arms ban against Israel, citing the success of such measures against apartheid South Africa. He has called Israel a "pariah" and its senior politicians "war criminals". Kaufman also made a comparison of Hamas terror members in Gaza to the Jewish resistance during World War II, saying: "The spokeswoman for the Israel army, Major Leibovich, was asked about the Israeli killing of Palestinians. She replied instantly that '500 of them were militants'. That was the reply of a Nazi. I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants." And he said: "It is time for our government to make clear to the Israeli government that its conduct and policies are unacceptable and to impose a total arms ban on Israel.”

Kaufman sounds more like an Islamic Capo than a Jew. He actually supports Hamas, a US defined terror organization, which openly declares its intent to destroy all of Israel. Israel, which left Gaza three years ago in a unilateral peace move, has been attacked by over 8,000 missiles from Gaza in that time.

Twenty years ago, on February 14 1989, when the Iran Islamic leader, Imam Khomeini delivered his fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie's death, Ahmed was truly elated. It was a very welcome reminder that British Muslims did not have to regard themselves just as a small, vulnerable minority; they were part of a truly global and powerful movement. Ahmed said: "If we were not treated with respect then we were capable of forcing others to respect us."

In London, Lord Ahmed, Britain's first Muslim peer, said he had been "appalled" by the award to a man he accused of having "blood on his hands".

Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle writes: "On February 23, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas. The gist of Shamir - Jermas’s speech at the meeting can be gleaned from its title, “Jews and the Empire”. It included observations such as: “All the [political] parties are Zionist-infiltrated.” “Your newspapers belong to Zionists . . . Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking.” “In the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble — and that is Jewish supremacy drive . . . in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East.” “The Jews like an Empire . . . This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance . . . Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.” “Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England . . . they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide.”

Why would Lord Ahmed have hosted such a man in the Lords, asks Pollard? It is, of course, possible that Lord Ahmed had no idea that Shamir - Jermas was a rabid anti-Semite. Yet it takes only a quick Google to discover his views and background. He has worked for Zavtra, Russia’s most anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network, set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.

Ahmed did nothing to dissociate himself from Shamir and to this day must, we assume, be proud of having issues his invitation.

So that gives us a pretty good idea of what he considers acceptable. David T takes up the latest instalment in the tale of Lord Ahmed:

"Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who has moved in a very few years from a liberal to an anti-immigration position, that has brought him close to the neo Nazi party, Vlaams Belang. He is facing prosecution in the Netherlands, in connection with his film “Fitna”.

A member of the House of Lords has proposed a screening of Geert Wilders’ Fitna. This is what happened next: The British Parliament has canceled the showing of a controversial film “Fitna” by the right-win Dutch MP Geert Wilders following vociferous protest by the Muslim community. The screening was to take place on January 29 at the House of Lords.

The decision to cancel the showing was taken on Friday when Lord Nazir Ahmed had a meeting with the Government Chief Whip of the House of Lords and Leader of the House of Lords, together with representatives from the Muslim Council of Britain, British Muslim Forum and other representatives from the British Muslim community. The Far-right Dutch politician will now be put on trial for his public statements against Islam. As a result of the meeting at the House of Lords not going ahead, all protests and demonstrations have now been canceled Lord Ahmed termed the decision as “a victory for the Muslim community.”

As David T writes with regard to Ahmed's invitation to Shamir: There were no meetings with whips or leaders. There were no demonstrations. The meeting was not cancelled.

I think it's pretty clear where we Jews and Christians stand with Lord Ahmed now.

Clearly Lord Ahmed is selective about the types of free speech he chooses to condemn."

Great Britain, famous for appeasing Adolph Hitler a half century ago, is appeasing today all those who seek to replace English law with Islamic Sharia law.

After all, many English MP's need the Muslim vote to stay in power and the Arab oil rich states to finance their next electoral campaigns.

England, which once stood proudly as an icon for freedom and democracy, today allows supporters of Islamic suicide bombers to enter their nation while banning those who wish to talk about 9/11 and 7/7 Islamic terror London bombings.

Right. A moderate muslim only cuts your head half off.

Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared," Kill any Jew who falls under your power."

Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

الاسلام هو شر لا مثيل لها ، ويجب القضاء عليه

Jacqui Smith is signalling that Britain is no longer the cradle of freedom and democracy but its graveyard.

Britain obviously needs to see that Lord Ahmed is removed for sedition. Will it be instructive to follow the money to Smith-related coffers?

If Britain can't beat this situation back to full freedom of expression, I'll accept McCoy's expert opinion above.

It's appalling to see it happen in the country that gave thre world, the Magna Carta. The article was spot-on about the Muslim takeover of the Western World, and I fear that america will be going even more in that direction now that we have a Muslim President.

But, why was it necessary to take all those cheap shots at Wilders? It deliberately mollifes the message and makes it disingenous to Wilders. Have you seen the film? It's positively "Snow White" in comparison to the way Islam is in real life, and the film is a quantum leap less of an insult to Muslim religion than the Muslim films are to people of the Jewsish faith.

Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness.

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs [Europe, Australia, USA and Japan]. Six percent of US prison inmates are Muslim. Like any other minority, they won’t integrate, but work to build their own separate community.

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. South Africa’s Muslim population is 2%, but they control 35% of the businesses, a large percentage of the banks and have five Cabinet seats while Christians (77% of the population) have none.

They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves (along with threats for failure to comply).

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia; Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world, but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. (Ei: car-burnings in France last October.) Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats.

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning (India, Mindanao, Philippines).

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare [Indonesia].

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya (infidel tax). (Sudan, Kosovo, Lebanon and Egypt).

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide [Western Papua (New Guinea), Iran, Biafra, Turkey and North Nigeria]. 10

0% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” - House of Peace - as in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.