Muslims can expect the police to target them, minister says

Absolutely revolting that they hide behind the commitment by the police not to target suspects because of their race. Islam is not a race and terrorists do not 'hide' behind Islam. Islam is the key motivator behind islamic terror so it's only logical to target muslims and muslims only. It's the muslim leaders and the NPBA that stand in the way of fighting terror, they are aiding and abetting the enemy and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Actually, thus far Hazel Blears has been the rising star of the Home Office, frequently used as the Ministry's face on TV (a dead giveaway for future promotion). We will have to wait and see, but she has long been a darling of the Blairites. Mind you, the Home Office itself is in very bad hands, having passed from an obstinate and inflexible reactionary (David Blunkett) to a confused, unintelligent and still obstinate party hack (Charles Clarke). To predict what it will do about anything is practically impossible.

Telling the truth should never be an offense. If someone is offended by the truth then that is their defect alone. The truth is the best weapon we have against any evil, so who are these people who want to weaken it or cover it up? Why should they be listened to when they are getting in the way of fighting terrorism.

The minister needs to be strong like her forebears in past conflicts and not cave in or the war could be lost. More british bulldogs and less ostriches with there heads in the sand thanks.

I must make a point of reading the Times on Line more often. This is far superior to the BBC's effort.

I really like the related stories linked at the side such as "Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family" or "stoned to death... why Europe is starting to lose its faith in Islam" and "Islamophobia is such a convenient myth"

As for the Islamic appearance bit did anybody else notice that the first photos that appeared of Saajid Badats showed a normal looking scruff in the ubiquitous track suit hoodie while in the later ones he wore the crochet hat, fluffed out beard and fanatics specs. Enough said.

OT Who makes those hats? I was looking at one worn by a young man on the train the other day. You often see women knitting, I do so myself, but I have never noticed an obviously moslem woman doing so.
And what are your hobbies Granny Fatima? Well Dearie, I knit woolly hats and socks for the warriors of Jihad.
Sorry to be so facetious.

Because the left wing intelligentsia are to some degree antireligious , they cannot describe anti Islamic statements as antireligious.

So they employ the term "racist" to describe such statements.

Yet they willingly describe ordinary religious Christians or Jews as extreme or bigoted when they have not commited bloody outrages against civilians.

Of course muslim organisations are quick to exploit this idiotic flaw in left wing thinking.

GRANNY WEATHERWAX
Thanks for tip about Times Online. Al BBC is infuriating in its bias and pro-Palestinian propaganda. Yes, I read the garbage about 'the litle angel' Saajid Badats too. Looked most peculiar to me with those staring fanatical eyes: one has to feel sorry for 72 virgins waiting for
'Holy Warriors'.
Loved your comments about woolly socks and hats...

Morgane
Of course - That's what the other 71 virgins do while they are waiting for their turn.... knit 1 purl 2 psso etc

Maybe they spend their time knitting straightjackets for the jihadis' so they can be left alone from the sex freaks.

Well, it wasn't the boy scouts.

Bali, Beslan, 9/11, Moskau, Madrid,- was it womens lib? Was it the Joooos?

Was it the Mossad or the CIA?

No, I tell you a secret: It's the Aboriginals! Yes: Australias Aboriginals cooked that up. Planned and executed it without any help, just like that.

All you need to do is to put a coffee filter on somebody's head, make him pray 5 times a day, give him the 'right' instructions and send them off: Booom!!!

Are you racist? Are you Islamophobic? Show some solidarity: Wear a coffee filter!

The British Muslim spokesmen sound confused. If they themselves were unable to distinguish self-confessed would-be mass murderer Sajid Badat from any other ‘normal young lad’ or any typical ‘walking angel’ (although he looked pretty freaky to me in the most recent photo that was put out) then how are anti-terrorist officers supposed to make the distinction? Surely the lesson from the Sajid Badat case must be that anti-terrorist officers need to put Muslims under greater, not less, scrutiny.

She said later that because the current threat came from people masquerading as Islamists, police would have that in mind when using stop-and-search powers

Does anyone understand this statement? Is it a misquote or does the Minister actually believe that terrorists are "masquerading" as Islamists. This is a bit like suggesting that panthers are masquerading as predators.

This is roundly good news. As a UK ex-Pat, I can honestly say that I feel virtually encouraged by this development.

And as for the complaints of these crochet-hatted marmots: let the little people wail! Stupidity is reserved not for the masses, but for the interested parties thereof.

By the by - Terminator`s comments (while written facetiously) are a virtually direct representation of people I`ve debated on some muslim websites. These `Jooooos` - or the `filthy` Americans - are, in the view of the self-described `moderates` there, responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, the massacre of children at Beslan, al-Zarquawi and, needless to say, Bin Laden himself. These are not exaggerations: so-called `moderate` muslims seem to have no trouble whatsoever believing these tall tales exactly. But that`s not to say they`re ALL lunatics - why, the `Protocols of Zion` are absolute fact to some I`ve debated. But others, much more `moderate` of course, are merely `uncertain` about them, or remark on how while the Protocols themselves are `most likely` fake, that these `Joooooos` really are following them, etc etc. with more apologetics ad nauseum. And of course, if you bring it up, then you yourself must be a `Joo` (if I may paraphrase Terminator), or a `filthy Joo` or perhaps on a good day a `filthy American Joo`, and are deserving, it is implied, of death.

It makes one wonder why these `moderates` speak at all. It might be their best move to simply shut the hell up and let their apologists speak for them. `Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt`?

Geoff

Note the following also from the original article:

`The number of white people stopped and searched rose from 14,400 to 20,637, blacks from 1,740 to 2,704 and Asians from 2,989 to 3,668.`

How, one might ask, do the statistics indicate in any way that `Asians` (Middle Easterners) are being targeted in any way? Caucasian stops rose to 143% of original, blacks to 155% of original levels (not, I would imagine, statistically different in any way given sample size) and Asians to about 122% of the original value. If anything, `Asians` (meaning Middle Easterners in this case) are actually being UNDER-represented in the survey. Certainly 122% is lower than either of the other two values and actually forms what appears to be an outlier. My guess is that under a logistic incidence model, this would be SIGNIFICANTLY (p

Haahaahaha

Muslims being viewed as suspicious is overdue by years. Too bad for them. Maybe if they'd live and let live, they wouldn't have so much attention aimed in their direction.

Hey Robert, Hugh, Ibn:

Check this out!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050302/FACTS02/TPComment/Features

Let's not shake on it
Some would call a refusal to shake hands downright rude. Others see it another way.
By MUHAMMAD ATHAR LILA

Wednesday, March 2, 2005
Updated at 11:34 AM EST

Imagine, for a moment, that you're on your way to the most important job interview of your life. You've spent the previous two weeks preparing for it, anticipating the questions, memorizing the answers, and figuring out ways to impress your prospective employer.

You're escorted into an empty room and told to wait until the boss arrives.

After a few minutes, the door opens. In walks a tall, welcoming, attractive woman. Your knees starting to wobble. She smiles, approaches you, sticks out her hand, and says: "Hi, nice to finally meet you."

You stand there, frozen, staring at her outstretched hand. The lump in your throat is starting to grow. She's confused, as though she's done something wrong. After a few awkward moments, you finally muster the courage to respond the only way you know how.

"Uhhhh, sorry, I don't shake hands with women."

Offensive? Absurd? Chauvinistic? Welcome to the dilemma that is my life.

As a Muslim, I try to practice my religion to the best of my ability. For me, that includes not shaking hands with women other than those with whom I have a blood relationship. And I'm not alone. Thousands of Canadian Muslims face the same problem. In our schools, community centres, hospitals, places of work -- you name it -- we face the same challenge everyday: To shake or not to shake?

It's not an easy decision. Let's face it, in the West, handshakes have become more than just a formality. An outstretched hand is a cry for attention: "Validate me." "Greet me." "Respect me."

As a journalist, it's particularly difficult to not shake hands. We journos meet new people every day. Shaking hands is a matter of routine. If I don't shake hands with a new contact, for example, they could bear a grudge that would make it difficult to get information from them in the future. It also makes interviewing news sources extremely awkward.

I can already hear you thinking: "This guy's pretty extreme. It's just a handshake. Is he a Wahhabi or something?"

No, I'm not an extremist. And no, I'm not some Saudi-sponsored preacher trying to promote a narrow-minded view of religion. I think women should vote, be elected to office, run large corporations, solve the world's problems, and challenge our male-dominated culture to reclaim their rightful status as an equal half of creation. I think I'm about as laid back as they come.

And yet, I don't shake hands with non-related women. For me, the decision goes back to how I interpret my faith's teachings. That's right, not all "orthodox" Muslims -- you know, the ones with the big, scraggly beards and funny skull caps -- are blind followers. Some of us, maybe even most of us, have thought it through for ourselves. It's one of the advantages of living in the West: In an open-marketplace of ideologies, you don't have time to be a blind follower. You've got to think things through for yourself.

So how does a Canadian Muslim -- born and raised with fully modern, western sensibilities -- arrive at such a seemingly rigid interpretation? It comes down to this: During his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad, whom Muslims look to as a perfect role model, never shook hands with women he was not related to. He also discouraged his followers from physically touching people they were not related to. So, because the Prophet's life, or sunnah, is a source of legislation in Islam, shaking hands is considered inappropriate.

Now, it would be easy to dismiss the prohibition as out-dated and, as some would argue, in need of reform -- hey, especially when it means you'll get that new job you've always wanted. And yet, as more and more Canadian Muslims begin to re-define their faith, many are choosing to stop shaking hands. They've concluded that being a believer means not picking and choosing which rules to follow.

But the problem is: How do you refuse to shake someone's hand without offending them? And what's more important, following your religion or not offending a stranger? Think about all the times you've had job interviews, met a new client, or were introduced to someone at a party. What would have happened if you didn't shake their hand? Disappointment? Confrontation? Rejection?

Or, as I've come to learn, would it have led to curiosity on the part of the person whose hand you've refused to shake? Would the person want to know more about your religion and ask why you wouldn't shake their hand? And might that, in turn, give you the chance to explain your religion to them, thereby strengthening your own belief? I can't think of a better introduction than that.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to meet Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites. He also happens to be democratic; a pluralist and moderate who belongs to the "quietist" school of thought, which says clerics should shun political life.

Our delegation consisted of handful of pilgrims, mostly women. As we sat in the small, undecorated room in his house used for meetings with visitors, I wondered how he would make his entrance. When he arrived, he made a point of greeting all the women one by one, and to my amazement, stuck out his hand for the women to shake. But before they could reach it, he would cover it with his abba -- a tattered, see-through cloak that was thinner than pantyhose.

One by one, he shook their hands through his abba. As I look back on the experience, I think he was making a deliberate point: It's okay to enjoy western ideals, just don't go too far. I think it was his way of bridging the gap between Islam and the West.

Muhammad Athar Lila lives in Toronto where he is a producer at iChannel.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

WHEW! Thank goodness that homosexuals, feminists, artists, apostates, atheists, christians and other infidel riffraff expect the police to NOT target them in Saudi, Iran, Iran II (a.k.a. Iraq), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Sudan, etc. Then there would be a double standard. Since all people have equal rights and recourse to the law in Muslim utopias, this terrible "racist" incident is indeed cause for alarm!

"Uhhhh, sorry, I don't shake hands with women."

I'll be serious for once. Contrast this with the scene during Holy Communion in any Christian Church anywhere in the world. "The Peace of the Lord be also with you - let us greet each other with a sign of peace". And complete strangers shake hands, newcomers are welcomed warmly, regardless of sex or age. In some churches English Anglicans are considered reserved because all we do is shake hands, in other churches the kiss is customary, or an informal hug.

The handshake goes back a long way in Western culture. It was originally designed to show that no weapon was held in the hand. But then to us, Peace means just that.

OT:
"The Saudi Buck Stops Here"
By Rachel Ehrenfeld

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17215

"...In an attempt to prevent exposure of how they fund terrorism, the Saudis have been suing those who attempt focus light on their crime in British courts. And they have been successful. Current detailed information on the Saudis' funding of international Islamist terrorism is extremely difficult to come by. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, however, is making up for that deficit in her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. The updated paperback has just been published in the midst of a legal battle to uphold the First Amendment, so that the US media can also report about the ongoing Saudi funds for terror, without fearing expensive libel lawsuits..."

OT-

MUST READ:

"Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad's Stealthy Legions"
by Alex Alexiev
Middle East Quarterly

http://www.meforum.org/article/686

Excerpt:

"...Tablighi Jamaat has always adopted an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam, but in the past two decades, it has radicalized to the point where it is now a driving force of Islamic extremism and a major recruiting agency for terrorist causes worldwide. For a majority of young Muslim extremists, joining Tablighi Jamaat is the first step on the road to extremism. Perhaps 80 percent of the Islamist extremists in France come from Tablighi ranks, prompting French intelligence officers to call Tablighi Jamaat the "antechamber of fundamentalism." U.S. counterterrorism officials are increasingly adopting the same attitude. "We have a significant presence of Tablighi Jamaat in the United States," the deputy chief of the FBI's international terrorism section said in 2003, "and we have found that Al-Qaeda used them for recruiting now and in the past."

She said later that because the current threat came from people masquerading as Islamists, police would have that in mind when using stop-and-search powers

Does anyone understand this statement? Is it a misquote or does the Minister actually believe that terrorists are "masquerading" as Islamists. This is a bit like suggesting that panthers are masquerading as predators.

Posted by: Charles Martel at March 3, 2005 10:12 AM

Charles Martel:

She may have been refering to black gangs that are "converting" to Islam and using that as a pretext/cover or whatever you wish to call it for the otherwise normal gang thuggery they are engaged in (only now they hide out in mosques when the heat is on). I think there was a post on either DW or JW detailing these activities in Britain in the last month or two.

Mentat:

Would this woman want to shake hands with someone who doesn't use toilet paper?

kj mentions Iran II (Iraq).

Here's an informative essay by Dr. Vali Nasr, professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian politics in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California:

"Regional Implications of Shi‘a Revival in Iraq"

http://www.twq.com/04summer/docs/04summer_nasr.pdf

It's a rather lengthy essay, but it's well worth the read - I highly recommend it.

Would like to point out to confused Canadian Muslim Producer that his revered 'Prophet' had no problem raping women he wasn't related to even if he didn't 'shake their hands.' Are we to assume it is easier for Muslims to 'Shake my dick'
than to 'shake hands!' These sheikhs are definitely on shaky ground methinks...

And do you knit anything else as well as those woolly hats for jihadis Granny Fatima?
Oh yes ducks, woolly gloves for men who don't want to shake hands with infidel women.

Sorry Morgane I couldn't resist it.

Some British Dhimmitude by Mrs Blair. DOes she think
this will placate the "Barbarians at the Gate" ?
The U.K is directly in the cross hairs of Islamic
conquest.

http://www.gg2.net/viewnews.asp?nid=2208&tid=breaking_news&catid=Breaking%20News

Morgane:
LOL. Many a true word spoken in jest!

For an intelligent woman, Cherie Blair is extremely stupid.

Guys, that handshake article was utterly ludicrious.

Yes, you stupid moron Muslim man, indeed, it's VERY OFFENSIVE to us dirty infidel women when a man refuses to shake our hands in a social or business setting. And BTW, that shaking hands through a cloth idea is even MORE OFFENSIVE, you idiot. Shades of whites in the South who refused blood transfusions with blood taken from black people.

And no, we probably wouldn't hire your ass to work for us because we probably don't think it's a good idea for a bigoted fool like you to be working for any decent self-respecting company, anywhere. (What happens when you refuse to shake hands with a company's biggest customer?)

Handshaking is our custom, it's part of our language ("a handshake deal") and has been for centuries, as Granny pointed out.

You got a problem with our customs, THEN GET THE F*CK OUT OF OUR COUNTRIES. Yeah, too bad -- you won't get a fancy corporate job that pays big bucks and a three bedroom house with two bathrooms in wonderful old Islamic Pakistan. That's because in OUR countries, we DON'T LET STUPID BACKWARD MEDIEVAL DESERT CUSTOMS hold us back.

And quit writing stupid articles like this whining about how unfair it is that you won't get a job if you don't indulge in our customs.

You wanna know what's unfair, you whining bigot? Being 8 years old, and getting your throat cut from ear to ear because your Dad criticized Islam and the oh-so-perfect model for mankind on the Internet.

That's what's unfair, you whining moron.

The fact that a kaffir doesn't want to hire your rude, fanatical, bigoted ass - that's just common sense on the part of the kaffir!

"So how does a Canadian Muslim -- born and raised with fully modern, western sensibilities -- arrive at such a seemingly rigid interpretation?"

Why not start with actually adopting the "fully modern, western sensibilities" you claim to have been born and raised with?

Victim?
No.
A medieval relic awaiting display in the Smithsonian?
Yes.

Thanks for the article above Mentat by Muhammad Athar Lila. This commentary is a fine example of a point that Hugh and Spencer have made many times: even 'moderate' Muslims born in the West and influenced by Western culture remain vulnerable to dehumanizing tenents in Islam with solid foundations in 'immutable' scriptures. I repost the link:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050302/FACTS02/TPComment/Features

Lila states, "A few years ago, I had the opportunity to meet Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites. He also happens to be democratic; a pluralist and moderate who belongs to the "quietist" school of thought, which says clerics should shun political life."

Perhaps Robert and Hugh should blow (one more time) the cover from Al Sistani and the myth of the 'moderate pluralist' with a major article.

Here, once again, are the some links to his Web site:

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=3&part=1

Once again (for folks who just started visiting this site), please scroll down the list on the second link and view 'Things Najis' (Unclean), among the 'things', kafir, that means you and me non-Muslims who reject Muhammad and his teachings, and dogs. And what will become the kafir (the unclean ones) in this 'pluralistic society' envisioned by Sistani and his followers?

How about one more a disgusting trip into the inhumanity of Islam, let's examine another 'Najis', blood.

Elsewhere on the site you will find other stuff on blood including carefully described categories about what blood 'a woman sees'. Here we go:

"399. There are three kinds of istihaza viz. slight (Qalila), medium (Mutawaassita) and excessive (Kathira). Explanation is given below:
Little blood (Qalila): If the blood remains on the surface of the wool or pad etc., (placed by a woman on her private part) but does not penetrate into it, the istihaza is called qalila.

Medium blood (Mutawassita): If the blood penetrates into the cotton (or pad etc.), even partially, but does not soak the cloth tied on the outer side, the istihaza is called mutawassita.

Excessive blood (Kathira): If the blood penetrates through the cotton, soaking it and the cloth (etc.) around it, the istihaza is called kathira."

(I don't know how technology and new products for female hygine will affect these descriptions...)

The concern with menstruation is another example of the 'total control mentality of Islam', that includes very explicit rules on masturbation, anal sex, food, banking, bathing, clothing etc., etc. But it is also more: A woman's bleeding is 'unclean'. There are rules about entering a mosque while menstruating, praying while menstrating. Allah, it seems, does not like all this 'female bleeding'. Why not? Why is Islam so afraid of women, especially things having to do with sexuality and reproduction. Control, submission, Islam...The bleeding woman is a threat and must be subdued, constricted, limited, and dehumanized, on the level of kafir and dogs when she is menstruating.

Hand shaking is just the beginning, of course, as Lila notes. The Total Control and Regulation of everything involves a descent into greater and greater depths of inhumanity under the guidance of the Qur'an and Sunnah; and we, the Kafir, according to scripture and well established practices, are little more than 'unclean' obstacles to submission to Allah, and hence deserve ultimately nothing more than conversion, subjugation or death. Against this background our policy makers should ask: what value are the lives of our soldiers to Sistani and his followers? What value is the United States itself? Is the United States a real ally or merely a Kafir nation available for convenient use?

What kind of 'pluralistic democratic vision' is this? Our soldiers are dying to protect the political process that is bringing this man and his followers to power.

Let's bring our soldiers home.

It is really depressing to read the hand shaking
article as it just confirms that no matter where they are born or however much education they have,
Muslims will NEVER assimilate into the country
or culture around them, if it is non-Islamic.

As a lithmus test for aall these Dhimmi leaders
like Balir et al: How many will allow a Muslim
bodyguard/agent to be assigned to protect their
personal safety ? No matter what they say in public,
when the lights are out and they lie in bed, they
know that they could never feel safe if it was a
Muslim agent standing guard outside their bedroom
door. This should be posed as a question to them in
a press conference. I would love to see them
stumble over their politically correct answers.

More on the jilbab case. Today's Telegraph editorial:

http://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/03/dl0301.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/03/03/ixopinion.html

"We cannot blame Lord Justic Brooke, however, for ruling in favour of this bloody-minded 16-year-old against the school. His job was simply to interpret the disastrous Human Rights Act as it applied to Miss Begum's case.."

I can't understand how this wouldn't apply to the French hijab ban or it is just that it hasn't been tested there yet?

Melanie Philipps on the jilbab:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/

Sococm

Not only will they not integrate, they will one day change OUR customs.

Maybe one day, non-muslims will no longer shake hands because muslims don't do it.

Imagine a world in which people don't shake hands. They're changing our culture, bit by bit.

Imagine, for a moment, that you're on your way to the most important job interview of your life. You've spent the previous two weeks preparing for it, anticipating the questions, memorizing the answers, and figuring out ways to impress your prospective employer.

Okay.... with you so far.

You're escorted into an empty room and told to wait until the boss arrives.

Alright....

After a few minutes, the door opens. In walks a tall, welcoming, attractive woman. Your knees starting to wobble. She smiles, approaches you, sticks out her hand, and says: "Hi, nice to finally meet you."

Cool. (Boing!) Is she hot? I hope so. “Your knees start to wobble?” LOL.

You stand there, frozen, staring at her outstretched hand. The lump in your throat is starting to grow.

WTF? What are you, like 13?

She's confused, as though she's done something wrong. After a few awkward moments, you finally muster the courage to respond the only way you know how.

"Muster courage"?

"Uhhhh, sorry, I don't shake hands with women."

"You see, I believe that I have to live my life based on an 8th century fairy tale."

Offensive?

Yes.

Absurd?

Very.

Chauvinistic?

Of course.

Welcome to the dilemma that is my life.

Wow... if that's what you call a "dilemma" you've had a pretty sheltered life.

Imagine joining the Marine Corps and showing up weak and out of shape, knowing that if you fail you've got nowhere to go. Imagine three Drill Instructors giving you their "personal attention."

Imagine playing in a bar band, where you play more often than you eat.

Imagine you're a Jew, homosexual, christian, apostate, or Hindu living in any Muslim country.

Imagine you're a Muslim girl in a Muslim nation, you're period is a month late, and you're belly's getting a little bigger every day. Every day your father and brothers stare at you a little harder.

As a Muslim, I try to practice my religion to the best of my ability. For me, that includes not shaking hands with women other than those with whom I have a blood relationship. And I'm not alone. Thousands of Canadian Muslims face the same problem. In our schools, community centres, hospitals, places of work -- you name it -- we face the same challenge everyday: To shake or not to shake?

That's funny... orthodox Jews have the same silly superstition, and it didn't stop them from becoming attorneys, butchers, precious metal merchants, bankers, jewelers, doctors, scientists, computer programmers, and "taking over Hollywood." AND they did it without whining, AND in the face of blatant, overt, explicit prejudice and LAWS passed to discriminate against them. (E.g. "No Jews Allowed", red-line real estate maps, etc.)

AND they found time to start and fund the NAACP and run it until the '70s.

It's not an easy decision. Let's face it, in the West, handshakes have become more than just a formality. An outstretched hand is a cry for attention: "Validate me." "Greet me." "Respect me."

No you fool. It was a way for men that met to show that they weren't carrying a weapon, so they could talk and not worry about being killed. They could "let their guard down" and speak openly and candidly.

As a journalist, it's particularly difficult to not shake hands. We journos meet new people every day. Shaking hands is a matter of routine. If I don't shake hands with a new contact, for example, they could bear a grudge that would make it difficult to get information from them in the future. It also makes interviewing news sources extremely awkward.

Well you made your choice. Now deal with the consequences.

I can already hear you thinking: "This guy's pretty extreme. It's just a handshake. Is he a Wahhabi or something?"

No, that wasn't me you "heard" thinking. I thought you were just a fool.

No, I'm not an extremist. And no, I'm not some Saudi-sponsored preacher trying to promote a narrow-minded view of religion. I think women should vote, be elected to office, run large corporations, solve the world's problems, and challenge our male-dominated culture to reclaim their rightful status as an equal half of creation. I think I'm about as laid back as they come.

You sound like you have some hope. Now if you would just forget Islam and embrace the live of a secular, democratic liberal, you'll be alright. And your daughters might just have a chance at leading a normal, happy life.

And yet, I don't shake hands with non-related women. For me, the decision goes back to how I interpret my faith's teachings. That's right, not all "orthodox" Muslims -- you know, the ones with the big, scraggly beards and funny skull caps -- are blind followers. Some of us, maybe even most of us, have thought it through for ourselves. It's one of the advantages of living in the West: In an open-marketplace of ideologies, you don't have time to be a blind follower. You've got to think things through for yourself.

IF you could do that, you wouldn't need religion.

So how does a Canadian Muslim -- born and raised with fully modern, western sensibilities -- arrive at such a seemingly rigid interpretation?

It is really a very common phenomenon. I see it here in the deep Souf with pimply descendants of people that moved here in the 20th century embracing the rebel Slave Flag: by separating yourselves in a smaller group and excluding others (even excluding them from your "suffering") you make yourselves feel strong and "morally" superior. The "suffering" gives you pity for yourself and fellow losers, and strengthens your bond... yes, the "others" can never understand your dilemmas and quandries..... "Oh, woe is me. What to do? What to do?"

It comes down to this: During his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad, whom Muslims look to as a perfect role model, never shook hands with women he was not related to.

Don't you mean "... to whom he wasn’t related”? Are you sure that you’re a journalist? And how about all those women he raped? Even one to whom he WAS related? (His daughter-in-law.)

He also discouraged his followers from physically touching people they were not related to.

Yes… and he discouraged them from killing the infidels, and robbing them, and taking them as slaves too, didn’t He (PBUH)?

So, because the Prophet's life, or sunnah, is a source of legislation in Islam, shaking hands is considered inappropriate.

You know what? He never drove in a car either. So you know what you have to do to be a REEAL believer, right?

Now, it would be easy to dismiss the prohibition as out-dated and, as some would argue, in need of reform -- hey, especially when it means you'll get that new job you've always wanted. And yet, as more and more Canadian Muslims begin to re-define their faith, many are choosing to stop shaking hands. They've concluded that being a believer means not picking and choosing which rules to follow.

Make sure you stay away from the Koran, then. You might not like the parts about dealing with infidels.

But the problem is: How do you refuse to shake someone's hand without offending them? And what's more important, following your religion or not offending a stranger? Think about all the times you've had job interviews, met a new client, or were introduced to someone at a party. What would have happened if you didn't shake their hand? Disappointment? Confrontation? Rejection?

The answer is really quite simple: move to a Muslim “civilization” where EVERYONE will respect and appreciate your precious belief system and superstitions! They will praise you for your “morality.” No one will EVER expect you to shake a woman’s hand. In fact, no woman will ever interview you for a job, because they won’t be allowed to supervise ANY man. Per the Koran, of course.

Or, as I've come to learn, would it have led to curiosity on the part of the person whose hand you've refused to shake? Would the person want to know more about your religion and ask why you wouldn't shake their hand? And might that, in turn, give you the chance to explain your religion to them, thereby strengthening your own belief? I can't think of a better introduction than that.

Aaaaah. An ulterior motive. Maybe you could shuck and jive her with a little taqqiya, tell her that you’re a “palestinian” (no matter where you were born) and tell her how the Zionists destroyed your “nation” and sent you into “diaspora.” Maybe she will hear your poor, poor, tale and swoon into pity-love, and let you sweep her off her feet. She can convert, quit her “immoral” job, and stay home to wash your feet and make little “palestinians” for you to brainwash. And—best of all!—now YOU can be HER boss. Just like Allah intended.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to meet Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites. He also happens to be democratic; a pluralist and moderate who belongs to the "quietist" school of thought, which says clerics should shun political life.

If they shunned social life too, that would be okay.

Our delegation consisted of handful of pilgrims, mostly women. As we sat in the small, undecorated room in his house used for meetings with visitors, I wondered how he would make his entrance. When he arrived, he made a point of greeting all the women one by one, and to my amazement, stuck out his hand for the women to shake. But before they could reach it, he would cover it with his abba -- a tattered, see-through cloak that was thinner than pantyhose.

Um….. How do you know about pantyhose, oh pious one?

One by one, he shook their hands through his abba. As I look back on the experience, I think he was making a deliberate point: It's okay to enjoy western ideals, just don't go too far. I think it was his way of bridging the gap between Islam and the West.

And just imagine if he did the same thing in Mecca or Riyadh.

Muhammad Athar Lila lives in Toronto where he is a producer at iChannel.

I hope he doesn’t have any daughters.

GRANNY WEATHERWAX

The Daily Telegraph has been among the first to expose the threat of islamofascism. Well worth keeping an eye on the DT as well.

KJ,

That was magnificent! Well done. I'm laughing so hard I've spit Diet Coke all over my monitor.

kj posted:No you fool. It was a way for men that met to show that they weren't carrying a weapon, so they could talk and not worry about being killed. They could "let their guard down" and speak openly and candidly.

Thats it. Shaking hands would reveal a weapon. Now how can a good muslim allow that.

KJ,

Excellent response !!! If it could be emailed to that loser Lila, it should be sent. He is to
journalism what Dr. Mengele was to medicine

KJ, that was truly awesome. Loved it.

My god, this guy is a trite little prick: "We journos". Well, we scientos don't think much of your trite and incidentally bogus scrawl. "As he's come to learn", indeed; even in the smallest thing, triumphalism is the rule. I've "come to learn" that if one refuses to shake hands with a woman, they get insulted, not curious. Maybe he just feels women are dumber than men, so perhaps they wouldn't notice.

"Your knees start to wobble" was the most telling line; undertones of uncontrollable juvenilism and objectification. (LOL indeed.)

But the line:

"You see, I believe that I have to live my life based on an 8th century fairy tale."

Was absolutely the best part.

I suppose my own scrawl would start something like:

"Some would call a refusal to shake hands with a Muslim downright rude. Others see it as the refusal to validate a man-worshipping, contrarian and illogical cult which refuses to shake hands with women because it thinks they're sinful, dirty, and often need to be beaten when they're not being used as Allah intended, which is merely for sex - and beatings. Don't forget the beatings."

After all, he did say that shaking hands is merely a desperate plea for validation. Speaking of desperate pleas, can someone PLEASE tell me what kind of crack this utter idiot would have to be smoking to imagine that hand-shaking is a "plea for validation"? Without having known about the weapon thing - which, by the way, I found very interesting - I would have assumed it was a matter of simple politeness. I suppose that, like other Western customs, is also alien to many.

Geoff

kj. hilarious.

DP111
Thanks for the advice.

KJ:

Really funny. Thanks. I needed that.

"It's okay to enjoy western ideals, just don't go too far."

Like equality for women, and not treating them like animals, or objects, maybe. I getcha, Muhammad. We don't want to go too far. Don't want to get all crazy and stop equating women with filth. That would just be nuts! (Speaking of nuts, does this loser have any? Dubious.)

Now me, I "don't go too far" with tolerating sick or idiotic ideas from other cultures. That's my contribution to restrain from Western ideals. I don't tolerate morons.

So I got your point, Muhammad. I understand what you're trying to say - don't take Western ideals of tolerance and acceptance too far. I understand, dude. Really. So I'll be working away busily to make sure that these ideas get around.

Geoff

Dear Granny W
Feel free to make as many knitting jokes as you like and have us rolling around in 'stitches'. Thank Goodness we Infidels have a sense of humour.
A friend has told me that Blair is only 2% ahead of the Tories in the Polls - hope this is true!!
This should take the smirk off Tony's face and his silly Missus...

Great comments on this message thread so far.

kj: ROTFLMAO! Love your wit. And Granny too.

The Sistani website is fantastic. Thanks for that, JTF. I encourage others to go through it, and look at the myriad of rules & regulations that go into micromanaging a Muslim's life to a fanatical degree.

I'm glad it's all there in plain English. And from such a grand poobah in Islam too. Good ammunition for those who insist you're bigoted or wrong about Islam.

Look up what's najiis (filthy). This completely dispells the taqiyya they like to spew about how Islam is tolerant and loves everybody.

According to the site, we, the Kafir (infidel) are on the same level as: urine, excrement, semen, corpses, blood, dogs, pigs, alcohol and the sweat of animals that eat these najiis things. Isn't that special?

I don't mind being on the same list as dogs because I think dogs are the best, and alcohol okay too because I think wine is the elixir of the gods, and beer on a hot day, and margaritas (all in moderation, of course). But I kinda take exception to being viewed the same as poop and pee and other ikky things. But, thanks for clarifying your position, Mr Sistani.

Lots of other bizarre things on the site too. I can't believe people submit themselves to this degree of psychotic control. What doormats.

Shalom, KJ. Your long piece was quite amusing.

(Basks!) Thank you, thank you.

Hah. Here's another thing about Muslim boys being so damned scared of all things vaginal...remember the recent brouhaha over the "torture" of Guantanamo detainees by having some hot sultry wimmin go in and c**k tease them a little bit?

Can you imagine what a red-blooded man would do if he'd been off at war for months, then sent to prison for a couple of years, and THEN a perfect 10 (or a couple, or a threesome) came into his interrogation room and started using "her womanly charm" to try to "break" him?

I know what I'd do. What these he-man-woman-haters did just proves that they ARE crazy.

...and actually, I intended to say this:

Mobot: I can already hear you thinking: "This guy's pretty extreme. It's just a handshake. Is he a Wahhabi or something?"

KJ: No, that wasn't me you "heard" thinking. I was thinking, "I wonder if this fool is a mindreader too?"

In fact, feralee, the islam prohibition against alcohol is, itself, ungodly - in their view, naji. For did not the great philosopher say:

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
- Benjamin Franklin

I will be observing this sacrament later this evening. I would invite all to join me in Undisclosed Floridasville, if I could only disclose where that was.

Geoff

Geoff, can you disclose whether you are south, central, north, or north-west (a.k.a. "L.A." = "Lower Allahbama")?

Southerly and east, where the nearly naked women walk without fear. Ahhh...depravity.

"Allahbama." Heh.

You have a point there - should I become muslim so that I can be arrested and interrogated by perfect 10 models? This would seem to be better treatment than most prisoners get.

Geoff

Well, Geoff, despite being 1/4 Norwegian (perhaps a little Danish, Greenlander, or Saami thrown in, too), I have to admit that I'm not that fond of beer. However, in deference to the first of Jesus' miracles (see John 2), I might have a sip of wine (cheap, sweet, local Taiwanese stuff--not French).

GRANNY WEATHERWAX
Thanks for tip about Times Online. Al BBC is infuriating in its bias and pro-Palestinian propaganda. Yes, I read the garbage about 'the litle angel' Saajid Badats too. Looked most peculiar to me with those staring fanatical eyes: one has to feel sorry for 72 virgins waiting for
'Holy Warriors'.
Loved your comments about woolly socks and hats...

Posted by: Morgane at March 3, 2005 05:39 AM

Talking of the BBC Morgane, did you see last Sundays report on the Tel-Aviv bombing.
Unbelievable as this may sound, they stooped to an entirely new level of nausiating palestinian bias.
Rather than showing the death,and the destruction caused by the killer, and the grief of the victims families , they focused on the plight of the suicide bombers family, showing his greiving parents crying showing photographs of their dead son to the camera while the reporter actually said the words "another mother has lost a her child in this conflict.....".
The rage that filled me at this sick display of insensitivity to the jewish victims of this murderous muslim maggot, displayed by the pro-palestine channel almost made me smash the TV screen.

Evidently my anger has been echoed throughout the UK as this morning the beeb were forced to apologise due to the massive number of complaints about it. Still this arrogance isn't good enough for me, and I'm going to do something more about it.

Rikki
Can you say more about this apology? I have just gone to the main web site, and the news site and can't see a thing? They do have a tendency to hide the apologies in between obscure programmes of course. And I have a commercial radio station on at the moment.

Newsflash for the ZZZZZ newschannel.

We have made like some other channels slightly offensive ommisions about the palestinian-israeli conflict. We ever so slighty completely focused on the palestian side of the story while slighty ignoring in totality the Jewish side of the story purely by accident. The apology for this remark by us is inscribed in forgotten Summerian, on a cyanide laced toliet roll, burried in a dungeon full of booby-traps on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean that is smutthered in radiation from extensive nulcear testing. You have a generous five minutes to get to the site and read our sincere and trully generous apology before the island is blown up by another 100 megaton test blast.

To all who spoke for beer and wine, there is a more Christian writer than the Deist Franklin to make a similar point:
"Malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man."
"Drink of wine or drink of water
And your honour will stand sure,
God Almighty's son and daughter,
He the valiant, she the pure;
If an Angel out of Heaven
Give thee aught but them to drink,
Thank him kindly for his trouble,
Go and pour them down the sink."
- Gilbert K. Chesterton.