The judge in the case, , Sir Michael Astill, said the men, all British citizens, had "betrayed their country."-- Esmerelda's post taken from the BBC

"Betrayed their country"?

Why should Believers owe any loyalty to any Infidel nation-state? To think that they would or could, and still remain good Muslims, is a failure of understanding, by Infidels, that itself represents a "betrayal of their country."

Those British judges, those British diplomats, those British law-makers in Parliament, those British columnists and editorial writers whose job it is to inform themselves, and to properly instruct others, are the ones who have "betrayed their country" by failing to understand that when Muslims offer their sole loyalty to Islam, and the cause of Islam, and attempt to fulfill their solemn duty to participate in Jihad to spread islam, by whatever instruments are available and seem to them to be effective, they are not being bad Muslims, but merely demonstrating what Infidels should understand -- that the members of the umma al-islamiyya, in thought, word, and wherever possible deed, will demonstrate that their sole loyalty is to Islam.

They did not "betray their country" for there is no country, no Infidel vilayat (a word which, incidentally, is the basis for the Hobson-Jobson "Blighty"). to which they need or should or could offer loyalty, if they are to be good Muslims.

It is, rather, those non-Muslims in authority who have "betrayed their country" by failing to understand, or to engage in sufficient study to come to understand, that Muslims are not "betraying their country" when they show their loyalty is to Islam and Islam alone -- and that to expect them to be loyal in the first place, even to use such words as "loyal" and "disloyal" when it comes to the Infidel nation-state -- is absurd, is based on categories that for Muslims do not make sense.