Nazir Ahmed was made the first Muslim Peer in the UK, which is quite an accomplishment. However, that achievement has been sullied as he is now being charged with his brothers for a fourth child sexual offense, this time against an eleven year old boy according to local news:
ROTHERHAM peer Lord Nazir Ahmed has appeared at court — alongside his two brothers — charged with a fourth historical child sex offence.
The peer faced the further allegation of buggery against a boy under 11 when he appeared at Sheffield Crown Court yesterday (Wednesday).
Ahmed, of East Bawtry Road, Rotherham, appeared at the lower court last month charged with indecently assaulting the boy and two counts of attempted rape against a girl aged under 16 in the early 1970s.
The former Labour politician would have been aged between 14 to 17 when the alleged abuse took place against the two complainants.
No pleas have been formally entered but Ahmed’s solicitor told reporters at last month’s hearing outside Sheffield Magistrates’ Court “he will be doing everything he can in order to prove his innocence”.
His brothers (below L-R Tariq and Farouq) have denied sexually abusing the same boy between 1968 to 1972.
Mohammed Farouq (68), of Worrygoose Lane, Rotherham, denied at the earlier hearing four counts of indecent assault, said to have taken place when he was aged between 17 and 22.
Mohammed Tariq (63), of Gerard Road, Rotherham, denies two counts of indecently assaulting the boy when he would have been aged between 14 to 16.
A two-week trial date was set for December 2 and the men were granted unconditional bail. (source, source)
This case should be regarded with suspicion. As the story notes, this happened decades ago.
What is the point of bringing it up now? It this because of an actual desire for justice, or is there a political motivation, especially given the use of Islam as a vehicle to drive nationalism, which in turn incites militarism?
This is also a good time to review that as we have written before here on Shoebat.com, Islam actually permits homosexuality per its own theology. There is nothing “anti-gay” about Islam, and the punishments which Islam prescribes against the LGBT are connected to violations of the Sharia regarding homosexuality. Muslim men can sodomize other Muslim men, but it has to be in accordance with Islamic theology. So long as this is followed, then anything is possible:
The issue of homosexuality and Islam is as confused as the confused individuals who are confused about their gender. Western media is also confused since Islam does not prohibit all forms of homosexuality. Shoebat.com maintained that Islam permits the transgender type.
The Independent for example is beginning to get it when it wrote “Radical Islamists convinced Omar Mateen that being gay is never compatible with being a Muslim – but that’s not necessarily true”.
The Independent has a point. Actually half a point. In IslamMukhannathun (مخنثون “effeminate ones”, “men who resemble women”, singular mukhannath) is allowed for people who would now be called transgender women (reality they are men).
In other words, the bottom line is that Islam prohibits and permits homosexuality. Islam’s author of confusion is notorious for using play on words. In Islam a homosexual (Liwati) is banned but if he is effeminate (Mukhannath) he is not. Adultery is forbidden in Islam, of course, but not with concubines, alcohol is forbidden, but not in heaven, prostitution Bagha’ is forbidden but not when its Misyar (marriages where one can contract with a rental overnight wife). Patricide and matricide are forbidden until the parents oppose the son to go on Jihad … you name the sin and Islam becomes the religion of loopholes. (source)
None of this should come as a surprise. Turning to Islamic Sacred, Tradition, Bukhari and Muslim both state that Mohammed was a cross-dresser and it was a fact known to his wives. Mohammed is even reported by Dawud (4910) as having protected a “transgender”- a mukhannath- during his lifetime. Later Islamic commentators addressed and supported this issue, and as one study noted:
According to Ibn Habib, “a mukhannath is an effeminate (mu’annith) man, even if he is not known to be guilty of immoral acts, the derivation being based on the idea of languidness in gait and in other ways.” Later commentators make less historically based, but nevertheless interesting, distinctions. Al-Kirmani, defining a mukhannath as a man who imitates women in his speech and acts, distinguishes between constitutional (khilqi) and affected (takallufi) effeminacy, only the latter being blameworthy. Al-‘Ayni himself speaks specifically of imitation of women in dress and adornment (listing veils and several types of ornament as examples) and in acts, “such as languidness of body and feminine modes of speeching and walking.” Bothal-‘Ayni and Ibn Hajar repeat al-Kirmani’s distinction between involuntary and voluntary effeminacy, but go on to say that the man who is constitutionally, as opposed to affectedly, effeminate must make efforts (takalluf) to stop being so; if he does not do so, he becomes blameworthy, “especially if he seems to take pleasure in (his effeminacy).” Al-‘Ayni further adds that “in our time” mukhannath means simply the passive partner in homosexual intercourse, and makes both male and female homosexual activity a more heinous extension of takhannuth and tarajul; he also claims that the difference between mukhannath and mukhannith (generally considered simply variants) is that the first signifies “effeminate” and the second “catamite. ” (source)
What this suggests is that in Islam, there is the implicit acknowledgment that differentiates between homosexuality as a “choice” and a homosexuality that is “innate,” that latter of which is the mukhannath and would therefore be worthy of permission, whereas the former is considered “sodomy” and condemned. With the movement in the world today to legitimize homosexuality and the repeated attempted to use “genetics” and the idea that some people are “born gay”, one could argue that as a Muslim, support of homosexuality is an attempt to support a man’s nature as Allah has created him. Therefore, the opposition to homosexuality could be reconstituted into theological terms by which the refusal to support the mukhannath type of homosexuality is to oppose the created nature of the person itself.
In American politics, the difference is a mix of social politics between the “left” and the “right.” The left supports a feminized homosexuality, the right supported a masculinized homosexuality, but both sides end with another man masturbating into another man’s rectum and God hates all of it and it all results in the same end.
Both Islam and homosexuality are evil, and it should not be a surprise that the two groups support each other and would in time work with each other. The real scandal is that a majority of “Christians” support the act, because Christian teaching is opposed to homosexuality, meaning that Christians are not actually Christians for a large part, but using the name and ideals of Christianity for another purpose.
What is the real motive with Lord Ahmed is the question, and that one is yet to be seen.
Comments are closed.