Crying about "Islamophobia" while preaching hate and Islamic supremacism -- of course, this will come as no surprise to those who are familiar with similar behavior patterns from Islamic groups in the United States. "Mosque fights for rights, but vilifies Jews, West," by John Goddard for the Toronto Star, November 12 (thanks to John):
A mosque asking that Canadian workplaces respect a strict Muslim dress code is at the same time disseminating slurs against Jews and Western societies, and warning members against social integration.The Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque near Kipling Ave. and Rexdale Blvd. serves as the religious authority for eight Somali women complaining to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that UPS Canada Ltd. violated their religious rights at a sorting plant. The mosque, founded in 1990 and serving upwards of 10,000 people, preaches strict adherence to sharia, or Islamic law, and no compromise with the West.
Teachings on the mosque's website, khalidmosque.com, refer to non-Muslim Westerners as "wicked," "corrupt" and "our clear enemies."
Sometimes Jews are singled out.
"Is it permissible for women to wear high-heeled shoes?" begins one posting in question-and-answer format. "That is not permissible," comes the reply. "It involves resembling the Disbelieving Women or the wicked women. It has its origin among the Jewish women."
Modern pastimes are condemned.
"What is the ruling on subscribing to sports channels?" another question begins. "Watching some of the female spectators, when the camera focuses on them time after time" stirs "evil inclinations," the lesson reads. "Some (players) may not even believe in Allaah."
Mosque leaders refused repeated requests for an interview.
A disclaimer on the website says questions and answers do not necessarily reflect the mosque's views. But the About Us page says: "All questions and answers on this site (are) prepared, approved and supervised by (the mosque's imam) Bashir Yusuf Shiil."
The mosque's stand on the UPS case also appears contradictory.
In September, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal heard two weeks of testimony from eight mosque members alleging "Islamophobia" at the company's west Toronto plant. Three final days of testimony are scheduled for next week.
The eight women, who lost their jobs at UPS, say Islam dictates that they wear a full-length skirt for modesty. The courier company insists that any skirt be knee-length for safety, as workers climb ladders up to 6 metres high.
Under their skirt, the women wear full-length trousers but say they do not want the lower part showing in case the shape of the calf can be discerned.
The complaint originally centred on the company's use of temporary workers and uneven enforcement of its safety rules.
But the key question remains: Is UPS insisting on shorter hems for safety or is it violating religious rights by denying the women permanent jobs unless they conform?
So far, no Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque representative has attended the sessions, but the women cited the mosque as their place of worship and religious authority, and tabled a letter from its administration. "This is to certify that the religion of Islam requires all Muslim women to cover her entire body inclusive of the legs, arms, head, ears and neck," the letter reads. "As such, (the women) would not be able to wear pants as an outfit."
On the other hand, the mosque's website teachings forbid women to work outside the home in the first place. "It is known that when women go to work in the workplaces of men, this leads to mixing with men," one such posting says.
"This is a very dangerous matter," it reads. "It is in clear opposition to the texts of the Shariah that order the women to remain in their houses and to fulfill the type of work that is particular for her ...
"We ask Allah to protect our land and the lands of all Muslims from the plots and machinations of their enemies."...
Questions to the mosque about its teachings were met with evasiveness over three weeks.
Mosque chairman Osman Mohamed three times agreed to an interview and three times cancelled at last minute. Imam Shiil was said to be in Saudi Arabia and unreachable. Mosque administrator Abukar Mohamed confused matters further by appearing to agree with UPS, saying: "The Quran says women must be covered – it doesn't give you the specific clothes. But I am not a religious authority."
They might consider themselves to be the best of peoples but they can be a thick as two short planks.
Here is a story from India where a Indian Lawyer Hindu has his book banned by Muslims. The book is about the atrocities committed by Mohammedans against Hindus. Silence all critics of Islam but let Mohammedans mouth off against non Muslims and demand their way of life onto non Muslims.
A Hindu lawyer needs help with his book that has been banned. Here is an article that I read at Islam watch.
http://www.islam-watch.org/Etc/India-Supreme-Court-Lawyer-Needs-Help-to-Lift-Ban-on-Book-on-Islam.htm
Those crazy Mohammedans want to silence everyone who writes about the atrocities committed to humanity by these barbarians of Islam.
To use an old military phrase, the Canadian Mosque is SOP (old military acronym for using Standard Operating Procedure).
"It is known that when women go to work in the workplaces of men, this leads to mixing with men," one such posting says.
WARNING: Could lead to dancing!
Among the workplace regulations that, at least in American constitutional law, have been deferred to when they appear to clash with the "free exercise of religion" by impinging, here and there, on it, safety regulations are perhaps those most likely to be deferred to.
And the claim itself is a phony one, for not only does the administrator of the mosque Abukar Mohamed admit that "The Quran says women must be covered – it doesn't give you the specific clothes" but many Muslim women, around the world, do not wear such dress. Is it the position of those who have pushed these women, mere pawns (just like those two girls who were used by organized Muslims in France to bring suit against the rules of the French state, demanding to be allowed to wear the hijab in school (they lost), that if a woman does not wear such clothing that woman is not behaving islamically and so must be punished by the male enforcers in their families or societies? It will be fascinating to see the cross-questioning going on.
We all by now know what this is about. It is not an isolated lawsuit. It is one brought as part of a continuing, widespread, ever-expanding campaign, observable in every country of the Western world, where Muslims are testing every point of resistance, and exploiting every conceivable freedom available in the advanced West, freedoms that could never be achieved in any Muslim state or society, and while recognizing how useful these freedoms can be to them (at Memri there is a tape of Saudi exile Sa'd Al-Faqih notes in passing how he lives in Great Britain, routinely criticizes the country every which way, and yet no one has bothered him in the slighest; yet Sa'd Al-Faqih cannot connnect this freedom to a different view of the individual from that in Islam, where nothing may be said that can be characterized as a threat to Islam) do not care if what they are working for is a Canada, an England, a France, an America, that will not have those freedoms, for if the desired goal is ever reached, that of removing all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, that will be it: those very freedoms that flatly contradict the Shari'a will be gone.
There is no logic except the logic of conquest. That is what this lawsuit is about. Not human freedom, but the desire to use every possible weapon, including the weapon of the very rights that advanced states guarantee, in order to undo those states, their legal and political institutions, and individual rights, so that Islam, a goal that is not questioned, that is not examined, that is simply accepted in toto by those raised up to be unquestioning "slaves of Allah" -- and the more unquestioning they are, the more they slavishly adhere to the rules of the codification of the Holy Law of Islam, the Sharia, completed long ago by Muslim scholars, out of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the more indifferent they will be to examining what will be the end result. The failures of the societies these people have left for the advanced West are never examined by them -- they do not ask why those Muslim societies are almost entirely run by despots, assorted lords of misrule, in which, despite the occasional phony election, people are not citizens but subjects, or in some cases courtiers of the rulers, where despite, in some cases, fantastic revenues pour in without anyone lifting a finger, inshallah-fatalism has prevented modern economies from developing, where where intellectual decay, the result of inculcated indifference, or even contempt, for any ideas, any cultural development or mental artifacts, all this and so much more can be directly linked to Islam itself.
Do the Somali women, these useful pawns in this war to expand the power of Islam, and to force Infidels everywhere, little by little by little, to succumb to a stealth jihad, have any idea of how they are being used? Possibly. But why should they care? They are Muslimahs. Theirs not to reason why. They are slaves to the slaves of Allah. They do what they are told. And they are told not to think. Allah Knows Best.
I do not think an average North American cares what these mosques are doing. How do we "educate" masses on this evil cult called islam and a psycho called muhammed ?
... warning members against social integration.
As per Qur'an 3:28, 5:51, 60:1, et al.
Whenever I discern the shape of the female calf, I touch myself. I can't control it.
"Under their skirt, the women wear full-length trousers but say they do not want the lower part showing in case the shape of the calf can be discerned."
Newsflash - no one gives a hang about your stupid calf, Fatima. Oh, your hair, either. Who the hell do you think you are? Go back to your Islamic Crapistan and take your calves and hair with you. Good Riddance.
"It is known that when women go to work in the workplaces of men, this leads to mixing with men," one such posting says.
.
Really? How about they just pack up and leave for Saudi Arabia, or Somalia (Saudi Arabia without oil), where the lack of gender segregation will no longer be a concern for them?
You don't want those golden calves to show, lest some man, especially one of those "unclean" non-Muslim men, starts to worship them, and then makes his way slyly upward? Well then, just buy some nice thick socks. L. L. Bean has good wool ones, for those Canadian winters. So do a thousand other retailers. In the summer, replace them with thick cotton socks. That should take care of the problem.
No need to worry about worship of those golden calves.
Problem solved.
The mosque, founded in 1990 and serving upwards of 10,000 people, preaches strict adherence to sharia, or Islamic law, and no compromise with the West.
Then what are they doing here?
Teachings on the mosque's website, khalidmosque.com, refer to non-Muslim Westerners as "wicked," "corrupt" and "our clear enemies."
So why are they here?
"What is the ruling on subscribing to sports channels?" another question begins. "Watching some of the female spectators, when the camera focuses on them time after time" stirs "evil inclinations," the lesson reads. "Some (players) may not even believe in Allaah."
Then don't watch. What do we care? The SIGHT of someone who isn't a Muslim offends you? Then go somewhere where you only have to look at a Muslim. Watch al-Jazeera. What do we care?
NEVER set foot on a university campus. What do the men do on the campus? There are women who don't believe in Allah all over the place. At certain times of the year they can be seen in shorts!
What do they do in a hospital? Don't they realize that people who don't believe in Allah might actually operate on them?
Under their skirt, the women wear full-length trousers but say they do not want the lower part showing in case the shape of the calf can be discerned.
Sounds like Muslims are the ones with the phobia. They think everyone is watching them. If they don't want us seeing any part of their body then let them stay indoors. Never leave your house. What do we care?
If these women are given special rules then is UPS absolved of all responsibility for injuries that occur to them as a result of their wearing inappropriate clothing in the workplace?
"This is to certify that the religion of Islam requires all Muslim women to cover her entire body inclusive of the legs, arms, head, ears and neck," the letter reads. "As such, (the women) would not be able to wear pants as an outfit."
So how do Muslims define "cover"? Isn't the face part of the head? Any part of the face that is visible is not "covered".
Niqab - BAD! - The eyes can be seen.
Hijab - BAD! - The eyes, forehead, cheeks, nose and mouth can be seen.
Burkha - GOOD! - So long as it has one of those covers that lets you look out but no one else look in. Who knew the Taliban was the most conforming of the Muslim groups?
I type very fast, and unlike Lot, almost never look back. Am I glad there was not a particular piquant typo, waiting to happen, in my last post. That'll teach me to watch my language.
Can anyone tell me where it says women must cover their neck?
The koran mentions covering the 'bosom" and Mohammad draws his hands over the face saying that can be shown. Where does he say cover the neck?
Even the Taliban let women wear heels. Seriously. It's like a uniform. All the Afghan women have heels on under those burqas. Muslims are so inconsistent. The Koran says that women are to guard their pudenda and pull their scarves over their bosoms, so technically they can go out in a thong and a scarf over their chest. No mention of pants, and no, if Muslim women can't adhere to company dress codes, they certainly shouldn't work outside the home. That's not Islamic law. That's common sense and labor law.
It's true that Muslim women are so egotistical that they think people stare at them. If people do it's because we're wondering why they think they're so irresistible that men can't handle the sight of them. They're by and large pretty jacked-up looking and the ones who aren't end up very prematurely aged from having too many kids starting way too young. I personally don't look at Muslim women (I'm a straight female anyway) but that's beacuse they consider themselves sub-human if they wear a headscarf and stuff. Yesterday I was walking into a building and a Muslim girl in a headscarf was 4 feet behind me. I would have hung around that extra second and held the door open for anyone but a Muslim chick wearing a headscarf. It was too early for me be that creeped-out, plus I wouldn't hold the door open for an animal and she doesn't consider herself human so neither do I.
Hugh,
You entertain questions about people who come to the west, imply they were fleeing the governments that resulted from Islam, and in fact they simply left the symptoms of Colonialism.
That is what happens when a strong central government is overthrown by force and then the country divided up and set against one another…one petty fiefdom with it’s chief thug set up that way by design...divide and conquer the British way.
You pretend this mess is the result of Islam, when in fact it is only the result of Colonialism.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
Jdamn,
You’ve missed the legislation of Hijab by so much it isn’t even funny.
Think of a nun before you spew vitriol…their rules of modesty are almost identical.
The legislation is such that it says a Muslim woman must cover her awrah, which extends to her wrists and ankles leaving feet and hands exposed as well as her face…all else is to be covered as such that it does not show the shape of her body, and further, not such that she is dressing to allure other people with her beauty…even to the point where hidden bangles that are noisy shouldn’t be worn due to some women who used to show off by tapping their feet and making them jingle…in other words, don’t intend to allure others with what you wear.
Your condescension to persons who show modesty is only an expression of your own worth as a human being.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
You Mohammedan males are perverted as all-get-out. Like you, Ab-Dullard. Pervert.
A nun is specifically the bride of Christ.
However, EVERY Mohammedan female, EVERY, is required to cover-up. Are they all the brides of your pagan mass-murderer moon deity, al-ilah?
You're a condescending, worthless, Creep Bastard. Fuck off.
Worthless, condescending Creep Bastard, Ab-Dullard. You cover yourself, pervert. NO ONE wants to insult their eyes by seeing YOU. Disgusting. Revolting pervert Mohammedan convert, Ab-Dullard, the convert Barbarian.
And just think, people, despite the forcefully-imposed efforts by Misogynist Mohammedan males to cover themselves, Mohammedan females get raped and incested just the same.
Mohammedan females get raped and incested and "honor-murdered" by Mohammedan males JUST THE SAME.
"Under their skirt, the women wear full-length trousers but say they do not want the lower part showing in case the shape of the calf can be discerned."
Newsflash - no one gives a hang about your stupid calf, Fatima. Oh, your hair, either. Who the hell do you think you are? Go back to your Islamic Crapistan and take your calves and hair with you. Good Riddance.
Posted by: darcy at November 12, 2008 10:09 AM
As I commented earlier.
In addition, Ab-dullard hasn't got the cojones to go live in a Barbaric Islamic Crapistan. He likes it all nice and safe in the USA, eh, Ab-Dullard? You craven hypocrite.
Abdullah Mikhail:
How dare you compare Muslim women to Christian nuns? You have gone too far. My blood is close to boiling.
Mikail,
That's nonsense. Somalia has been Muslim for over a millenium, while British and Italian rule lasted the span of a single human lifetime. The collapse of Mohamad Siad-Barre's regime, the disastrous Ogaden War, and Somalia's status as a client-state of fickle, duplicitous Moscow--not to mention the inherent flaws of Somali Muslim society, its Inshallah-fatalism and dependence on khat--are the root causes of Somalia's failings as a nation. Knock off that grievance-mongering appeal to White Guilt, Bucko!
You can thank the Brits for whatever semblance of central authority and national cohesion you find over there today. Just ask the Puntlanders.
The Mohammedans rape all kinds of women from nuns in a church to young girls going to school and even girls as young as 6 years playing with a doll. That is what their leader Mohammad did he lusted after a girl who was six years old and he was at a old age of 50. That must have been frightening for that young girl.
Or Somalilanders, or whatever Northern Somalis (living in what was formerly British Somaliland) call themselves.
Postscript: Make that "calculating, duplicitous Moscow--"
Perfidious Moscow--
Abdullah Mikhail:
How dare you compare Muslim women to Christian nuns? You have gone too far. My blood is close to boiling.
Posted by: PG at November 12, 2008 7:48 PM
Yes. That's why I posted my comments above.
And because of the insult he levied against jdamn, who has posted many times that she is being stalked and harassed by a Mohammedan male at her school.
A big reason inferiority-complex Ab-Dullard converted is so he can lord himself over enormously oppressed Mohammedan females. Makes him feel powerful, eh, slave-to-a-moon-god?
JohnC -
one could cite also the example of the Barbary States, the Mamluks, and the ghastly chaos and oppression that, when one once begins to look closely at this or that district, prevailed right across the domains of the Ottoman Empire.
C S Forester's observations, at the beginning of 'The Barbary Pirates' provides as good a picture as any.
He says of the 'Barbary States' that they were "parts of the vast Mohammedan Empire which at one time had threatened to conquer the whole world. Later, this empire fell to pieces of its own weight, largely because it had never been able to build any system of government except a simple tyranny.
"The Arab Mohammedan conquest of N Africa had not been very successful. Local generals, and governors, and religious leaders managed to set themselves up as independent. At the same time they posed as dutiful subjects of the central government at Constantinople.
'But their rulers did not have an easy life, even if they lived in the midst of great wealth and enjoyed unlimited power.
"the dey or bey, Pasha or Emperor, whatever the local ruler called himself, lived only as long as he could remain more powerful than his rivals or enemies. The moment his grasp weakened he could expect to be strangled and to be succeeded by someone else eager to take his place...".
C S Forester doesn't add that this is also a fairly accurate description of the predicament of every Caliph, ever since the foundation of Islam; and has been reproduced in the situation of every lesser ruler throughout the Islamosphere, be he local warlord, emir, sheikh, clan boss, Mogul emperor, or modern 'president' (e.g. Sadat...assassinated in the time-honoured Muslim manner).
Here is James Parkes, describing the normal succession procedures of the Mamluk dynasty:
"they came to the throne by intrigue and assassination and by intrigue and assassination they perished".
The results, among those they ruled, or more correctly, misruled and mercilessly exploited? - Parkes observes that "it has been calculated that the population of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, when the Osmanlis finally replaced them [the Mamluks] in 1517, may have been reduced to 1/3 of what it was when their rule began in 1250". (From 'Whose Land?', 1970, p. 101).
Islam tends inexorably toward a condition of total social, political, ecological and economic collapse.
I can compare the process only to that downward spiral of spiritual and social disintegration which Dante anatomises in the 'Inferno'.
Of course. Thanks, dda.
Hugh,
You're right: You type too fast. Lot didn't look back. Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt.
"You entertain questions about people who come to the west, imply they were fleeing the governments that resulted from Islam, and in fact they simply left the symptoms of Colonialism."
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail
Go back and study history ...during those brief periods of history you candidly refer to as "Colonialism" when Europeans were in Muslim lands, the Muslims experienced their highest levels of growth and prosperity..it was only after the Europeanians were booted out by the radical and violent Muslims that the quality of Muslim life declined at a very fast rate...The Muslim mullahs, sheiks, ayatollahs and other clerics have invested their entire lives to ensure the quality of the lives of other Muslims decline back into the 7th century...and they have almost achieved that goal to their delight...
Precisely, pulsar182. The Islamic paradigm of government is parasitical depredation fueled by expansionist aggression and subjugation of non-Muslims. The Islamic societal model is an absurdity in theory and a failure in practice, exactly to the degree that it is rigidly orthodox.
Face it, Islamist fantasists, the realization of your Islamic design for humanity spells degradation and regression. Allah be praised!
Let's say it again: Western science, industry, law, government, and--yes--religion foster genuine freedom and development; your all-encompassing, all-embracing Islam produces nothing of the kind, apart from confiscating and appropriating the fruits of other's labor.
The Horn of Africa suffers fron drought, famine, overgrazing, poverty, and war; and Islam's response is characterized by piracy, wider war, and killing or abducting relief workers and nuns as they work (selflessly and heroically) to bring hope and succor to afflicted Muslims. So, then: whose ideas of God, of His creation, of social good, and patterns of life hold true?
Spot on, pulsar--Islam, as we see it, is cleric-ridden and regressive.
Abdullah, like a typical Muslim, blames colonialism for all the problems muslims create. It is ALWAYS others' fault; muslims are faultless. No one buys this logic, Abdullah. We infidels don't give a hoot about what Islam prescribes as dress for women. If these women went to Canada, while fleeing relentless wars in their "holy" Islamic lands, they ought to abide by Canadian standards of workplace safety, not by some stupid Islamic edict. Otherwise, they are free to go back to their Islamic havens and leave the infidels alone. I am sure, Canadians will not miss them or their heels.
BTW, Abdullah, why don't muslim men cover themselves? After all, women can get excited by the sight of exposed mens' parts and that is haraam according to your desert cult.
Why doesn't someone sue that Canadian mosque under the hate speech laws? Don't they have such things in Canada, or are they applied only to Christians who don't like homosexuality?
"You pretend this mess is the result of Islam, when in fact it is only the result of Colonialism.
Truth Abdullah Mikail"
Sure Mikail. The Sauds, the Kuwaiti's, the Lebanese, (Before jihadists ruined it and Sryia FUBAR'd it even more) These places mostly work. (OR worked in the case of Lebanon.) I'm old enough to remember Lebanon being the Paris of the middle east. Wasn't colonialism that screwed it up...Jihadists.
Yeah the powers that be divided up the area. Waaaay back when. Get over it. If you hate Israel for being made like that, you also have to hate 9/10ths of the other countries started in the same way! (Unless you are a racist,foolish or both anyway...)
From shooting babes in father's arms,(Shalhevet Pass) to ambushing a car full of women.(Pregnant mother and her 3 daughters) From defacing archealogical treasures like the stone buddha's, to stoning a 13 year old girl for accusing her rapists. From the plot to kill the Pope, the Dali Lamma, for murdering Ghandi and all the shootings, bombings, 'honor' killings and Taqiya...the world would (IMHOO) be a FAR better place were all Jihadists in one part of the world and shut in there, so they could indulge their wildest whims, but only on each other, with no one else to complain, whine or blame.