Jordanian queen Rania's project to dispel "stereotypes" has not "made intolerance melt away"

"look different, dress differently,..." --Queen Rania

She doesn't look "different."

Concerning "dressing differently," yeah, love your black Hefty bag, Rania.

Total hypocrite. Why anyone would listen to this Queen Phony is beyond me.

“the Palestinian-born Rania…”
--from the article above

A previous article on this “Palestinian” and “Jordanian” business:

“Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the terror group led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi…” — from this article

The whole matter of "Palestinian" Jordanians and "Jordanian" Palestinians and why Al-Zarqawi is forever to be known among his pals as a "Palestinian" but the Western media, automatically performing its task of public relations for the "Palestinians," now deliberately chooses to call him "Jordanian-born," can be found in such authorities as the famous 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In it, "Palestine" is defined as follows:

We may describe Palestine as the strip of land extending along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea from the mouth of the Litany or Kasimiya River (33 22' N.) southward to the mouth of the Wadi Ghuzza; the later joins the sea and runs thence in a south-easterly direction so as to include on its northern side the site of Beersheva....Eastward there is no such definite border. The River Jordan, it is true, marks a line of delimitation between Western and Eastern Palestine; but it is practically impossible to say where the latter ends and the Arabian desert begins.

So Jordan, in its populated parts (not the Syrian Desert) comprises Eastern Palestine, and Israel Western Palestine.

What does this mean? It means that in Jordan both Eastern Palestinians (Jordanians) and Western Palestinians (from the territory now held by Israel) live. A person born in Jordan to "Western Palestinian" parents would call himself Jordanian. A person born in Jordan to parents who were born in Jordan, to grandparents who were born in Mandatory Palestine, would call himself whatever is most advantageous to him, depending on where he travels, to whom he speaks, and who harbors what suspicions. It is best, in Arab countries, to be a "Jordanian," not a "Palestinian," despite all the support for "Palestinians" as the shock troops of the Jihad against Infidel Israel. On the other hand, at least until recently, one might garner more sympathy from the unwary Westerner by calling oneself a "Palestinian" who lives in Jordan. It is fascinating to see how al-Zarqawi, a name given to him because he was born in a "refugee village" in Zarqa, would ordinarily call himself a "Palestinian," but everyone has been quick to label him as "Jordanian-born" without going into detail. Why? Because Arabs think calling him a "Palestinian" might damage the "Palestinian" (i.e. Arab Muslim) cause, and the Western press, without even considering the matter for a moment, has obligingly gone along.

But what if al-Zarqawi if not a "Palestinian" Jordanian, which is to say, if we can draw this accordion out still further, a "Western-Palestinian Eastern Palestinian"? And what of those who were born in, say, the West Bank in 1953, and were therefore Jordanian at birth, and now live in Amman? Such people would be Jordanian, but no ordinary Jordanians. Rather, from 1948 to 1967, those people born under Jordan's rule in the West Bank were Jordanian citizens (no one talked then of "Palestinians" or of a "Palestinian people" -- that came sometime after the defeat of June 1967) from birth. In order to distinguish such people from those "Palestinians" born in Eastern Palestine, i.e. east of the Jordan River, it would be best to speak of Western-Palestinian Eastern Palestinians (born in Israel and the West Bank, and now living in Jordan) and Eastern-Palestinian Eastern Palestinians (born in Jordan of parents or grandparents who were from "Eastern Palestine" and still living there) and the final group, those people who were born in Jordan, as were their parents and grandparents. These would be the Jordanians, or rather the plain-vanilla unadjectivized Eastern Palestinians, mostly of Bedouin extraction.

Al-Zarqawi, as noted, was born after 1967 in Zarqa, in what is present-day Jordan (i.e. present-day Eastern Palestine) and therefore should be most accurately described most accurately as a "Palestinian-never-not-even-between-1948-and 1967-a-Jordanian Jordanian" which is to say, a "Western-Palestinian Eastern Palestinian" -- using the guidelines of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, as well as the last two thousand years of Western history. Of course, I haven't bothered to go into the fact that a great many of the Muslim Arabs who claim to be descended from "Western Palestinians" and now live either in Israel and its territories or in Jordan, are in fact people whose presence in the area does not go back further than the 1920s and 1930s, when the Arab Muslim migration into Mandatory Palestine was far larger, though illegal, than any Jewish migration allowed by Great Britain -- the Mandatory authority that was supposed to, but did not, "facilitate Jewish immigration" and "encourage close Jewish settlement on the land" by the express terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
Does that make it all clear?

I thought it would.

The moral of all this is:

What a tangled toponymic web Muslim Arabs weave, when e'er they practice to deceive, first by making up the "Palestinian people," and then by pretending that no matter when some Muslim Arab ventures into “Palestine” (or, not an Arab, but even Kurds, Berbers, Turks, Muslims from Bulgaria, the latter plunked down by the Ottomans in the 1880s -- all of them more-or-less Arabized by now, though many know exactly, or have a good idea, as to their ancestors' origins outside of "Palestine"), this necessarily makes all of his descendants into "Palestinians," with all the claimed rights thereto appertaining -- and apparently forever. This is true both backwards and forwards, and no matter how tangential or short-lived a particular Muslim Arab's connection to "Palestine" has been, as long as there was one, at some point, who set foot there. At least, that is what "Palestinians" wherever they live claim.

Except of course, when they do something particularly awful, that the Western world really will not stand. Then, presto-magico, they are not "Palestinians" but "Jordanians." Sirhan Sirhan was carefully called a "Jordanian." And Al-Zarqawi is carefully called "Jordanian-born."
Q.E.D.

[Posted by Hugh at October 19, 2005]

So the mediagenic Rania is, if she was at birth either a Gazan Arab, or a "West Bank" Arab, is now an Arab living -- and quite luxuriously, on American taxpayers' money that pays for that Mercedes 600, and so many other cars and planes and the odd palace and the delightful trips abroad (whew! can't wait to get out of Jordan to London, Paris, Rome -- what fun!)-- whom one may call, if one is an Arab propagandist or a handmaid of such, "Palestinian-born" which is to say, an "Eastern Palestinian" born in "Western Palestine" which makes Rania the Fair an "Eastern Palestinian" of "Western Palestinian" descent which, shorthandedly, we may sum up as "Rania is a Western Palestnian Eastern Palestinian."

And remember: whenever there is an obviously bad man, a Sirhan Siran or Al-Zarqawi, he's almost always described as "Jordanian-born" without more. "Jordanian-born Sirhan Sirhan" is how he was known for decades. "Jordanian-born Al-Zarqawi" is how the late monster in Iraq was described.

But la bonne reine Rania, with all her Western un-Islamic chic -- which means we have nothing to fear, which means she is just like us, which means she is to be believed in her propaganda campaigns -- turns out, for the Western press fed what the Arab press wishes to feed it, "born in Palestine."

"But la bonne reine Rania, with all her Western un-Islamic chic -- which means we have nothing to fear, which means she is just like us, which means she is to be believed in her propaganda campaigns..." --posted above

Exactly why I DON'T believe her. Obviously an upper-class Mohammedan woman who never actually comes into contact with "the people." A hypocrite and phony.

That dress is definitely haram.

Muslima, cover yourself before the Prophet sees you and receives another revelation from Allah!

For voyeuristic purposes, I checked on whether she's fulfilled her obligations as a tilth, and looks like she has - 2 sons and 2 daughters. So a day may come when there will be a Pali (or at least half Pali) king, and the Palis will still be screaming for a homeland.

Doesn't she realize that she is a vacuous figure head with no power, except more than that of the average Muslim woman in Jordan, who can rest assured that should her brother kill her, or her dad or mom, you know, for honor's sake and all that, they will not be unduly burdened with a harsh prison sentence. A humane society, after all.

Had she married a Hamas operative, she'd be head to toe in a black jilbab, as opposed to a white off-shoulder dress.

Lucky for her that Abdullah didn't goe for an European woman like Queen Noor

Hugh

She was born in Kuwait. Woudn't that make her a Kuwaiti? Or does one have to go into the origins of her ancestors? And if so, how far?

Rania has to work overtime to make everyone happy. She's obviously quite the fashion plate which serves her well with Western audiences but she has to wear the bedsheets and tarps and produce a boatload of kids to keep the muslims happy.

I'm wondering what she'll do when Abdullah divorces her for a younger, more European version of herself. After all, Abdullah's dad Hussein changed out wives three times before settling on Noor. Will Rania still be trying to "dispel stereotypes" when she's asked to quietly live somewhere else? She'll probably choose Paris, of course.

Lucky for her that Abdullah didn't goe for an European woman like Queen Noor

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 13, 2008 1:38 PM

Lisa Halaby (Queen Noor) is an American.

I've never understood why Islamists are so quick to upset over, say, Sunni-Shiite theological differences, or over even a book (e.g. Satanic Verses), or their own daughter not wearing a hijab, or any more usual mention of need for reform in Islam, and someone like this walks through, and hardly a peep out of them. Am I just reading the wrong sources?

"she was born in Kuwait..."

Well, then, if her parents came from Eastern Palestine (Israel) she would be "Kuwaiti-born Eastern Palestinian Western Palestinian Queen Rania" and if her parents came from Western Palestine (Jordan) after having first come from Eastern Palestine (Israel) she would be "Kuwaiti-born Eastern Palestinian Western Palestinian Western Palestinian Queen Rania."

You get the idea.

And so on.

"Well, then, if her parents came from..."

She still looks like a painted whore with her 'awrah exposed, from an Islamic perspective.

Exactly who takes her seriouly? Like she represents all of 1/100 of 1% of Muslim women.

Her father is than hight ranking member of the bother as she is than member of the botherhood of muslim. She is still very modest dress compare to what some western woman wear today.

She is still very modest dress compare to what some western woman wear today....

defender

You aren't saying that this uncovered meat is acceptable by standard mohametan standards, are you?

I nabi ZK (pbum) only asking.

nabi ZK (pbum)

Her father is than hight ranking member of the bother as she is than member of the botherhood of muslim...
by defender

Or as Pooh would say in the Hundred Acre Wood "Oh, Bother!"

Nabi ZK (pbuy), you crack me up.

"What a tangled toponymic web Muslim Arabs weave, when e'er they practice to deceive, first by making up the "Palestinian people..."

Palestinian people are people who live in Palestine, or whose family comes from there or who consider themselves part of the cultural group of that region. What's hard to understand about that?

"...the Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews. "

So, based on genetic evidence, lots of the people who call themselves Palestinians have genetic linkage to the region going back to Neolithic times combined with newer DNA from other places.

"Palestinians, however, differ from other Arabs in some ways. As the web site for Harper's Magazine reported, one study showed that Jews and Palestinians have common ancestry that is so recent that it is highly likely that at least some of the Palestinian blood actually descends from Jews. [3] Another study by New York University confirmed a remarkable similarity between Jewish and Palestinian genes."

The genetic evidence suggests Palestinians are people descended from Jewish inhabitants of region, intermarrying with newcomers over the centuries and converting to Christianity or Islam. Some Palestinians didn't convert, and are still Jews.

So the days of stating that Palestinians don't really exist are pretty much over, I think.

Gloam. What does "Palestinians don't exist" mean exactly? I, nabi ZK (pbum), for one, am not talking genetics. I, nabified, wise, speak only of politics. Tell me again when the local arab inhabitants last had political independence and a state named Palestine. When exactly was that? I didn't think so. Thank you. So you agree then. Palestinian, as a national identity, is purely manufactured. It is a contrivance. A sham. A ruse.

nabi ZK (pbum)

Gloam. I, nabi ZK (pbum) am glad that your exhaustive genetic research has shown that the people who, for purely political reasons, call themselves Palestinians do exist as living human beings and DID have ancestors. Those ancestors HAD chromosomes! Who knew? Thank you again for clearing this up.

nabi ZK

Some Palestinians didn't convert, and are still Jews.

They tend to be called (and call themselves) Israelis!

"Gloam. What does "Palestinians don't exist" mean exactly? I, nabi ZK (pbum), for one, am not talking genetics. I, nabified, wise, speak only of politics. Tell me again when the local arab inhabitants last had political independence and a state named Palestine. When exactly was that? I didn't think so. Thank you. So you agree then. Palestinian, as a national identity, is purely manufactured. It is a contrivance. A sham. A ruse."

Oh, Nabi. There are all sorts of people who don't have their own nation or self-rule, but still identify as a people. Basques, Kurds, Tibetans, the Duwamish, the Welsh, etc. They still get to call themselves what they want, identify their goals, and claim a place in the political forum. These are modern times. Take a diversity class, or something.

My big question is this: What does Israel have to do with dhimmitude or the West? Israel is a nation in Near Asia, which speaks a semitic language. It is ruled almost excusively by Jews, who minimize the contributions of other cultural groups through decidedly non-democratic policies. Additionally, most Jewish Israelis chose to immigrate and inhabit a region of the world largely populated by Muslims. This is hardly the same issue as African Muslims showing up in France and burning up parts of Paris.

Oh, Nabi. There are all sorts of people who don't have their own nation or self-rule, but still identify as a people. Basques, Kurds, Tibetans, the Duwamish, the Welsh, etc. They still get to call themselves what they want, identify their goals, and claim a place in the political forum....

Come on Gloam. Thoses other people, Basque, Welsh, and so on, have been calling themselves a people for a long time. Since before history in some of these cases. The "Palestinians" only discovered themselves as a people, distinct from other Arabs, quite recently. When they were ruled by Turks they called themselves Arabs. Imagine that!

Not only that but the nabi did not notice where any one of these above people are automatically entitled to a "homeland", even their traditional homeland, as a sovereign state. Basques didn't get that. The Welsh didn't. Neither the Kurds. So what's yer point dude?

And then you ask this:

My big question is this: What does Israel have to do with dhimmitude or the West?

Answer: Welcome to reality Gloam. No less a luminary than the Dr. Ayman al Zawzhiri stated that "Israel is a dagger pointed at the heart of islam". Possibly you have a weak grasp of the principles of the mohametan religion, but Dr. Zawahiri is correct. If Israel stays then mohametanism has failed. And mohametanism does not like to fail and does not like to be reminded of it's failures.

The core issue is, of course, dhimmitude. The non mohametans must live as dhimmis under mohametan control. But the Jews refuse to do that.

What do mohametans say? "First the Saturday people then the Sunday people". Well the nabi wishes the Saturday people well in their war with the mohametans. Indeed they are fighting for all of us yet the weak minded perceive it not.

nabi ZK (pbum)

"My big question is this: What does Israel have to do with dhimmitude or the West?"
-- a poster above

Answer: Everything. Israel is part of the West, and the West would not be the West, without Israel's contribution to that West.

Israel, or the Jews, who lost their land as did so many other non-Muslim and non-Arab peoples, during the Muslim conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, in which islamization was accompanied by arabization (though in some places, such as Iran, that arabization, that cultural and linguistic imperialism that convinced so many of those conquered that they were "Arabs" or that they should be "Muslims" (because Islam was presented as the the true form, not the "new and improved" but the original form, of their own faiths), managed to start returning to build a Jewish Commonwealth, many decades before the Mandate for Palestine was created by the League of Nations, and continued to return, with great difficulty, during the period of the Mandate as well, despite a largely unsympathetic British mandatory authority that did not abide by the terms of the Mandate -- see Article 6, for example, requiring the Mandatory power to "facilitate close Jewish settlement on the land"-- and other Jews, survivors of the death camps, and nearly a million arrived from where, in the various Muslim Arab lands, they had been subjected to mistreatment and endured insecurity as dhimmis (as did all the non-Muslims under Islam).

The Jews of Israel, at least the 50% of the population that came from Arab countries, are no longer willing to live as dhimmis, and will not return to that status. The Jews who were the descendants of those who left the Land of Israel to go further afield, into Europe, are only now beginning to learn about what Islam is all about -- as is the rest of the Infidel world, and not a moment too soon.

And they, and the rest of the West, and the rest of the non-Western Infidels, will begin to recognize, in larger and larger numbers, that the war being made on Israel is merely a classic Jihad, and always has been. It has been obscured, partly by the artful use by Muslims of islamochristians among the "West Bank" Arabs (Hanan Ashrawi, Naim Ateek, Michel Sabbag, etc.), to promote the Islamic agenda, but mainly through the careful creation of that utterly phony "Palestinian" identity that so much effort was put into "constructing" (see, for example, Mahmoud Darwish for one careful "constructor" who, before the Six-Day War, used to declare that "I am an Arab" and then, presto-change, stopped saying that and after that war spoke only of himself, to Westerners, as a "Palestinian"), for reasons that Zuhair Mohsen -- whom google -- incautiously spelled out to James Dorsey in an interview for the Dutch newspaper "Trouw."

The Jihad against Israel is conducted through qitaal, conventional combat, and also through terrorism, and also through diplomatic and economic pressure, and propaganda. The works. There may be differences on questions of timing and tactics between the Fast Jihadists of Hamas and the Slow Jihadists of Fatah, but no difference at all on the ultimate goal: Israel, as a place where Jews can live on land once possessed by Muslims, and not live as dhimmis, must cease to exist. That's it. No other outcome for Muslim Arabs -- save for a handful of the most intellectually and morally advanced -- is tolerable.

And the Jihad against Israel received a lot of attention-- though seen not as a Jihad but as the Arabs wanted it to be seen, as a "struggle of a tiny people, the "Palestinians" etc. against an 'occupier'" and so on -- because before the OPEC trillions arrived, and before Muslim millions had foolishly been allowed to settle in the Western countries, and before Western techonological advances (audiocasetttes, videocassettes, satellite television, the Internet) were appropriated by Muslims -- incapable themselves of developing such things -- in order to spread further the message, the full deadly message, of Islam, to the farthest corners of Dar al-Islam.

That's what Israel "has to do with dhimmitude and the West."

A previous article on the same theme, with a quote from A. Carlebach that, curiously, was included by Edward Said in his comically meretricious "The Question of Palestine," for Said was at the time (1979) convinced that no one would take the Carlebach thesis seriously -- and then along came Islam, thanks to Bin Laden, and we began to study, and to see other attacks by others, all over the world (in Kashmir and India proper, in southern Thailand and southern Philippines, and in western China, and in southern Sudan, and in southern Nigeria -- as we revisit the Biafran War and understand it anew -- and of course in London and Amsterdam and Beslan and Moscow and New York and Washington and so many other places. Islam never disappeared, but when Muslims perceived themselves to be weak, they did not make the kind of moves they are making now, and we, the Infidels, did not begin to study Islam as we are now. And with every bomb that goes off anywhere, set by Muslims, the Muslim Jihad, or its local manifestations (those local Jihads constituting, in their totality, the world-wide Jihad), becomes understood better by Infidels. Better and better and better and that's why Carlebach's observations no longer are laughed at (as Said assumed they would be), but seen as perspicacious and piercing.

Here's that previous article:

The relentless Jihad against Israel -- against, rather, any Infidel sovereign state within the Dar al-Islam -- always included imposition of the Shari'a as part of its intended goal. Imposition of the Shari'a was, in fact, demanded as early as 1920 by a group of Arab notables in the former Ottoman territories that were quite properly assigned to Mandatory Palestine (i.e. all of Western Palestine, while Eastern Palestine went to form part of the Emirate of Transjordan).

Nor was there any doubt that the attempt to keep Jews out of the area was a Jihad directed at Infidels throughout the Mandatory period; curiously, it was some British officers, rather than the Palestinian Jews, who recognized the Islamic grounds for opposition to the Jews and the restoration of a Jewish Commonwealth. It is also true that a few Israelis, early in the history of the state, had the wit to recognize the problem. One of these was Dr. A. Carlebach, whose analysis published in Ma'ariv (Oct. 7, 1955) would have been lost to history, one suspects, but for the fact that it is reprinted, amusingly and quite uncomprehendingly, in Edward Said's preposterous "The Question of Palestine."

Fortunately for us, Said often provided quotes from various European and Zionist sources that are so deadly, so convincing, particularly in the light of all we have learned about Islam over the past few years, that as works of propaganda they no longer serve their purpose. Here is what Said quoted from Carlebach, and what Said obviously thought it was self-evidently absurd, but we read it now with quite a different frame of mind:

"These Arab Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam. Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression. The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress, that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword. The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world...their reactions -- to anything -- have nothing to do with good sense. They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat. You can talk 'business' with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah...This is what every grain in this country shouts. There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them -- even the Crusaders -- left signs of culture and blossoming. But on the path of Islam, even the trees have died.

We pile sin upon crime when we distort the picture and reduce the discussion to a conflict of border between Israel and her neighbors. First of all, it is not the truth. The heart of the conflict is not the question of the borders; it is the question of Muslim psychology.....Moreover, to present the problem as a conflict between two similar parts is to provide the Arabs with the weapon of a claim that is not theirs. If the discussion with them is truly a political one, then it can be seen from both sides. Then we appear as those who came to a country that was entirely Arab, and we conquered and implanted ourselves as an alien body among them, and we loaded them with refugees and constitute a military danger for them, etc. etc. ...one can justify this or that side--and such a presentation, sophisticated and political, of the problem is understandable for European minds--at our expense. The Arabs raise claims that make sense to the Western understanding of simple legal dispute But in reality, who knows better than us that such is not the source of their hostile stand? All those political and social concepts are never theirs. Occupation by force of arms, in their own eyes, in the eyes of Islam, is not all associated with injustice. To the contrary, it constitutes a certificate and demonstration of authentic ownership. The sorrow for the refugees, for the expropriated borders, has no room in their thinking Allah expelled, Allah will care. Never has a Muslim politician been moved by such things (unless, indeed, the catastrophe endangered his personal status). If there were no refugees and no conquest, they would oppose us just the same."

Now when Said put this into his little work of propaganda back in 1979, the invented "Palestinian people" and their "legitimate rights" were in full swing. In 1979, the front of dhimmis, those islamochristians such as Hanan Ashrawi, were already in evidence -- on campuses, before church groups, disguising the nature of the Jihad against Israel which cannot be assuaged, cannot be sated, and is not a matter of borders.

But something has changed: other Muslim attacks, in America, in Russia, in Europe, and other Muslim cries against Infidels, and other Muslim behavior, including the demand that European peoples yield to Muslim demands, have caused many, and should cause many more, to read the words written above with a new understanding and a new appreciation.

Hoist by his own petard was Edward Said -- he bothered to quote just a bit too much. Nowadays we do not scorn those he assumed we would scorn, but see the truth of their remarks, and the scorn of the good and intelligent reader is reserved for Said's own text. Quite something.

[Posted by Hugh at May 25, 2006]

Huge are you also than Zionist who are one of the worst racist on this planet. There are than Palestinian people who where 50% entric clean from Palestin by Israel in 1948. There is than book written by than jew of the jewist religion not than Zionist.

My favourite troll is back. :)

DefenderofIslam

The Queen of Jorban [sic] job is to influence the western polcy [sic] maker [sic] so she is allow [sic] to wear modest western clothes.

By whom? Where is that in the Qur'an? I guess it doesn't matter. Mo said she was going to hell anyway for being female.

"I see some women who wear tight t-shirt where you see how big they breast are an they wear no bras."

And you can control yourself...?

Not when than 800 pound woman sit down in the bus with than 45-65-45 figure wear very tight pant afew size too small for her and a very tight t-shirt many size too small for her. Everybody on the bus notice her as than woman who went to seed.

defender

You seem to display a disdain for women. That's too bad. You should not rail against the "wilds slutty womenziz" but beez polite to themz.

Your nabi

nabi ZK (pbum)

DOI,

Please answer the question. What authority "allows" her to do dress and act this way? Please site examples from the Qur'an, ahadith, sira, fiqh, etc., if you can.

Here, I'll get you started:

Is this attempted manipulation of western policy makers a type of jihad, if so, which?

• Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb)
• Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan)
• Jihad by the pen (jihad bil qalam/ilm)
• Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad)
• Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif)

Or is this a new form, "jihad by looking like a painted western whore with her 'awrah exposed"?

Or is this an admission by whatever authority that differences in modesty between Muslim and kafir women are actually immaterial? That obedience to the way of the Prophet can be suspended such that it gives Islam a decadent appearance, and Allah will still bless it? Should we call it clothing taqiyyah?

Than woman who wear clothes way too tight to fit her right deservive disdiam from other people. There other religious group that want woman to wear loose colthesing. The Queen influence western leader by her personal grace and charm, her clothes where modest compare to from other clothes wear by westesm
woman. There are quite afew brother happy marraige to non-muslim woman they donot wear the same clothes as muslim woman do but they do wear more modest clothes like the queen does.

jihad by looking like a painted western whore with her 'awrah exposed...

The nabi wishes to see more jihad of this form from the mohametan women. Indeed 9 out of 10 nabis agree that jihad by being a world class hottie is most pleasing. Just ask nabi UG or prophet Geoff if you don't believe me.

On a more serious note, her manner of dress and her relationship with Abdullah is both a public relations front to the West and an example to the Jordanians. It is a double edged thingie. I do believe they are trying to move their people along a bit but can't get too far out in front for fear of losing their influence.

The true jihadi hates them both. The lions would splash acid in her pretty face if they could. She is brave to risk that.

nabi ZK (pbum)

The Queen influence western leader by her personal grace and charm, her clothes where modest compare to from other clothes wear by westesm

I'm sorry, are you judging her modesty based on Western standards, and that makes it okay for Mohammadans all over the world to be printing out the above picture before retiring to the restroom? Do they face Mecca while in that posture? Do they hold the picture in their right hand or left? Why don't all Muslim women try to influence the West in this manner? Inquiring minds want to know.

Seriously, answer the question, what makes it halal? What is the source of this pervasive Muslim opinion?

The Queen of Jorban [sic] job is to influence the western polcy [sic] maker [sic] so she is allow [sic] to smoke cigarettes.

The Queen of Jorban [sic] job is to influence the western polcy [sic] maker [sic] so she is allow [sic] to drink alcohol.

The Queen of Jorban [sic] job is to influence the western polcy [sic] maker [sic] so she is allow [sic] to eat bacon.

The Queen of Jorban [sic] job is to influence the western polcy [sic] maker [sic] so she is allow [sic] to skip prayers.

The Queen of Jorban [sic] job is to influence the western polcy [sic] maker [sic] so she is allow [sic] to have extramarital affairs.

The Queen of Jorban [sic] job is to influence the western polcy [sic] maker [sic] so she is allow [sic] to star in porno films.

The Queen of Jorban [sic] job is to influence the western polcy [sic] maker [sic] so she is allow [sic] to publically curse Allah.

Where does it end? Where are the Islamic boundaries? Chapter and verse please.

Defender,

Just a suggestion--You might want to lighten up on the pretended illiteracy, if you want people to try to understand what you are saying.

I'm one of many who lose interest in that crap, by the third sentence.

Re: Lucky for her that Abdullah didn't goe for an European woman like Queen Noor

Lisa Halaby (Queen Noor) is an American.

from two posters above.
-----------------------------------------

Noor was an American whose father was Syrian and mother was Swedish. She converted to Islam to marry Hussein.

Abdullah's mother, Princess Muna al-Hussein (born Antoinette Avril Gardiner) was British. Since she never converted, Muna is only a princess even though she was the wife of a king and the mother of another king.

This is the source of some controversy in Jordan since the constitution requires that any heir to the throne be born of a legitimate couple, and both parents should be Muslims. When Hussein removed his brother Hassan as crown prince and designated Abdullah as his successor, Hassan tried to make an issue of this.

After Abdullah's accession to the throne, Muna returned to Jordan but does not speak about religion. However Abdullah has jokingly referred to himself as a "half-Christian" on several occasions.

One thing is clear. Abdullah and Rania are the only thing standing in the way of a Hamas-style takeover of East Palestine (Jordan). Abdullah maintains peace with Israel despite his parliament's Islamist majority.

This is just more proof that the last thing the West should promote among Muslims is democracy. The only moderate Muslim leaders are monarchs like Abdullah and young King Mohammed VI of Morocco while democracy qill always bring Islamists to power.

typo: Democracy WILL always bring Islamists to power.

The King and Queen will have no problen with the Moslim Brotherhood. First the Brotherhood want bin Landon dead for his illegality attack on the west and muslim who disagree with then. Benazir Bhutto was than member of the Brotherhood, they want bin Landon dead along with his orginize. In Pakistian Tridal area a small scale war with Pakistian Army against bin Landon and his group. Brotherhood trides and orginize are support the Pakistian army. They have their own way of doing thing which is more effective than our way of doing thing. Benazir Bhutto was one of the hight rank member of the brotherhood.