And then they came for the solicitors...

[Consider]

Demonisation of Miss Mudassar Arani, Evening Standard Newspaper Article

"...We will continue in the services that we provide, notwithstanding this vitriolic campaign against Miss Arani , to properly and fearlessly represent anybody in trouble who requires our legal services, whether or not these individuals are unpopular in the public domain.

After the Evening Standard article we have received death threats, abusive calls and even threats to bomb our offices..."

http://www.stoppoliticalterror.com/index.php?pageid=20&id=34&PHPSESSID=1d4299a766db39ae94d291b4ee21d922


I think it would be a good idea to email Sister Mudassar Arani, to show her that you are supporting her ongoing work. She is carrying on working in spite of all the venom that is being levelled at her.

And a Muslimah, masha'Allaah.

Her email:

info@aranisolicitors.com

http://www.aranisolicitors.com/front.html

[pamwechete]

Nothing new. There are solicitors who defend anyone regardless of how unpaletable they are as a necessary funcation of the justice system and then there are solicitors and lawyers who work for a certain type of client because they're in on it. Bruce Cutler for the Gambinos is one example, Pat Finnucane for the IRA is another. Some get rich, like Bruce. Some get dead, like Pat.

You pay your money and you take your chances.

[omar247]

Nothing new. There are solicitors who defend anyone regardless of how unpaletable they are as a necessary funcation of the justice system and then there are solicitors and lawyers who work for a certain type of client because they're in on it. Bruce Cutler for the Gambinos is one example, Pat Finnucane for the IRA is another. Some get rich, like Bruce. Some get dead, like Pat.

What a load of utter cr*p. Bruce Cutler was Jewish, he wouldn't have been allowed to get involved with the Mafia if he wanted to.

Pat Finucane, despite having family who were heavily involved with the IRA, refused to go down the same route, and had never even been arrested for minor crowd disturbance. He was a republican and a nationalist, sure, but that doesnt make you a member of the IRA. In fact it is well-known he was murdered by Loyalists at the instigation of the British Government.

I suppose you will then accuse Gareth Pierce of also being involved with the IRA? Or Mudassar Arani of being involved in Al-Qaeda?

It is a sad day for britain when your legal reputation is based on who you are defending! What an affront to justice, give me islamic law any time!

[pamwechete]

give me islamic law any time!

Lets say we did, what is the penalty under Islamic law for calling for the overthrow of the system of government and law? What is the penalty for supporting those who make war on the islamic state?

[turkuk]

I think it would be a good idea to email Sister Mudassar Arani, to show her that you are supporting her ongoing work. She is carrying on working in spite of all the venom that is being levelled at her.

In my opinion she is not working for the good of Islam, she is working to get paid off the state! This woman has been paid nearly £1 million in legal aid. Fair enough if her client is found to be innocent but the guilty should pay their own way! Aren't muslims supposed to pay a percentage of their wage into the community to help out the poor? If found guilty and they can't afford then perhaps it should come from that??

And what if one of these suspected bombers was on the same train carriage as one of your brothers or sisters, should Mudassar Arani still be doing her great work then?

[Consider]

Thats what it basically is - your opinion. Fortunately, in this day and age, fact still carries more weight.

Allegations of how she is allegedly excessively profiting out of this firm have been levelled at her before, as they were again, as mentioned in the article, and will still continue to be a stick which people try to demean her with.

And at the end of the day, whats behind this all, is how dare she even make a penny out of this. How dare she try to get justice for Muslims who are accused of terrorism offences.

Hey, how dare she use the laws of this country to try to get justice for a Muslim!


In my opinion she is not working for the good of Islam, she is working to get paid off the state! This woman has been paid nearly £1 million in legal aid. Fair enough if her client is found to be innocent but the guilty should pay their own way! Aren't muslims supposed to pay a percentage of their wage into the community to help out the poor? If found guilty and they can't afford then perhaps it should come from that??

And what if one of these suspected bombers was on the same train carriage as one of your brothers or sisters, should Mudassar Arani still be doing her great work then?

[turkuk]

I have No problem with a Muslim getting justice and a fair trial, so long as they are innocent. Can you say the same for non-muslim prisoners in Islamic states?

I also have no problem in her making so much money defending terrorists, so long as they're paying their own bill! Not claiming it from the money that myself and the millions of other taxpayers pay to send our kids to school, get decent healthcare, pay firefighters/police etc.

Very defensive aren't you, jumping straight to the conclusion that I'm simply a racist trying to deny your people of fairness in this corrupt british society?

And for the record, the laws of this country are pathetic!

[Hafsah]

I also have no problem in her making so much money defending terrorists, so long as they're paying their own bill! Not claiming it from the money that myself and the millions of other taxpayers pay to send our kids to school, get decent healthcare, pay firefighters/police etc.



but its ok for taxpayer money to go to defend rapists..paedophiles...and murderers???

most of the people sister mudassar arani defends are held without any evidence...laughable evidence...heresay...or evidence gained via torture in other countries...and what terror have they inflicted?? when did people like babar ahmad scare you???

[turkuk]

No, its not ok to pay to defend rapists, peadophiles or murderers but I don't recall them coming up in the conversation. Personally I think anyone who is found guilty of a crime should be forced to pay back their legal aid! Why should we pay for their defence when we will have to pay to keep them alive living in a cushy prison anyway!!

And I really don't think we should compare toture, do you?

[Consider]

I have No problem with a Muslim getting justice and a fair trial, so long as they are innocent.

So if they were guilty of anything, that means that they should be denied a fair trial?

Can you say the same for non-muslim prisoners in Islamic states?

Allaahu alam.

However, they do not claim to be the pinnacles of justice, do they? The freedom-loving, democracy-spreading, creme de la creme, comprende?

Islamic states? As yet, I do not know of any countries which would fall under that, although one or two may (or may have) come close.

I also have no problem in her making so much money defending terrorists, so long as they're paying their own bill! Not claiming it from the money that myself and the millions of other taxpayers pay to send our kids to school, get decent healthcare, pay firefighters/police etc.

Justice is for all. Not only those able to afford to pay.

Very defensive aren't you, jumping straight to the conclusion that I'm simply a racist trying to deny your people of fairness in this corrupt british society?

Apologies if I come across this way. It happens when you have been on a forum as long as I have.

And for the record, the laws of this country are pathetic!

I think theyre ok - for man-made laws that is. But they do leave a lot to be desired. Especially now.

Personally I think anyone who is found guilty of a crime should be forced to pay back their legal aid! Why should we pay for their defence when we will have to pay to keep them alive living in a cushy prison anyway!!

But thats why people go to court. It is for the judges to determine whether a man is innocent or not - not presume guilt.

And I really don't think we should compare toture, do you?

?

[omar247]

Can you say the same for non-muslim prisoners in Islamic states
This statement just shows your ignorance I'm afraid.

1. There are no islamic "states" in the world today. The Islamic state was and is always one state, but as of now there is not a single Islamic state in the whole world today.

2. Non-muslims have equal rights to muslims in terms of justice within the Islamic Shariah. Evidence of this is plentiful in authentic hadiths and narrations. Lots of examples can be posted here if required.

Non-muslims on this board always seem to be the first to accuse, but they never ever check their facts! am I the only one who finds it frustrating? Its a bit like living in a foreign country and not learning the language if you ask me!

[turkuk]

Hi, apologies for not posting on this thread for a while, I didn't realise anyone had replied.

So if they were guilty of anything, that means that they should be denied a fair trial?

Excuse my poor wording, what I meant to say was: I have No problem with a Muslim getting justice and a fair trial, so long as they pay for it if found guilty.



However, they do not claim to be the pinnacles of justice, do they? The freedom-loving, democracy-spreading, creme de la creme, comprende?

Islamic states? As yet, I do not know of any countries which would fall under that, although one or two may (or may have) come close.


By Islamic states I meant countries ruled by Islamic governments under Islamic law or for example in Iraq, where justice seems to now be carried out by whichever group decides to turn extremist that week. Where was civillian worker Ken Bigley's fair trial before his head was hacked off for a reason known only to a few men that darent even to show their faces?


Justice is for all. Not only those able to afford to pay.


Justice for all, yes, but the guilty know they are guilty so they've spent other people's money trying to get off and avoid justice. This to me is rediculous!

Apologies if I come across this way. It happens when you have been on a forum as long as I have.

Apology accepted, perhaps my comment was a little sarcastic. No offense intended.

Quote:
And for the record, the laws of this country are pathetic!


I think theyre ok - for man-made laws that is. But they do leave a lot to be desired. Especially now.


I have to disagree. I think most of our laws are ok in theory, but in practice there are so many loopholes in our justice system that we can allow people to get away with crimes in full knowledge that they committed it just because of a technicality. Where is the justice in that?


But thats why people go to court. It is for the judges to determine whether a man is innocent or not - not presume guilt.



I never said that they shouldn't have the chance of a fair trial due to lack of funds. Only that when/if found guilty they should be made to pay those funds back.

What I meant when I said about the comparison of torture was that considering the kinds of torture endured in Islamic countries on a daily basis I don't think that what happened in the british prisons in Iraq/Afghanistan is anywhere near as bad.

[turkuk]

Omar,

As you can see from my previous post, this comment doesn't show my ignorance, only my inability to word things properly. When I mentioned Islamic states, I meant countries ran by Islamic governmenets.

Also I know that non-Muslims are entitled to equal rights to justice according to the Islamic Shariah but I fear this is rarely adhered to. The trouble is, when Islamic countries have done it, it's often seen as 'what they do' and the guy in question should have been more careful. When we do it however, it's a massive human rights issue and we're obviously just picking on Muslims. Personally I think it's wrong either way but I don't run a government and therefore have no say in the matter.

But at the end of the day, once again this is just my 'ignorant' opinion so I guess it will just be dismissed as usual.

[omar247]

Turkuk,

The problem is when you use terms like "islamic states", obviously Im going to think that you are referring to one of the governments today (e.g. saudi, or iran or even the old taliban government ) which are NOT islamic in the slightest.

In fact, a book I recommend to all muslims and non-muslims to read and see exactly what the position is of the political muslims towards these governments is "The Present Rulers and Islam : Are they Muslim or Not?" BY Sheikh Omar Abdur-Rahman ..In this it clarifies that even though they may pray, may fast, may do hajj, the law and order is not Islamic, and their source of legislation is not derived from Islam ... It only seems to co-incide.

As such there is no such thing as an "islamic" country at the moment, just read their constitutions and you will see this. In fact, you'll probably find muslims in the middle east are condemning these regimes more than the non-muslims for their barbarity!!!

I would like to point out as well that whatever Saudi, etc, does in the name of "islam" i find very offensive, and I will raise this as a human rights issue as much as any US / UK Crimes (and you can probably see this throughout my posts on the web ).

The reason I call it "ignorance" is because you haven't researched the terminology, and so how would you feel if I started calling , e.g. Germany, a Puranitical Christian State that is based solely on the Bible. Would that not be offensive to Protestants the world over?

[turkuk]

Omar,

Thanks for your informative reply. I will probably take a look at the book you recommended once I've got round to reading the many other books that I plan to read, two of which being the bible and the Qu'ran (or at least an English transaltion of).

I apologise if I come across offensive, I'm simply trying to learn about your religion and the politics involved. Debating in this way just serves to increase my understanding of Muslim's opinions and to voice my own on these matters.

I understand that it is difficult to get the right government in a country and no matter how good their intentions are, even when in power, it is near impossible to satisfy everyone. But if these governments policies are so far from everyone's beliefs in that country then why do those people allow them to stay in power?

[omar247]

Hi Turturk,

Apologies if i was perhaps a little curt earlier. i just get a bit frustrated by people who are deliberate trying to antagonise and are not really open to learning. I apologise though, because I can see that you are genuinely interested in Islam and muslims.


I understand that it is difficult to get the right government in a country and no matter how good their intentions are, even when in power, it is near impossible to satisfy everyone. But if these governments policies are so far from everyone's beliefs in that country then why do those people allow them to stay in power?

The reason that these countries governemtns continue to rule is sheer terror, nothing else. If you have a look on Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, etc websites you should see what they get up to ( and Britain and the USA are complicit in this I might add. )

Examples from the top of my head are :-

a. Police in Algeria circulating videos of wives of mujahideen getting raped within communities, so as to scare any other potential guerilla fighters

b. Arresting the Lawyers of Defendants in Saudi Arabia, who dared to question the constitutional monarchy in place there

c. Women in Turkey being given 8 Years in Prison for wearing a Hijab to University.

If you are faced wiht regimes like that, then it takes very brave people to rise up against them. In western countries, there is to some degree a tolerance in political dissent (within boundaries). Imagine living in a society whereby possession of a leaflet calling for government reform will get you 15 years in Prison (Uzbekistan / Azerbaijan / Turkmenistan ).

[turkuk]

The reason that these countries governemtns continue to rule is sheer terror, nothing else. If you have a look on Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, etc websites you should see what they get up to ( and Britain and the USA are complicit in this I might add. )

Examples from the top of my head are :-

a. Police in Algeria circulating videos of wives of mujahideen getting raped within communities, so as to scare any other potential guerilla fighters

b. Arresting the Lawyers of Defendants in Saudi Arabia, who dared to question the constitutional monarchy in place there

c. Women in Turkey being given 8 Years in Prison for wearing a Hijab to University.

If you are faced wiht regimes like that, then it takes very brave people to rise up against them. In western countries, there is to some degree a tolerance in political dissent (within boundaries). Imagine living in a society whereby possession of a leaflet calling for government reform will get you 15 years in Prison (Uzbekistan / Azerbaijan / Turkmenistan ).



I must ask a question then: Regardless of the suspected reasons/conspiracy theories behind the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US, UK and coalition have rid both countries of evil regimes that have provided nothing for the people of those countries other than torture, terror, genocide, poverty and corruption.
So why do we meet such opposition when these people now have a chance to rise up and form a government that they find worthy. They are being offered democracy and a chance to not be oppressed by their own people.

Perhaps we are meddling in other peoples business and perhaps the US has hidden adgenda's but surely for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq this is the best chance of gaining what they want and believe in that they've had in the past 20 years at least.

[omar247]

They are being offered democracy and a chance to not be oppressed by their own people.


Firstly, did anyone ask the inhabitants of these countries if they even want democracy? If you ask any muslim, from China to South America, when you ask what system of government they want, all will unanimously say they want an Islamic State.

The US Govt is deliberately passing and promoting systems of government that protect their own interests, its a choice between candidates and systems that they put forward.

This is why the US at the moment consistently attacks Venuzuela and Cuba (To this day the US broadcasts propaganda to cuba 24 hours a day from florida ). This is despite the fact that Hugo Chavez was elected by the biggest margin of victory in venuzuela in four decades. The US Response to the will of the people? Strikes, 2 Coup Attempts and 2 forced referendums (all of which chavez swept in a landslide). The US problem is that Chavez has socialist Leanings.

It is also worth remembering that the US virtually destroyed South America during the 1950's - 1980's, deposing or aggressively fighting many Popular governments who were socialist, including Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Chile.

Are we now so Naive to think that in the new "enemy" of Capitalism, Islam, is now not being subjected to the same treatment? Can you not see the parallels? Despotic Systems of Government ( Saudi, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Tunisia ) being supported by the USA, and committing barbaric atrocities with full US support in order to brutally suppress an ideology that they fear will spell the end to US Colonisation policies.

And are we so naive as to think that the puppet government in Iraq, in which abuses by Iraqi police are commonplace ( see Human Rights Watch report on the 'democratic' police there! ), are supported by the people? Everyone in Iraq wants an islamic system of government and wants the US out the country, yet they continue to occupy it. Is that democracy?

[peapod]

If you ask any muslim, from China to South America, when you ask what system of government they want, all will unanimously say they want an Islamic State.

Everyone in Iraq wants an islamic system of government and wants the US out the country, yet they continue to occupy it. Is that democracy?


Not every one wants an islamic state, i was speaking to a group of Iraqis yesterday morning and feelings were very mixed.
Some wanted western style government by consensus,some wanted a true islamic government, some were fearful of a taliban style,others didnt want Irainian,but they all wanted a peace, in which they could return home,and all of them wanted the sensless killings by insurgents,and jostling for power to end.