Category Archives: IRBF


A view on the Islamic Prophet Muhammed & his wife Aisha

The Islamic Prophet Muhammed & his wife Aisha

It is believed in the Islamic community that the teachings of the Quran were passed down during the time of Muhammed, and for them, it is believed to be 100% correct and unaltered in over 1400 years. However, contrary to what some right wing propaganda may claim, there is no mention of Muhammad or his marriages. So the only point of reference that we have to investigate the claims that Aisha was allegedly between the ages of 6 & 9 years old when she married Muhammad are what are known as Hadiths. Hadiths, for those of you who do not know, are a collection of narratives, sayings and teachings of Muhammed documented following his death. It is important to understand and point out that the Hadiths between the two major sects of Islam, Sunni’s and Shi’a’s differ, but that is a different topic altogether. So we are going to generalise here slightly just to highlight a few points, using the majority following of Islam which is the Sunni sect.

According to the Hadiths, specifically Sahih Bukhari which is generally accepted across Sunni Islam as being the most authentic, Aisha is reported to have said that she was a “young girl” at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Quran, was revealed. According to historians, the 54th chapter of the Quran was revealed 9 years before what is known as Hijrah, or the migration of Muhammed and his Muslim followers to Medina from Mecca, around 622 CE. Note the words “young girl” and not the term infant; it is suggested Aisha was born towards the end of 613 CE or early 614 CE. If this were the case, and the 54th chapter was supposedly revealed 9 years before 622 CE, that would mean Aisha would have not even have been born. So already, this raises serious question about her age at the time of marriage. Also, the first revelations were made to Muhammed in 610. If he was 53 when he took Aisha as his wife, and she was supposedly 6 years old, that would mean that Aisha was born in 617 CE, and so therefore would not have been born when chapter 54 was revealed, as this was 4 years prior.

Aisha’s father, Abu-Bakr, married 2 women prior to the formation of Islam (in Muhammed’s time). Aisha was born to the latter wife, her half-sister Asma was born to Abu-Bakr’s first wife, and it is known that the age difference between the 2 was around 10 years. It is also recorded that all 4 of Abu-Bakr’s children (2 children from each wife) were born before the formation of Islam as a religion (the last 22 years of Muhammed’s life, circa . 610. Given the approximation that Muhammed was born around 570 CE, he would have been 40 at the time, and if 613 CE is to be believed as Aisha’s year of birth, it would mean Aisha was born 3 years past the first revelation to Muhammed by the Angel Gabriel as is believed by Muslims. The “first year” of Islam is defined by the lunar calendar which Muslims follow, and where the traditional Gregorian Calendar is marked by BC/AD or BCE/CE, the Islamic calendar is appended by the letters AH (Anno Hegirae – “in the year of the Hijra”). So the start of the 1st year of AH is the equivalent of 622 AD or CE. On that basis, if it is widely reported and accepted that Asma was a decade older than Aisha, and that when she passed away in 73 AH she was 100 years old, that would mean that Aisha was 93, suggesting that she was born actually born in 601/602 CE. Think about that; if she was a “young girl” then when Al-Qamar was revealed to Muhammed (622 CE), it would mean she was approximately 19/20 years of age. These dates and ages are approximate, so give or a take year or two, but we are still nowhere close to the suggested age of 6, or even indeed 9. Muhammed’s consummation of marriage is said to have been in 2 AH, so that would suggest that Aisha was between the ages of 20 & 23 if the above is to be accepted.

Another point that raises questions are the Battles of Badr and Uhud, which took place in 624 CE (2 AH) and 625 CE respectively. It is recorded that one of Abu-Bakr’s children, his son Abd Al-Rahman, did not convert to Islam, and opted to fight against the Muslims in the Battle of Badr. His age is recorded as being of around 21/22, which would place his year of birth at around 602/603 CE. Although it is accepted he was older than Aisha, there is little evidence to suggest that this was much more than a few years at best. Add to this the fact that it is recorded Aisha went into the battle alongside Muhammed, it being common practise that women accompanied the men in order to tend to wounds and assist them whilst they were out in battle. It is also recorded in the Hadiths that no one below the age of 15 was allowed in the battle of Uhud, so even if Aisha was 15 at the time, that would suggest that she was born in 610 CE, so at the time of the revelation of chapter 54 of the Quran, she would have been 3 years old. That’s not a young girl, that is still an infant or toddler. Aisha is supposed to have married Muhammed 1 year after the Hijrah. So let’s say she was 3 at the time the 54th chapter was revealed; she married the prophet 10 years later, so she was 13, and if the marriage was consummated 3 years later as is suggested by those who argue that she was 6 at marriage, then it means she was 16 when she had sex. Correct us if this is stated incorrectly, but the age of consent in the UK is 16 is it not?

Another factor to consider would have been Muhammed’s daughter Fatimah, born of his relationship with his first wife Khadijah. Fatimah is recorded to have been born when the Prophet was 35 years of age, and to have been 5 years the senior of Aisha. This then would mean she was born in the year 605 CE, meaning Aisha was born in the year 610, again reiterating the fact that if this was true, that Aisha would have been 13 at the time of marriage, and 16 at the time of consummation.

These are but a few observations; the fact is we are talking about a period of over 1400 years ago, no one can say for sure, unless Stewart Green for whom this article was originally written, or anyone else, is holding out on us and has a time machine. There are many articles written by historians and various scholars alike. Not all agree, and the viewpoints vary from one person to the next. But certainly, for all the arguments thrown about regarding Muhammed’s wife Aisha, there are just as many arguments ,if not more, to suggest that the claims Aisha was 6 years old at the time of marriage to Muhammed, is factually incorrect.

One thing is for certain, of the reports, and the citations used by right wing groups and Islamophobes; this topic is used as a form of attack against Muslims to peddle their Islamaphobic thoughts and ideologies, and without doubt, the figures most certainly do not add up, and so the foundations for their arguments hold no weight.


ASA Ruling on Knights Templar International

ASA Ruling on Knights Templar International
Knights Templar International
KTI-NOM-Suite 6049
PO BOX 6945
Date: 25 November 2015
Media: Internet (social networking)
Sector: Retail
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A15-311684
A post on the Facebook page of Knights Templar International dated 25 August 2015 stated “This is why we have Templars on the ground in Hungary. Chaotic scenes at the border with Greece, as migrants attempt to clamber on board packed trains You can help our Mission …remember, if we do not stop them over there the west will be flooded…Your Choice>” and linked to a news article headed “Macedonia: State of emergency declared over migrants”.

The complainant, who did not believe that the organisation carried out work on the ground, challenged whether the claims “… we have Templars on the ground in Hungary” and “You can help our Mission” were misleading.

CAP Code (Edition 12)
Knights Templar International (KTI) said that they had been operating in Hungary for a long time and had members based there who ran pro-life missions, religious outreach missions, political research work and other activities. They said members of their organisation had also travelled to Hungary on a ‘mission’. They provided a number of photos, of which they said some dated from around March 2015 and some from September 2015, which they said showed KTI members meeting with the Vice President of the Hungarian Assembly in the Hungarian Parliament Building as well as visiting the Hungarian/Croatian and Hungarian/Serbian borders.


The ASA considered that readers would understand from the claims in the ad that KTI had, at the time it appeared, members in Hungary carrying out work related to KTI and that donating to them would contribute towards that work. We had been provided with photos which indicated that at some point individuals identifying themselves as KTI observers (via their jackets) had visited Hungary. However, the photos were undated and we had not been provided with any other evidence relating to the organisation’s work in Hungary to demonstrate that at the point the ad appeared KTI had members in Hungary carrying out KTI work. We had also not been provided with evidence that donating funds to KTI would contribute towards activities in Hungary. We therefore concluded that the claims were misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Knights Templar International not to state or imply that members were carrying out work in Hungary related to Knights Templar International unless they held documentary evidence to substantiate that. We also told them not to imply that donations would go towards specific work unless that was supported by evidence.

Full ruling here.


Jon Gomm: An open letter to Britain First

This Remembrance Sunday, I’ve written an open letter to Britain First (a facebook-based far-right political party who organise paramilitary style “Christian patrols” and “invasions” of British mosques):

Dear Britain First,

I once visited a city where, 20 years ago, they demolished all the mosques, some were ripped down by hand. People stood up like you’re doing, and shouted “Put our country first!” So they did. In the most brutal civil war possibly ever seen in Europe, neighbours fought neighbours, the dead were hung like strange fruit from trees, and the city was cleansed. That is war, that is the pain we are commemorating this Remembrance Sunday. Lest we forget.

You don’t speak for white Britain. You only speak for those who can’t tolerate anything but their own way of life. And if they can’t tolerate anything but their own way of life, then there is no country on earth where they could be happy or feel like they belong.

You talk about “freedom” and “equality” but really you just want YOUR culture in YOUR country. Well, your culture is not my culture. I live in a happily multicultural neighbourhood of a multicultural city, and REAL British culture is about tolerance, justice and friendship. It always has been, we have fought to defend those principles.

I hope one day you see the light. Maybe one day you will feel the true courage inside you which only love can inspire, and not the false courage of hatred.

My beliefs are shared by the vast majority of ordinary British people. We are legion. We don’t have a uniform and a badge and a beret, like you guys wear. Because we don’t need a uniform to know where we belong.

Love from,
Jon Gomm

Jon Gomm is an English singer-songwriter and performer. Using a single acoustic guitar to create drum sounds, bass lines and melodies simultaneously, his songs draw on a range of influences and styles including blues, soul, rock and even metal. Michael Hedges is an important source of inspiration.[1] To date he has recorded three solo albums and has toured full-time since 2004 (WIKI)


Britain First begging: Why £5000?

I've been doing a little research in regards to the value of £5,000 which keeps cropping up when court action arises involving Britain First, and Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen hold their hands out to their followers. I'm immensely confused as to why they use such a high figure when merely instructing solicitors: "We need to urgently instruct our solicitors once again to take action against Chesterfield Council immediately". 
Now whilst I have a working knowledge of Law, having done my degree in the subject, I respect that I am no solicitor, so it's not my area of expertise per se. However, I understand the process in which Britain First can make a claim against the council, as they intend to do: "We need to raise £5,000 over the weekend so that on Monday morning our legal representatives can pounce on Chesterfield Council.". I therefore asked a close friend of mine who is a practising solicitor to double check that I hadn't overlooked anything, which she confirmed I hadn't (aren't I good? 3 years since I graduated, I can't remember what I did yesterday but stuff like this is seemingly recalled at will). Paul states in their latest letter that they feel that the council "cannot legally cancel our contract", but that "they are going to try!". He's probably right, the council in their own terms & conditions under cancellations, only make note of being able to " cancel a hiring if the hall is required in connection with an election or if the hall is unusable due to breakdown of machinery or damage to premises". In these circumstances the council are obliged to refund any charges to the hirer, but are not liable for anything else. One would imagine that an immediate direction that Britain First would take if they felt so strongly about this would have been to apply for an emergency injunction. This is something which can be arranged to be heard at short notice even the same day in some cases, if they opt to have it heard ex parte (without the council present to provide a defence to the application). The chances are that they probably wouldn't be granted an ex parte hearing, but it's certainly an avenue they could have explored. The letter is dated the 4th of November so, assuming that the letter wasn't emailed to them immediately, and they were not given the courtesy of a phone call advising them of the cancellation at the time the letter was issued (which would I imagine, be normal practise for a council in the event of a change), it can be accepted that the letter arrived through the traditional postal system by Friday the 6th of November 2015. But we know of their own admission that “Chesterfield Council have sent us an email at the last minute”. They certainly can't argue they received notification over the weekend, so they have been given clear of a weeks’ notice, given that they chose to publish their announcement on this very date, and not at the "very last minute" as they claim. So, certainly therein is sufficient time to lodge paperwork for an injunction and serve it upon the council with a view to arranging a hearing for both sides at short notice sometime in the upcoming week. Now understandably, in order to file documents for this matter, it will cost money. So let us take a look at these costs. There are 2 elements to this. One is the cost of filing the paperwork to the courts. This is a cost which is a fixed figure, dependant on what they are claiming or asking the court to do. These figures are openly available to anyone, simply look on the Ministry of Justice's website (herein referred to as MoJ); the form with the relevant charges is the ex050 form. As I said, the amount this would cost varies on what Britain First would actually be seeking from the court. Assuming that they were simply seeking an injunction to stop the council from withdrawing on their contractually binding agreement, the fee would be a fixed rate of £280, payable to the County Court. Remember that figure. The other element to cost would be that of instructing a legal specialist if they were too lazy (or lack the intelligence) to fill out and submit the forms themselves. Agreed, they may just be instructing someone who has the necessary legal experience to ensure that the paperwork is filled out correctly, and is watertight in respect of the law.
Paul seems certain it is an open close case; “Chesterfield Council are taking a big risk with this decision because we have a signed legal contract for the booking, we have paid all the necessary fees and have complied with all of the clauses in the contract. In other words, they cannot legally cancel our contract.”, but I will assume that for his own piece of mind, that is the reason behind instructing a solicitor as opposed to filling out the forms himself. So I asked a number of practising solicitors what the cost would be to file such paperwork. The general consensus is a figure that is representative of 1-2 hours work, so in between £150 - £400 depending on who you are instructing, and their fees. Further to this, they would look to keep around £300 on account prior to any court dates, with a view to keeping that account in credit pending any subsequent dates if the matter could not be resolved in the first sitting. So let’s do the maths; the court fees, the solicitors’ charges for preparing the paperwork for an injunction, and a fee on account for the file should legal representation be required in court. That’s £280 + £400 + £300 respectively, giving a grand total of £980. Let’s round that up for arguments sake just to allow a little margin of error and have a nice round figure, to £1,000. That’s some £4,000 off the money that Paul Golding is seeking to raise over the course of the weekend, but realistically achievable if those foolhardy enough to believe in the cause that Britain First stand for. There is another scenario, in which through the County Court, Britain First can make application for “damages” – this is a legal term for what is generally monetary compensation. For this, there is a guidance table within the same form from the MoJ that allows you to calculate the cost of filing paperwork. It looks like this:


Paul is asking for £5,000. So let’s take a figure from the table above to work with, just to put this into perspective. If they were putting in a claim for £100,000 then the cost of filing the claim would be 5% i.e. 5% of £100,000 = £5,000. But then that leaves no room for solicitors’ fees etc. as mentioned earlier. So we know that they aren’t claiming that much. What about the lower end of that figure, the £50,000 mark? Well 5% of £50,000 is £2,500 which would leave them with the same for costs of services. Do they really think that their conference was worth this much? More to the point, do they think the judge will agree to their demand for this value? Bear in mind that the onus is on them to prove to the judge that their claim is worth this value. If they don’t, they potentially lose money, or if the judge rules in the favour of the council altogether, they lose their money, have to pay their solicitor, and become liable for the councils’ legal fees as well. It’s plain to see that if they are seeking a figure lower than £50,000 that once again a £5,000 target for funds seems a bit excessive. Whichever figure they are choosing to go for, Paul seems to have made it clear that this is something they are considering:

“Usually in these situations, when a contract has been breached causing immense hardship and cost, the complainant can win damages – who knows what can happen.”

But ask yourself this; if they do choose this option, what happens with the unspent funds? More-over, what happens if they are awarded damages too? Will they be returning any of the money they’ve begged for from their supporters?An alternative option would be to pursue the council through a more powerful court, the High Court, in an attempt to fight the council for the breach of contract on other grounds, such as discrimination. Now this is a much more costly option, with the need to instruct a solicitor, to instruct a barrister. Referring back to the guidance issued by the MoJ in terms of fees, to file an application in the High Court would cost £480. Factor in the Solicitors costs to prepare the paperwork at £400, gives us the grand total of £880. Let’s round that up to £1,000 again just to make things a little easier to work with. The cost of a Barrister will vary, depending on the level of experience, generally reflected by the number of years in service. Generally speaking, a barrister with under 5 years of experience will cost somewhere in the region of £75-£125 per hour. So that would give Britain First between 32 and 54 hours with a low level barrister. Someone with over 5-10 years can charge between £125 and 275 per hour, up to 15 years’ experience can easily charge upwards of £200 up to around £500. A member of the Queens Counsel (QC) can charge upwards of £350 per hour with no upper limit. So let’s say they go for someone who isn’t a member of the QC but has a number of years’ experience under their belt. I assume they want the best their money can buy, so a barrister with over a decade over experience would provide them with between 8 and 20 hours of service. So they would want to hope that the case doesn’t over run this time frame, and that they win it, because obviously the council would need to instruct a barrister too, and the costs are going to be more or less the same if you think about it. If they’ve had to beg for the £5,000, there will they another £5,000 if they lose? That’s if the costs don’t actually spiral out of control above that figure. Not to mention any damages that may get awarded. But again, say they do win. Say they are awarded damages. Not only will they have got back the £5,000 they’ve begged for, the will have an additional amount on top of this figure. Where does all this money go? Is any of it returned?

Obviously, there may be any number of other factors, options and variables that can affect this, but it gives you a general insight into the immediate options that Britain First are able to make use of, but I urge you to think very carefully about the figures I have displayed, and the figures being asked for. How transparent are Britain First really? Where does all this money actually go? Are they really a party you can trust? How many more times will they be passing the collection plate around for countless reasons, it seems there is always an excuse, always a reason they need their followers to cough up some spare change. And ask yourself this – do you really want a political party in power if every time things go wrong, they turn to their followers for more money? If they had the power, would that be a choice each time funds ran out, or would they enforcing taxation laws making it mandatory to hand them money every time they demanded it. There’s a famous legend that sounds
familiar to that, something to do with a Sherriff of some City in the East Midlands, and his arch enemy was the
good guy, who was a dab hand at archery and wore tights!

Article written by

Hugh M.


Britain First website update re: cancellation of conference (retrieved

MoJ HMCTS Form Finder (retrieved 06/11/15)


Greek Soldiers Refuse to Confront Refugees: Statement

Greek conscripts in 50 units of the Armed Forces:


We, the soldiers in struggle are against all this, against both their past and present crimes.

We call for a mass movement, both inside and outside the Army:

To block in any way we can Frontex, NATO, the European army, the actions of the Armed Forces as this massacre goes on. We don’t participate in arrest patrols.

To assist in demolishing fences and not creating new ones. No soldier boards ships on missions against migrants.

Ships, submarines and aircraft should return to their bases. There should be no attempt to supply them.

We refuse to convert the Greek army into a repressive apparatus, whether that involves confronting migrants or social movements. We will not accept papering over the cracks in the social structure with “volunteer labour”. For us the real “asymmetric threat” is the war being waged against us by the governments and the interests they support.

We call on our colleagues to not only show compassion but to take note of our common class interests. It is the bourgeois institutions, bourgeois policies, bourgeois governments themselves which are destroying even our dreams.

What the refugees are now going through – the constant persecution by totalitarian mechanisms of every kind – in the struggle for dignity and survival, their sad present is for many of us the current and future nightmare that we should not have to experience. It is the Parliamentary totalitarian state in collaboration with the NAZI Golden Dawn.

We are aware the coming revolts will find those on the bottom rung either united together or in conflict with each other.

Today there isn’t a better form of solidarity in practice which gives the greatest service to ourselves than attacking the problem at its roots.

We are part of a modern anti-war and labour movement that can exist only within a working class, anti-capitalist and internationalist perspective. We resist, oppose, and totally reject the government, its imperialist mechanisms, and the bourgeois world of oppression.

[The original was signed by soldiers from 38 units of the Greek Army]


547 Rethymnon Airborne Battalion,
Sparta KEEM,
616 Infantry Battalion,
Avlona KETTH,
535 MK/TP 31st Brigade,
Patra KETCH,
Mesologgi KEN 2/39 SP,
526 MK/TP,
124 PVE Tripolis,
Cpt. Paraschos 29th Infantry Brigade,
221 EMA Plati Evros,
401 Military Hospital Batallion Administration,
Thiva KEPV,
16 TYP,
Nafplio KEMCH,
Evros Chatzipenti Camp,
211 MK/TO 95 LATETH,
Araxos 116 PM,
3rd Cooking Education Battalion-Gythio Supply Dept.,
647 MK/TP Litochoro,
50 PEA/AP,
SDB Karaiskakis B Company Management,
219 KICHNE Didymoteicho,
173 MEAP Orestiada,
516 MK/TP,
424 SN Thessaloniki,
Evros Vogiatzis Feres Camp,
642 TP, Bouga Camp,
32 MPP PN,
KEN Kalamata,
643 TE Chios,
123 PTE,
618 M/K TO Plati,
296 M/K TE,
KAAY Agios Andreas,
93 TYETH Lesvos,
503 TP,
22 EMA Petrohori,
25 EMA Petrochori,
107 A/K MMP PEP Didymoticho,
305 SPTCH,
3rd EAN Alexandroupolis,
107 Chatzipenti Koufovouno Camp,
Evros 523 Mavrodentri Kozani.


Bonehill Followers Rewrite History

Once again some of Joshua Bonehill’s fellow Hitler lickers are rewriting history and making it look like the serial liar is whiter than snow…

The following “article” from ‘Local Terror Exposed’ (sic) is apparently reblogged from EndZog (practically another Bonehill’s mouthpiece, really). The first sentence there >> “Twenty-two years of age, never committed a crime, never hit anyone, never stole anything.” gives us straight away a good idea of how factual and honest that “article” is going to be. Whoever is behind that blog has just copied and pasted EndZog’s lies without even checking Bonehill’s background/history as we all know by now that when he was 18 (and a Tory, at the time), Boney has actually broken into a Police station and stolen a uniform… He actually even bragged about it FFS!

The rest of the “article” reads like a piece of politics fiction…
(it’s probably also breaking the law re: Bonehill’s victims.)

Here is the link for those of you with a strong stomach >> Endzog


Hall of Shame (Britain First page 29/10/2015)

The Daily Mirror reported how a young "Model mum-of-one found hanged after fearing she was about to be forced into an arranged marriage"

The facts behind the case were tragic.


And Britain First, as usual, jumped at the chance to plagiarise the article for its own hate fueled agenda.
The post soon appeared on their Facebook page.
And the comments began.


Britain First using the death of a beautiful young woman, with a tragic history and even more tragic death.