Finally Amber Rudd does something worthy of her position as Home Secretary. Her appointment of Sara Khan as head of the Commission for Countering Extremism is commendable, and essential in counteracting Islamic fundamentalism.

Khan wrote the insightful book  The Battle For British Islam and has the experience and inside knowledge on how to tackle Islamism. But her appointment was greeted with shrieks of protest from the usual suspects.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Islamist groups such as Mend and Cage, the Labour Party and politicians who seem more concerned with boosting their own image than preventing further terror attacks, are apoplectic with fury and indignation.

The main objections are that the Muslim community does not trust Khan and that she has championed Prevent, the government’s counter-terrorism programme. The MCB and Islamists accuse Prevent of being counter-productive and of alienating the mainstream Muslim community. But the more they protest, the more obvious it becomes that Khan is a threat to Islamic fundamentalism. She is obviously an excellent choice for this role.

Islamists are waging war against the West. Prevent is not perfect but any system formed to combat terrorism will be fundamentally flawed because the mechanisms implemented to make it effective – spying, monitoring of social media, police raids – chip away at our freedom. This is the price we pay if we are to save lives.

An examination of those protesting is revealing. Naz Shah, MP for Bradford West, who once showed some contrition for her dreadful anti-Semitism, has now taken off her apologetic gloves and struck a point for Islamism by protesting about Khan in an open letter. Baroness Warsi, who flounced out of government in protest at Israel’s defending itself against the jihadists of Gaza, is slandering Khan by calling her a ‘mouthpiece for the Home Office’.

Mend is a nasty Islamist organisation which was recently instrumental in getting the hijab ban on small girls overturned at St Stephen’s primary school in Newham, east London.

Mend’s statement on Holocaust Memorial Day outrageously equated an attack on a Muslim woman with the millions exterminated in the Shoah. It is now running a campaign to remove Khan.

Cage, another Islamic extremist group, advises on its website how to subvert police raids if suspected of terrorist activities. This active work against the State is a form of treason, but nothing will be done because our cowardly authorities are paralysed into inaction by fear of being accused of Islamophobia.

Given the Labour Party’s recent objection to proscribing Hezbollah in its entirety as a terrorist group, it’s unsurprising that it has joined the Islamist chorus of outrage over Khan. The Conservative Party is also at risk of becoming an apologist for theocratic regimes, and of undermining its own Prevent agenda, by colluding with this ridiculous distinction between Hezbollah’s military and political wings. Both parts of this terrorist group, financed by Iran, are responsible for slaughtering innocents, in the Middle East and the West. Hopefully Khan will be allowed to circumvent this muddled approach to terrorism.

The numerous complainers about Khan offer no solutions other than surrendering to the Islamists who terrorise us all. Instead of whingeing about Islamophobia, more credible Muslim organisations such as the MCB should flush out the hate preachers in mosques and universities who inflame terrorism by perpetuating the false idea that Muslims are being persecuted in the UK. But their refusal to co-operate with Prevent by doing so is counterproductive and hampers the government’s efforts in protecting us from Islamist terror.

And Islamist organisations such as Mend and Cage must be ignored in their treasonous attempts to stop Khan and Prevent. They are free to say what they like, but likewise we are free to discount their bleatings. And we must. Instead let us listen to the victims of Islamist terrorism. They deserve to be heard and should be heeded, along with Muslim reformers such as Khan, apostates and secularists. They know far better than us about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism and how to counteract these subversive elements within our society that seek to harm, maim and murder us.

Despite the howls of protest from the MCB and Islamist groups, full of self-importance and entitlement, the reality is that Khan represents the views of the majority of Muslims, most of whom are unfairly tarred with the brush of Islamic fundamentalism. According to a poll conducted by Trevor Phillips on what British Muslims think, 4 per cent have sympathetic leanings towards jihad. The rest are as terrorised and annoyed by Islamism as we are. But if they object they are lambasted by the Left and the mainstream media.

Part of Khan’s remit is to prohibit far-Right terrorism. I would caution her not to conflate this with Islamic fundamentalism, as the two are unequal in allegiances and effect. Of 204 terrorist prisoners held in UK prisons last year, 91 per cent were professed Islamists, 5 per cent harboured far-Right ideologies and 4 per cent admitted to other extremist beliefs. Yet the current political trend plays down the dangers of Islamism in favour of inflating the threat of far-Right extremists, regardless of the statistical evidence.

In times of chaos and injustice, political views can become polarised. The Left, burning with hatred of the West and convinced of its own virtue, is infatuated with Islamism. It dominates our authorities so that any concerns about pernicious Islamism are brushed aside with accusations of racism, Islamophobia and threats of imprisonment. If Khan is prevented from tackling Islamism because of this, I fear that the far Right will become a credible threat. We are already seeing signs of this.

We are being held hostage to terror by this bizarre love-in between the Left and Islamism. Khan must overcome this, and her detractors, and remain steady in her resolve to combat the horrific threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Otherwise our hopes for a peaceful life, free of terror, will be destroyed for ever.


  1. I think your final points especially are spot on. The growth of far right groups right across Europe can be laid squarely at the feet of the liberal left establishments that dominate the European ruling classes.

    • Very true. The liberal left allow the problem to develop and then fail to tackle it, leaving an opening for the extreme left.

      I often wonder if we are witnessing a re-run of the 1920’s and 1930’s. Centrist and left-leaning governments failed to tackle the issues of the day, creating an opening for the extreme left of the Nazis and Fascists.

      • I think we have to add in to the mix that Fundamentalist Islam is the far right too. In its “home” areas it certainly is. No friend of Democracy it will morph into a supporter of dictatorship, and one with greatest hate for atheists and pagans. What a self destructive mess the left lead us all into.

  2. Some of these points are fair, despite claiming every British Muslim group and politician who is against this is an Islamist or extremist.

    You’ve forgotten to mention the two other comments against Sara Khan, firstly that her organisation Inspire is questionable in regards to the amount of work actually done. It’s debated whether they hold even a single public event a year and whether internally any actual work is done. Secondly, the fact that Sara Khan has no actual experience of talking about general terrorism beyond the impact that disadvantaged wife’s of potential muslim extremists can do to prevent their husbands going down a dark path.

    Northern Ireland terrorism, while placated for now; and far right extremism, now responsible for death and fury on our streets will still be part of the remit, if it’s followed.

    I say this as a relatively supportive muslim of Sara Khan, I have her book and have actually bothered to read it, and I hope she takes her position to completely ignore the terrorism remit and hit out against Mosques that prevent women from entering ; the mosques of breveli and deobandi descent that fund, put forward candidates and win elections for… The Conservative and Unionist Party.

    It is perhaps ironic that Sara Khan will have to attack tory supporters in order to bring mosques that support them in line with liberal and Salafist mosques and force them to allow women inside buildings, mix with men, and be included inside committees.

    As a leftie muslim who doesn’t hate the west, I’m hoping Sara Khan will abuse her position to push for change in the UK that will benefit individuals like myself and ensure that I’m not the only one constantly badgering old Asian men with tory membership cards to let women into a prayerhall.

    Let’s be honest. She’s not going to stop a married man with kids committing a terror attack, what we really want her to do is address the lack of integration of muslim migrants who’ve chosen to segregate, and how that might… In another generation or two change the mindsets of a wider community and prevent terror attacks in the far future. And I’m all for it.

    • Womens issues within islam are a tad less important than having our children blown to f…g pieces going to a concert.
      Besides why dont muslim women just march onthe mosques that segregate them?
      And DEMAND equality!
      Are you all paralyzed or something?

      • Someone heading up a committee to report back to government sometime later in the parliamentary term on pro rata £160,000 a year is not going to stop people blowing themselves up.

        In regards to women going into mosques, that already happens but do you know what? Mosques aren’t public buildings, they can throw out who they like and if they call the police then the police have to kick them out. Not only that, but Local Authorities hands are tied because those men running the mosques have smoozed their way through to gain support to buy the land and convert it’s use to begin with. Then it’s just the plain fact for most women just “walking in” is plain awkward when the institutions of this country back the male domination!

        Women only Jihad first shown on channel 4 about 12 years ago is a good watch, although I doubt you’ll bother.

  3. “The Left, burning with hatred of the West … “

    I’m human, and so it’s possible that the Left is entirely innocent of the claims I make about it, and that it is me, not it, who is projecting and blame-shifting the consequences of being a malignant narcissist, which I am psychologically unable to acknowledge. But I am conscious that this mirror-imaging of reality is something that I could possibly be performing, and so I wonder if having this consciousness – of admitting to my fallibility – in fact precludes the possibility of being afflicted by the malignant narcissism that would be behind it?

    Anyway, that aside, my thinking is that the “burning hatred” the Left shows towards Western society is the consequence of a chimera – of an indignation brought about by an illusion of Western wickedness but really derived from a combination of (a) discontent resulting from an envy of the material success and social acclamation enjoyed by the Western world’s “winners” and (b) a projection of the Leftists’ personal foibles onto these winners and those who acclaim them.

    “… and convinced of its own virtue …”

    An essential part of the projection.

    ” … is infatuated with Islamism”

    Well, actually infatuated with the idea that Western morality is evil, and that as a consequence whatever is at war with the West must be supported (e.g. Islamism), while whatever is supportive of the West, or, independently, hostile to those attacking the West (e.g. Israel) must be opposed. Islamism will only be supported by the Left while it may be of use to bringing about the collapse of the structures underpinning Western society – you can be sure that such an uncompromising theocracy plays no part in the Utopia the Left intends to construct from the ashes of Western civilisation – and in reality would become one of the Left’s principal enemies when Leftism is in control of society.

      • No, perhaps not, but I personally think that one can’t successfully deal with a problem without being sceptical about the correctness of the obvious, intuitive explanations for what is behind it. In this column, the author makes the claim:-

        “The Left, burning with hatred of the West and convinced of its own virtue, is infatuated with Islamism”

        to which the obvious. intuitive explanation is that the Left is reaching this position sincerely, through a valid process of reasoning, from a psychologically sound state of mind, but where it has made one or more incorrect assumptions amongst its premises. The underlying message is that the Left is psychologically sound, but makes mistakes in the construction of its positions. Well, I think we need to question this: I think we need to consider the possibility that Leftism is the outcome of a psychological disorder, not a mistake by psychologically sound people.

        My comment was specific to this particular claim, not really to the column as a whole, except to the extent that ones strategy for dealing with psychologically sound people needs to be, and will be, different from that which would be applied to dealing with psychologically unsound people.

    • Obviously, Islam is very far to the “right” of any known political party in the West.
      Women worth 50% of men in all respects, polygamy, murder of homosexuals etc etc.
      Our current “left” who are noted for their political & historical ignorance, encourage the islamification of the UK & Europe, in the belief that islam will destroy the nation state & provoke civil war, out of which will arise a triumphant Far Left/Communist Socialism.
      They are notable for their miseducation.
      If, over the next 50 years, Islam becomes the predominant religion in the UK & Europe,
      it is the leftists who will be first to the gallows.

      • I think it’s important to differentiate between (a) the Leftist organ-grinders, like Lansman, McDonnell, Alastair Campbell, Milburn and, to an extent, Corbyn who appreciate and are completely in agreement with you about the dangers of letting Islam run rife in what are currently non-Muslim countries, and (b) the mob of millions of useful idiots, including such as Jess Phillips, whose support for the Far Left is based on the fact that their upbringing has led them to believe such support to be culturally heroic, and who, consequently, are completely blind to the possibility that people like Lansman and McDonnell are employing deviousness and insincerity to manipulate the mob as if they were pupputs on a piece of string.

        The mob doesn’t have the remotest inkling that none of the Hard Left’s campaigns are sincere, that they’re all about disconcerting and disadvantaging liberal market democracy with a view to bringing about its collapse, and that none of the Leftist campaigns about, for example,environmentalist concerns, women’s equality, animal rights, refugee welfare, employee empowerment will be pursued, or even allowed to be pursued, once the Left have acquired control of Western society. This is because the Hard Left is just using these issues opportunistically, as weapons – it has no belief whatsoever in their lasting value – quite the contrary, in fact.

        And so, although they may miscalculate, or unless their success in acquiring power causes them to become blasé about the ever-present dangers to people in power, I think the organ-grinders will be aware of when the Islam weapon needs to be decommissioned and put out of action, and they’ll easily find a way to explain such a volte face to the mob which, by this stage, will have no option but to be loyal, obedient and unquestioning towards those who lead them.

        • If it ever comes to a life-and death-struggle between the Hard Left and Islamism, who on earth thinks the Hard Left would last more than a few days? Their heads would be rolling in the streets.

        • I agree with the general tenor of your arguments, but feel your last paragraph is a little complacent.
          Muslims are already over represented politically, and, as we all know,
          Mohamed/Mehmet is now the most popular name for young “British” boys.
          There is a demographic time bomb steadily ticking, and it will only become faster if Labour obtains power.
          Muslims, thanks to leftists, are above the law in all but the most serious cases (planned or actual mass murder).
          We permit forced marriage,FGM, sex segregated buildings, state funded
          ( & C of E funded), muslim schools, honour killings etc
          Even our children are fed halal food at state schools.
          The take over will occur after the wretches you name, and most of us alive as adults today, are dead.
          Historically, such invasions result in resistance, even civil war.
          If it occurs in the UK, it will not be the “far right” or “racists” to blame.
          It will be the Left from Blair & the BBC through to Labour thugs who made Sarah Champion back down over her observations re islamic grooming gangs.

          • Yes, I agree with all of this, even that my last paragraph showed some complacency. I think maybe I was focused on the ease with which the organ-grinders would get the volte face through the useful idiots that I didn’t give enough consideration to the question of how they would be able to stop the Islamist avalanche that they had previously set in motion.

      • You’re welcome to ignore the first paragraph if this includes too much “self” for you. I only included it so as to negate the anticipated response of the “Whataboutyou-ers”, who don’t like to have to think about the idea of Leftism perhaps being the outcome of a psychological disorder rather than of reasoned thought. What better way to stifle the conversation than by accusing the other side of being guilty of whatever it is that they are being critical of. Works every time, nearly!

  4. The rise of the right is a result of the liberalisation whereby anything goes other than the wishes and rights of Caucasian people which are ignored.
    Mass migration is largely ignored, perhaps encouraged and exploited by these liberals, so leading to a destabilisation of societies across Europe. To continue to ignore such events only encourages populations to rise up so the rise of the right is unsurprising but the elite are doing their best to ”slap down” these people by banning them for speaking against evil.
    An extremely unfortunate recent incident in Italy illustrates my point whereby a beautiful young woman was slaughtered by a Nigerian immigrant and an Italian, probably in extreme frustration, took the law into his hands so began his campaign of shooting perceived migrants in the streets of Italy.

    • Yes, EU and European government policies have directly led to the rise of far right extremism. It was inevitable as those governments pandered to Islamic extremism by misreporting it, playing it down and attempted to camouflage the issues their reckless immigration policies had caused by focussing on “Islamophobia” as the greater threat. Their equivocation and cowardice are directly responsible for what they now fear. As in Ireland their foolish policies will lead to two terrorist threats rather than just one.

  5. contributor to The Guardian and The Independent newspapers, as well as The Huffington Post.
    Lost for words really.

  6. Thanks for reminding us again of their declarations of war. Until they issue fatwa to rescind these declarations of war we must never stop reporting them and fighting them wherever they plot or seek to kill us impure believers.

  7. Excellent Karen. Prevent may not be perfect but then what is in life.I am suspicious of anyone who dislikes the government’s counter-terrorism programme especially the likes of Mend and Cage so would welcome anyone who wants it to remain. If they are unhappy it must mean prevent is a threat to them

  8. “Of 204 terrorist prisoners held in UK prisons last year, 91 per cent were professed Islamists, 5 per cent harboured far-Right ideologies and 4 per cent admitted to other extremist beliefs.”
    I am unaware of any far right terrorism in this country so what were they in jail for?
    I am sure these groups are very unpleasant but why is National Action a terrorist group if they haven’t actually done any terrorist acts?

    • I am unaware of any far right terrorism in this country

      So, does driving white vans into crowds outside mosques in the name of far right extremist ideology not count then ?

      • Vans, plural, mosques plural, even though he was not near a mosque, you try to hard………………equivalency here is hardly appropriate…

      • Which far right group was he a member of then or Jo Cox’s killer before you bring that up. Did the police raid his support network and make multiple arrests? Or was he a deranged and sad individual like many of the lone wolf Muslim attacks.
        What they did was horrible but hardly indicative of an organised far right terrorism problem in this country, despite what some people would want you to believe.

        • Why do you appear to think that only one man ever has driven a van into a group of Muslims ? And did you also think that nobody outside the UK has done so ?

          • Yes but overwhelmingly that man is more likely to be another Muslim.
            Not aware of others, would be interested in examples given that this particular mode of attack was made popular by our peaceful friends!

          • overwhelmingly that man is more likely to be another Muslim

            Of course, and BTW it’s exactly because of this that I chose to use this particular example.

      • The man who committed this crime was an individual who hated islam.
        He was not a member of any group, neither did he possess any blood soaked
        manual written by Dark Age savages calling for murder, rape, slavery etc to appease an invisible god.
        The only far right terrorism in this country is mohammedanism.

        • The man who committed this crime

          The men who committed those crimes.

          The cultivation by the MSM of short memory via its replacement by whatever it might be that’s recent and “new” to the extent that what happened here or elsewhere some months ago but is no longer “news” is a vehicle of cognitive terrorism crashing into crowds of minds gathered around their telescreens …

          • Still waiting for this deluge of examples of right wing terrorism that apparently the MSM has dropped down the memory hole which would seem very unlike them.
            Islam tops the world terrorism league with communists (i.e. the left) next.

          • Islam tops the world terrorism league

            Are you under some manner of false ideology to dump Islamic whinery into Chaos ???

          • Islam tops the world terrorism league with communists (i.e. the left) next

            This doesn’t mean that extremist right-wing terrorism doesn’t exist — or what, have you forgotten the firebombing of a cinema in Paris, or the mass-murdering Breivik ?

            Muslim terrorists, certainly, are responsible for over 90% of these sorts of crimes in the present day, but it would be foolish indeed to forget the remaining 5% + of non-islamic terrorism …

          • I don’t deny that there are occasional attacks with a far right wing motivation but you have taken examples from across Europe to highlight a point. Out of 500m people that wouldn’t even be classed as statistically significant above noise. There is no far right organisation that I am aware of (lets at least only count those with an organisation behind them) that calls for people to kill anybody, so lets not go down this equivalence route to virtue signal our liberal tolerance credentials.
            ” foolish indeed to forget the remaining 5% + of non-islamic terrorism” yet our media and politicians continuously play down one, denying any connections with its roots, whilst fear-mongering about the other and demonising anyone who was even viewed by the perpetrator.

          • but you have taken examples from across Europe

            And ? So what ?

            Are you trying to read more into my point than I put there in the first place ?

            What on EARTH has “go down this equivalence route to virtue signal our liberal tolerance credentials” to do with anything I’ve written, just for starters ?

        • You’re right. He didn’t read a book. He watched a TV documentary and then decided he was going to kill people.

  9. Those we employ to protect us wilfully refuse to identify the nature of the threat. At the behest of the muslim brotherhood and its affiliates, Robert Mueller, as Director of the FBI, removed all references to islam and jihad from Bureau training materials. We don’t have to search very hard for similarly islamo-friendly police chiefs in the UK.

    In the United States, a frequently repeated lie asserts that terrorist acts by “white supremacists” outnumber those by muslim-motivated terrorists. The only way anyone can make that even remotely appear true is to assume racial motivation behind every violent white crime against black people, while blatantly down-playing the muslim motivation behind jihadi crime. Nidal Hasan shouted, “Allahu akhbar,” while shooting dead fourteen people: thirteen adults and an unborn child. The Obama administration defined his crime as “workplace violence” and deferred Hasan’s court-martial for as long as possible. Hasan’s massacre is still not officially defined as “terrorism”.

    When a muslim convert actually decapitated a victim in Oklahoma and attempted to kill a second woman the same way, the same explanation was produced: “workplace violence”. Numerous crimes in Germany and Sweden share a jihadi-prompted modus operandi, but are officially treated as unconnected. Their muslim perpetrators advertise no particular factional allegiance, so their cries of “Allahu akhbar” are ignored; instead, we hear of “lone wolves”, driven to violence by psychiatric disorders which defy diagnosis.

    The problem is, as our lords and masters must know, but never concede, that there are at least two entirely incompatible ways of describing islamic terrorism: the accurate way, or the muslim way. You can’t be an islamic terrorist, according to islam, if your victims are Jews, or Christians, Buddhists, or Hindus. Killing the infidel and dying in the process is portrayed as a sure path to heaven. It’s not defined as terrorism, murder, or even considered reprehensible. .

    There is no secret about this. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation comprises fifty-six states, plus the pseudo-state of “Palestine”. Collectively, those states demand the right to impose their definitions on English words, definitions based on sharia. “Murder”, “rape”, “slavery”, “terrorism”, “blasphemy”, “suicide” all have decidedly different meanings in sharia from those accepted in general English usage. All are crimes in islam, but only selectively. Killing, raping, or enslaving an infidel is entirely acceptable to the OIC – and the schismatic nature of islam means that there will never be a shortage of infidels.

    In Canada, Motion 103 called on Canada’s government to condemn “islamophobia”, without ever defining “islamophobia”. People were assured that this “non-binding motion” was not intended to restrict criticism of islam, but, less than one year on, that is exactly how it is already being applied, turning Trudeau’s Canada into an obedient vilayet of the caliphate.

    There is an absolute incompatibility between sharia definitions and civilised ones. Trudeau would gladly indulge sharia, to keep himself in office; Corbyn ditto. To try to remain in Number 10, May will probably produce an abject grovel towards Mecca, not generating any Conservative votes, but advertising the United Kingdom as subservient to islam. Even if that is not how she characterizes her posturing, it is certainly how the OIC states interpret her spinelessness.

  10. Great to see CW tackling this subject head-on. Islam and Muslims have been given a disgracefully undeserved easy ride, typified by their repeated howls of protest every single time a counter-extremism initiative is announced.
    They never offer words of encouragement, never agree that ‘this decision is well overdue’ or ‘we want to see an end to extremism so welcome efforts to improve relations’ and so on. Nope, always our fault, never theirs and it’s always ‘Islamophobic.’
    I hope she smashes any such ‘extreme’ group to smithereens.

  11. But can anything be done at this late stage? The stable door is open and the horse has bolted: never to return.

  12. by perpetuating the false idea that Muslims are being persecuted in the UK

    Careful — there’s a slippery slope here, and a clear danger of overstepping the bounds of both classical ethics and morals, and the guiding light of solid Christian teachings and principles.

    Our Original Sin is in our Knowledge of Good and Evil, but this is not limited to our ability to know good when we see it, and evil too ; but far more deeply, in our abilities to both genuinely know that which is good and so act from that, in good and for good, but also conversely, in our sin, to both genuinely know that which is evil and so act from that, in evil and for evil.

    For such is our condition, in the combination of that Original Sin with the Grace of our God-given Free Will.

    But it is a necessary consequence of our Free Will that we can choose the True Religion or a false one or no religion at all, or whatever variant or compromise. And so Freedom of Religion is a necessary principle in our Western Culture.

    This includes the freedom to choose the false religion of Islam — thereby, it would be most dishonest to claim that the social and professional and other persecutions that some have started in our Western Na

  13. Bin laden took his theology from Al Wahab who takes it from Ibn Taymiyyah who took his theology from the Hadith and the Sword Sura of the Koran based upon Mohammed’s time in Medina.

    Muhammad Besieges Banu Quraiza For 25 Days. After The Jews Unconditionally Surrender All Men Are Beheaded, Women and Young Girls Raped and Sold into Slavery. Their Property was Looted.
    Sahi Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 448

    Muhammad Attacks The Rich Jewish Settlement of Khaybar Without Warning and Takes Safiya As His Sex Slave After Murdering Her Husband
    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:
    Narrated by Anas:
    The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaybar when it was still dark and then said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” Then the inhabitants of Khaybar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr’. Muhammad was sixty (60) when he married Safiyyahh, a young girl of seventeen. She became his eighth wife.

    Muhammad Attacks The Jewish Settlement of Banu Mustaliq: He Captures And Rapes A Twenty Year Old Jewish Girl – Juwairiya
    Bukhari yol 3,Book46, No. 717
    “Narrated Ibn Aun:
    Prophet had suddenly attacked Banu Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day and raped her.

    Will Sara Khan be arguing that against the Koran and the Hadith ?

Comments are closed.