Did Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, really commit treason[i] or has reaction to his speech[ii], at the Royal Courts of Justice, got just a little out-of-hand?
Some have defended[iii] Williams while most others have vilified[iv] him but the fact remains that he has opened a hornet’s nest. It’s not just his speech that we must examine but also his interview with BBC’s ‘World at One’ programme ahead of his speech where he stated: “We have got a fragmented society at the moment, internally fragmented, socially fragmented in our cities and fragmented between communities of different allegiance”[v].
In what was a wide-ranging and political speech later that night, juxtaposing Tariq Ramadan and Mona Siddiqui with Sayyid Qutb, he spoke of terms such as “conflict”, “multiple affiliation”, “overlapping identities” and “supplementary jurisdiction”. He then referenced Professor Ayelet Shachar[vi] and her celebrated work ‘Multicultural Jurisdictions’[vii] when he stated that individuals should be able to choose which system they wanted, in “…a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that ‘power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents’…It is uncomfortably true that this introduces into our thinking about law what some would see as a ‘market’ element, a competition for loyalty as Shachar admits. But if what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of diverse and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable”. The point here is that the Muslim community (or ‘communities’ as Williams and Government Ministers are prone to say) while law-abiding, is far from loyal.
Williams was later forced to comment further to defend himself[viii] as the media frenzy grew but he didn’t convince many[ix]. Staunch defenders of a unitary secular law for Britain rushed to defend their way of life with 17,000 emails in a day to the BBC alone[x] - although one wonders how many of them realised the irony that Muslims are accused of hysteria when responding similarly when Islam is attacked.
This is by no means the first political speech, or speech about Islam, by the Archbishop. He made a case against super-casinos in April 2007[xi]. He attacked the US as the only “global hegemonic power” and its foreign policy as “violent”[xii] in November 2007 and in January 2008 spoke out against 24-hour drinking in the UK[xiii]. Karima Hamdan also correctly recalls “During an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme in January, Dr Williams warned Muslims against “acknowledging only the bare word of the sacred text, divorced from learning and interpretation”. He felt that this was “Islamic primitivism”[xiv].
Williams’ latest speech follows hot on the heels of another inflammatory article by a senior church figure in the UK, the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev Michael Nazir-Ali. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph in January he contended: “…there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into “no-go” areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability”[xv]. It’s not as if the Anglican Church didn’t have enough problems with internal dissent growing over homosexuality ahead of its forthcoming Lambeth Conference[xvi] although the Bishop of Liverpool, Rt. Rev James Jones did finally apologise for objecting to the appointment of the gay cleric Dr. Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading[xvii]. This is in addition to a row in Oxford over Muslims seeking to broadcast the adhaan (the call to prayer) but facing opposition amid emotive calls it would produce a Muslim ghetto[xviii].
The discussion on the shari’a has hardly been reasonable since the Archbishop’s speech. It has been demonised, characterised with terms such as ‘irrational’, ‘barbaric’, ‘repressive’, an ‘abomination’[xix], ‘medieval’ and even ‘disgusting’[xx]. There has also been a focus on the oppression of women[xxi], repression of minorities and savage punishments with a fear that Williams’ speech was heralding opposition to the rule of law and social division in the UK itself.
All of this highlights how the shari’a is not well-understood at all. It is, in fact, the sacred Islamic law that every Muslim is obliged to follow both as individuals and as the basis of the rule of law under the caliphate. Its sources are the Qur’an (not Koran!) and the Sunnah which is the trodden path of the Messenger of Islam, Muhammed (May the Blessings and Peace of Allah be upon him).
Misunderstandings abound. The current debate has suggested that it is possible to compartmentalise shari’a to place it piecemeal into a secular system but Muslims believe the shari’a is a complete legal code providing comprehensive solutions to all problems (see Qur’an 5:3) and it is therefore an integral part of the Islamic civilisation.
Another facet of the current discourse is that there is not a single shari’a since it is subject to interpretation although this is meaningless since the shari’a is composed of all the laws of Islam. While there can be many legitimate differences and schools of thought within Islamic jurisprudence there is only ever going to be one shari’a.
Self-proclaimed moderate Muslims and reformers disingenuously speak of the objectives (maqasid) of the shari’a[xxii], namely the protection of faith, life, lineage, intellect and property. They suggest that as long as these are being fulfilled there’s no need for shari’a to be applied[xxiii] but they miss the essential point that Islamic scholars argue that the application of the shari’ law is itself obligatory upon every legally responsible Muslim (cf. Qur’an 45:18).
Another argument repeated often of late is that Muslims left the shari’a behind when they came to the UK and if they still want it then they should leave but where to? Saudi? Iran? The Islamic Courts of Somalia? There is nowhere on Earth that implements the shari’a and there hasn’t been ever since the Muslim lands were invaded, conquered and colonised by developed Western nations.
It is this incontestable fact that leads us to ask what exactly are Muslims calling for? The truth is that there is no call for shari’a in the UK and to suggest that there is such a call is bogus.
There is no doubt that the call for shari’a is growing in strength and momentum but that is in the Muslim world, not for application in the West. This is at a time when the trend is to export secularism worldwide. Just one day before Williams’ unfortunate speech Reuters reported U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband made an announced (aren’t they always?) visit to Afghanistan[xxiv] urging more troops to join the battle but what are British and American troops doing in majority-Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan anyway?
Comments by prominent politicians have confirmed that this is part of a move to prevent the rise of Islam, the re-establishment of a Caliphate and the application of shari’a in the Muslim world as demonstrated by the then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke speaking at the Heritage Foundation in 2005 when he boldly stated:
“However, there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Sharia law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech. These values are fundamental to our civilization and are simply not up for negotiation”[xxv].
Tony Blair followed this up after the London bombings of July 2005 stating: “
They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations”
George W. Bush also waded in 2006 stating: “…we learned more about their dark and distorted vision of Islam. We learned about their plan to build a radical Islamic empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia”[xxvi].
Although there are no qualms for western nations in accepting shari’a when there’s a financial benefit such as in Islamic mortgages or bonds (sukuk[xxvii]) to gain access to Arab oil money it appears that Muslims will be thwarted at every turn if they seek to return to ruling by what Islam mandates in their own countries.
There is definitely opinion for the return of shari’a in the Muslim world. The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland reported in April 2007 that large majorities in the Muslim world want the strict application of shari’a in their countries (Egypt 74%, Morocco 76% and Pakistan 79%). Majorities also agreed with the goal to unify all Muslim countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate (Egypt 67%, Morocco 71% and Pakistan 74%)[xxviii].
This only confirmed other similar polls such as the 2005 report by the ‘Centre for Strategic Studies’ in Jordan which found some startling results: “
Asked whether Shari’a should be the only source of legislation, one of the sources of legislation, or not be a source of legislation, most Muslims believed it should at least be a source oflegislation. Support was particularly strong in Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt, whereapproximately two-thirds of Muslim respondents stated that the Shari’a must be the only source of legislation; while the remaining third believed that it must be “one of the sources of legislation”. By comparison, in Lebanon and Syria, a majority (nearly two thirds in Lebanon and just over half in Syria) favored the view that Shari’a must be one of the sources of legislation”
[xxix].
It is therefore necessary to ask if the shari’a is so backwards and repressive why are Muslims calling for it in such numbers? This is even matched in the UK where the Sunday Telegraph commissioned an ICM poll[xxx] only to discover 40% of Muslims in Britain would support shari’a in pre-dominantly Muslim areas in Britain[xxxi].
Such polls have provoked questions over the loyalty and affiliation of Muslims in Britain and the quest to solve this perceived threat is already on the minds of government ministers. Citizenship, cohesion and integration have become buzzwords across Western Europe where immigrants are expected to embrace values whether they like them or not – which sounds suspiciously just as coercive as the forced conversions Muslims have historically been accused of.
This is a trend that Gordon Brown is keen to continue as highlighted by his first address to the House of Commons as Prime Minister[xxxii]. There is no doubt that he is just as much an academic thinker as Williams as his speech at the University of Westminster in October 2007 illustrated. He announced: “Today, Jack Straw is signalling the start of a national consultation on the case for a new British Bill of Rights and Duties - or, as I said in July, for moving towards a written constitution”[xxxiii].
Despite the rows over party political funding and MP’s expenses
[xxxiv], Jack Straw MP,
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice still found time for a speech on the 21 January 2008 on a codified Bill of Rights
[xxxv].
In fact a ‘Statement of Britishness’ is also expected. It was originally rumoured to be a motto like the French ‘Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité’ but that was so widely ridiculed the entire plan was delayed, as the IHT reports: “The Times of London cynically sponsored a British motto-writing contest for its readers. The readers’ suggestions included “Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, Asbo, Tesco” (Asbo stands for “anti-social behavior order,” a law-enforcement tool, while Tesco is a ubiquitous supermarket chain); “One Mighty Empire, Slightly Used”; “We Apologize for the Inconvenience”; and - the choice favored by 20.9 percent of the readers - “No Motto, Please, We’re British.[xxxvi]”
It is this context and timing of these comments by Rowan Williams that provide us with the opportunity to perceive the reality of the debate about shari’a in the UK and about questions over the loyalty of Muslims. The claim that the influence of a single, national law of Parliament and of judges will be increasingly circumscribed in some parts of the country is practically an invite for the Government to press on with its agenda to ‘deal’ with the troublesome and disloyal minority in its midst through legislation.
The reality is that there is no hint of disloyalty since the discussion centres on minute issues rather than a parallel system and a humble request for arbitration much like the Orthodox Jewish Beth Din[xxxvii]. It is also true that this right already exists for Muslims in the UK. David Frei, Registrar of the London Beth Din, recently stated “I do believe that under the present legal system so far as arbitration is concerned there is nothing preventing Muslims today resolving their civil disputes by consent under Sharia law. The arbitration acts provide that people can resolve their disputes in this country under arbitration and they can choose which system to use as well”[xxxviii]. So there seems little point in raising it artificially as the Archbishop has done.
It is not as if there is a single system for every citizen anyway. The UK has both Criminal and Civil court systems and after the failure of the Criminal Justice System when private prosecution collapsed the parents of Stephen Lawrence began civil action
[xxxix]. Nicholas van Hoogstraten was declared a murderer by a High Court judge in a civil action despite being cleared of the manslaughter of Mohammed Raja in the criminal courts
[xl].
The prohibitive cost of libel laws considering the lack of legal aid means it is really only a law for the haves rather than the have-nots. There’s also the European Court of Justice and that’s before we include conscientious objectors that include Sikhs riding motorcycles without helmets, or doctors who refuse to carry out abortions.
What is incredible however is that we are discussing a community that wishes more law when the real question should be who obeys the law in this country anyway? We’re surrounded by a surveillance culture of CCTV and speed cameras precisely because no one obeys the law. ASBOs and electronic tagging represent new and more innovative ways to deal with the exponentially-rising crime rate which is now so high they’re even considering prison ships.
It is in this context that we should examine the shari’a courts already in the UK such as the Islamic Sharia Council based in Leyton, East London[xli], the subject of a recent Channel 4 documentary entitled ‘Divorce Sharia Style’[xlii].
A recent case in South London has attracted attention where a young Somali man was released on bail for stabbing another Somali youth and community elders arbitrated. The fathers and uncles got involved, agreed compensation and guaranteed to reign in the excesses of the youngsters[xliii]. While this has provoked burning anger in some quarters or acting in an arena outside of ‘normal’ British practice there is no doubt that British society is demonstrably failing to provide solutions for the growing epidemic of gang, gun and knife crime. When 47 year old father of three, Garry Newlove, was beaten to death in Warrington, Cheshire by drunken youths who had vandalised his car, his head was kicked like a football and he died with the imprint of a trainer on his forehead. His widow condemned irresponsible parents and the Government for failing to get to grips with youth disorder while the judge blamed under-age drinking. The tragedy is that the Somali community in South London have the benefit of recourse to methods that can aid them in solving youth disorder through community. The people of Warrington do not and instead can only rely on the Government’s Respect Agenda[xliv].
While Muslims are certainly not an angelic community the request for more law should be welcomed rather than dismissed as disloyal ingratitude by enraged liberal secularists who proclaim their way is best. There is an explicit assumption that secularism is the pinnacle of human civilisation and that its long history of struggle to remove religion from life’s affairs is worth celebrating while Islam should be consigned to history. The shari’a is labelled as backwards since it was revealed in the 7th century but who is concerned over the date of birth of Aristotle or that the Magna Carta was drafted while Europeans were still convinced the Sun orbited the Earth which was flat?
The age of the worldview or system is irrelevant. What is important is whether the principles stand the test of time. Muslims must now engage, confidently, in what has never been anything less than an intellectual battle if they are to defend their way of life from the secular onslaught. Nothing less will do although some of the attacks are more sordid than others for instance, Phil Woolas, Environment Minister and MP for Oldham made this outrageous claim about Pakistanis (read Muslims) in Britain: “If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the … Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it’s caused by first cousin marriage”[xlv].
These attacks are not the only obstacle to Muslim engagement. The ‘War on Terror’ is still often labelled a ‘War on (Political) Islam’ and a climate of fear is still very much in evidence. This fear distances Muslims from responding. Islam has become the dominant topical discussion in a way that could not have been envisaged prior to 9/11. Recent news stories included Parviz Khan being sentenced for plotting to kidnap a Muslim British soldier and ‘behead him like a pig’[xlvi]. This was closely followed by the refusal to issue a visa to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi for medical treatment after sustained campaigning by Labour Friends of Israel and the Conservatives[xlvii]. Abu Hamza al-Masri’s extradition was approved. Ministers in the UK agreed to provide state benefits for those in polygamous marriages[xlviii] and Turkish lawmakers prepared to vote on the hijab ban at universities[xlix]. Labour MP and Government whip Sadiq Khan was bugged while on a welfare visit to a constituent in prison[l]. This constituent happened to be Babar Ahmad[li], a Muslim man facing extradition to the US under Terrorism charges. All of this meant Islam and Muslims were consistently on the front-pages of newspapers and top of the news agendas with little or nothing positive whatsoever. Instead there is a climate that Muslims are under siege which inevitably generates fear and inhibits debate.
This fear has been ratcheted up by a sense that there is already a parallel system of justice in the UK. Take the example of the Samina Malik, the ‘lyrical terrorist’ who was convicted for possessing documents likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism[lii] under the Terrorism Act 2000 after earlier being cleared by a jury of a separate count of possessing an article for terrorism although the journalists sitting in the gallery at the Central Criminal Court reporting on the case also downloaded and possessed the same material. The prosecution found no evidence of intent prompting commentators to proclaim it as a thought-crime[liii] just as they did in the cases of Abdul Muneem Patel[liv] and Rizwan Mahmood Ditta[lv].
These three Muslims had no evidence of intent but were prosecuted under the terror legislation. On the other hand, Robert Cottage and David Jackson, two former members of the BNP, were found to possess the largest cache of firearms and chemical explosives ever found in the West Midlands region. The two men also possessed a rocket-launcher, air pistols, crossbows, nuclear protection suits, documents outlining plans to blow up mosques and Islamic centres all over Britain, a copy of the Anarchy Cookbook, plans of a potential plot to assassinate Tony Blair and Lord Greaves as well as notes about an impending civil war against immigrants in Britain. He received a two-and-a-half-year sentence for his crimes not under Terror provision but under the Explosive Substances Act while his co-defendant, Jackson, walked free
[lvi].
Another telling case is that of Miles Cooper, the Cambridge letter bomber who terrorised Britain with seven letter bombs that injured eight people in a two-week campaign. He was prosecuted under the 1883 Explosives and Substances Act leading to a lenient sentence with the possibility parole in five years. his book collection included titles such as “The Shooter’s Handbook,” “Homemade Guns” and “Homemade Ammo.” Cooper also used blogging sites to exchange bomb-making information but was not charged under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2006 of possessing articles likely to be useful for terrorists![lvii]
So while dangerous men like Cottage, Jackson and Cooper avoid terror charges Malik, Patel and Ditta pay the price for Muslims being perceived as an enemy within. This sad state of affairs can only sideline the necessary discussion of the role of Muslims as do Government initiatives in the name of community cohesion which again push a common set of values such as Pathfinder[lviii] which is engaged in a grassroots battle for hearts and minds in local communities.
This battle for hearts and minds is really about the best way of life but has secularism really delivered? The idea that people are given license to decide what is right and wrong, freedom to pursue their own sensual gratification and benefit and the liberty to police themselves is nothing less than a recipe for social and communal disaster. Inevitably people become individualistic and test the limits. The problem is no longer about breaking the law but about getting caught. From this perspective the sheer collapse and breakdown of Western society is a result of secular thought. Also where does secularism stand on women, minorities and war?
Women are still regarded as sexual objects, still unable to gain equal pay for equal work. Minorities, not just Muslims, have long been expected to conform not in obeying the law but in values, identity and loyalty or else. This is since secularism is wholly unable to accept debate about whether it is suitable. The level of hysteria rises whenever secularism is challenged and the reaction to Williams’ speech is testimony to that. The export of secularism was not based on rational discourse. Far from it. It was and still is based on a violent expansionism based on the threat (or application) of force or as a condition for aid.
There are many comparisons to be made about the application of secularism versus the application of shari’a. While commentators often focus upon the Hadd punishments of shari’a we should not shy away from comparing it to the discussion of torture we’ve seen of late in secular society. This includes waterboarding[lix], stress positions, sleep deprivation and the rest of the provisions of ‘torture-lite’[lx].
The most gracious we can be about the suitability of secularism is that the jury is still out. We could even ask what else is there to replace it with but there is no reason why we should not be allowed to discuss it coolly and rationally.
I contend that the entire debate is currently on the wrong track.
It is not about an Archbishop who reads out a speech without thinking. It is not about uppity Muslims who should just go home. It is not even about whether Britain should accept a parallel jurisdiction but what is the best system for a productive society today and for all time – secular liberalism or the shari’a.
Furthermore we should actively debate whether developed western nations should be sending its young men and women to die overseas in the mountains of Afghanistan and the dusty streets of Basra to prevent shari’a returning while responding with hysteria when the topic is broached at home.
Hassan Choudhury
February 11th, 2008
Endnotes
[i] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article3341738.ece
[ii] http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575 [iii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0„2255088,00.html
[iv] http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/34231/-Muslim-laws-must-come-to-Britain-
[v] http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573 also available to listen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/religions/williamsr4sharia.ram
[vi] http://www.law.utoronto.ca/faculty_content.asp?itemPath=1/3/4/0/0&profile=50&cType=facMembers
[vii] http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521776740 [viii] http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581
[ix] http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/business/495671/dhimmi-or-just-dim.thtml
[x] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/7234426.stm
[xi] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6594245.stm
[xii] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7111686.stm
[xiii] http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1565
[xiv] http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325&Itemid=71
[xv] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/06/nislam206.xml
[xvi] http://www.lambethconference.org/
[xvii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0„2252616,00.html
[xviii] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=504373&in_page_id=1770
[xix] http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html
[xx] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/feb08/rowwanwilliamssharia.htm
[xxi] http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-british-women-are-already-suffering-from-islamic-law-780407.html
[xxii] http://www.aml.org.uk/journal/3.1/Kamali%20-%20Maqasid.pdf
[xxiii] http://www.thecitycircle.com/blog2.php?cann_id=492
[xxiv] http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0763749320080207?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
[xxv] http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/hl902.cfm [xxvi] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060907-2.html
[xxvii] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3edc17c2-687f-11db-90ac-0000779e2340.html
[xxviii] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf
[xxix] http://www.css-jordan.org/new/REVISITINGTTHEARABSTREETReport.pdf
[xxx] http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2006_february_sunday_telegraph_muslims_poll.pdf
[xxxi] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
[xxxii] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6258794.stm
[xxxiii] http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13630.asp
[xxxiv] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/29/uk.conservatives [xxxv] http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/sp210108a.htm
[xxxvi] http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/25/europe/motto.php
[xxxvii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0„2255016,00.html [xxxviii] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234422.stm
[xxxix] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/325314.stm
[xl] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0„2-1943947,00.html
[xli] http://www.islamic-sharia.org
[xlii] http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/divorce.html
[xliii] http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23436339-details/Sharia+court+frees+London+knife+youths/article.do
[xliv] http://www.respect.gov.uk/
[xlv] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece
[xlvi] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012901774.html
[xlvii] http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=200464&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56
[xlviii] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512043&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
[xlix] http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/09/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Head-Scarf.php
[l] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512028&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
[li] http://www.freebabarahmad.com/thestory.php
[lii] http://cms.met.police.uk/met/news/convictions/lyrical_terrorist_convicted
[liii] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/suspended-sentence-for-the-lyrical-terrorist-763574.html
[liv] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7063727.stm
[lv] http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/4-years-for-Taliban-fanatic.3599109.jp
[lvi] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6357261.stm [lvii] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/28/nletter128.xml [lviii] http://www.gos.gov.uk/497745/docs/202912/Community_Cohesion_Final.pdf
[lix] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701542.html
[lx] http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0„1066041,00.html
6 months ago
