Philadelphia: The kidnapper wore a niqab

We have seen crimes committed by men wearing Muslim women’s clothes and covering their faces, and jihadis who eluded capture in the same way. Now we see a niqab-wearing woman kidnapping a child. Schools procedures requiring that she identify herself were not followed. Why not? Could it have been because school officials feared that the Muslima would run to Hamas-linked CAIR with charges of “Islamophobia”?

“Kidnapping at School: What Went Wrong?,” by Claudia Gomez for MyFoxPhilly, January 15 (thanks to all who sent this in):

West Philadelphia – Many parents at Bryant Elementary School in West Philadelphia are unnerved by the kidnapping that happened inside the school Monday.

They’re unhappy with both the school and the district, for good reason. District officials say they have good security policies in place, but none of them were followed. And that allowed the kidnapper to have free rein.

Bryant Elementary School isn’t exactly in the safest neighborhood, So you might think security would be extra tight. But when the victim’s mom talked to school officials Monday afternoon, “They didn’t know nothing,” Latifah Rashid insisted. “It’s going on 3:30 and they didn’t know where my kid is.”

The kidnapper had talked her way past a hall monitor and took the girl from her class, violating every security procedure the district had put in place. A district official says a visitor is supposed to sign in at the front desk and show photo ID. If they’re picking up a child, their name must be on a list provided by a parent. Only then will the child be escorted from his or her classroom. “A student should never be released to an adult from a classroom,” Philadelphia School District Spokesman Fernando Gallard told Fox 29. “The release should only occur at the main office.”

But that didn’t happen either. The victim’s substitute teacher allowed the kidnapper into the classroom. Taja Henson’s daughter saw it happen. “She said the teacher was nervous to let her kind of leave out the classroom, but when I asked, did he call somebody to ask was it okay for her to leave, she said no,” Henson said.

“They didn’t check ID, they didn’t call me,” Latifah Rashid, the victim’s mother, added. “The substitute teachers says that he asked the mom if she wanted to sign (the victim) out. The woman said, oh I already signed her out at the office.”…

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Around here if an adult want’s to take a child out of school, you have to endure something like a TSA airport examination…They don’t demand you drop em and bend over, but it’s almost like that…So far, they have made no mistakes…

  2. says

    Was that niqab registered? Can an executive order banning all niqabs be far behind? After all if “only one child would be saved” from a kidnapping, shouldn’t Obama take action?

  3. says

    Another article shows a picture of the girl’s aunt, also covered in black. It makes one wonder whether there have been ID problems before this, problems best avoided again?

  4. says

    At Pearson International Airport in Toronto people wearing Omar’s black tents walk through security being herded by a pissed-off looking Muslim barrow. No one says anything.

    One day that will result in the same kind of disaster that befell this little girl and her family.

    But, at least we didn’t upset any barbarians.

  5. says

    I wonder if her husband Red Beard the Pirate is going to “Chastise” her for not guarding the secret for G_d’s guarding. In other words beatin’ her senseless for letting her face hang out.

  6. says

    The Trash Bag Mafia strikes again. Taking out the trash(returning breeding stock to Dar-al-Islam) was temporarily foiled by heartless infidel meddlers disrespecting the One True Faith.

  7. says

    The Trash Bag Mafia strikes again. Taking out the trash(returning breeding stock to Dar-al-Islam) was temporarily foiled by heartless infidel meddlers disrespecting the One True Faith.

  8. says

    one of the purposes of distinctive Muslim garb is to instill fear into the hearts of Infidels…the school official did not question the abductor for fear of offending a Muslim…just the way Islam intended it to be…

  9. says

    Judging by the Islamic names of the girl’s mother and aunt – the aunt was named ‘Shahadah Rashid’ and was wearing a niqab, that is, a Slave Mask – this looks like the fallout from some intra-ummah feud.

    Nevertheless, it is a sharp reminder of the fact that the Slave Mask permits people to evade identification by, for example, CCTV, when engaged in criminal activity. (It is also, of course, if imposed against a victim’s will, a good way of concealing a *non-Muslim* kidnap victim or hostage; if the Authorities are not prepared to check under *every* Slave Mask that enters or leaves the country, how can they know whether a/ it *is* a woman under there and/ or b/ whether the ID documents proffered – a passport, or a driver’s licence – actually match the person hiding or hidden behind the mask?

    One should note that the really, really fanatical Muslimahs often wear..**gloves** as well. Which means that someone in *that* costume will also avoid leaving any pesky fingerprints in their wake…

    (Besides of course the fact that a man’s hands are hard to pass off as a woman’s hands; so if the Muslimahs in a particular part of the Ummah usually wear black gloves, and the infidels get used to seeing them do it, a Muslim male who wishes for whatever reason to ‘pass’ as a female, will then be able to conceal the hairy backs of his hands, by wearing gloves).

    In any official-type situation (a transaction in a bank or a large transaction in a shop, or something like this case – an adult ‘collecting a child’ from school):

    Make them take the mask off.

    Make them take the gloves off.

    Demand a visual and a signature…made whilst holding the pen in an *ungloved* hand.

    If they refuse, or kick up a stink, they’re Up To No Good.

    (Frankly, any Mohammedan female in the Slave Sack with her face hidden – whether by niqab/ yashmak, or by the burqa – should not be admitted into a large department store or a shopping centre, without being first intercepted and frisked and made to reveal her face so the CCTV can get a nice long look at her).

    Right now, our Authorities all over the Lands of the Infidels are not anywhere near the point of slapping a ban on Muslim immigration.

    But in the meantime, until we reach that point, there are still lesser measures that can be taken, to reduce the threat to the general Infidel public somewhat.

    Given that some nations such as France have already, for very good and sufficient security and public safety reasons of all kinds, at least got a burqa ban *on paper*, even if they’re not consistently enforcing it, an excellent case can be made for all non-Muslim citizens in countries like Australia and the USA and Canada and the UK to demand a **burqa / niqab ban**: that is, a ban on the wearing in public (and that includes, in malls/ shopping centres, on school and university campuses, in lecture halls and examination rooms, in the street and in the square and in the park and in the public toilets, and on buses, trains, and planes, and when driving a car – of any form of the Mohammedan female slave rag that involves concealment of the face.

    This is about public health and safety.

    There is, of course, a further angle.

    *Every* form of the Mohammedan Female Slave Rag, even the most faux-innocent wisp of headscarf, is the functional equivalent of the Black Flag of Jihad. It’s like the Hell’s Angel jacket and patch, or the KKK hood and robe, or the Nazi swastika armband of Gestapo/ SS death’s head badge. It signifies the Sharia order that Muslims intend to impose world-wide; it is a badge of allegiance to the sharia; it declares the intention of the Ummah to demand that all humans everywhere shall submit to the sharia, that is, to Muslim male despotism.

    It is, as some here have pointed out, “the rape-someone-else rag”; the article of clothing that not only identifies the wearer as a Mohammedan Gang Moll, but also identifies all females in the neighbourhood who are *not* wearing it, as Dirty Kuffar Sluts, Un-Owned Females, Rape Fodder for any Mohammedan Male who feels like exercising what he regards as his allah-awarded right to the persons and property of all kuffar.

    There is a lucid exposition of just this point, in a classic article by N Maruani, from 2009, discussing and summarising the work of a Persian writer – either ex-Muslim, or MINO – one Chahdortt Djavann, which helped lay the groundwork for the French burqa ban.

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=148041

    Outlaw the hijab
    N. Maruani
    07/08/2009 20:54

    …’She [Djavann] writes that the veil cannot be presented as a personal choice, disregarding centuries of Islamic history…

    ‘Djavann explains further: “The veil has never been innocent or innocuous.

    “**It has always signified the submission of women to men and the denial of legal rights to women in Islamic countries.”** {my emphasis – dda}…

    ‘ADDRESSING THE growing phenomenon of veiled women in Europe, Djavann points out its centrality to Islamist propaganda:

    “The political, ideological and psychological impact of the veil goes far beyond its appearance… If this weren’t the case, why would the Islamists make it their main focus?…

    “**It constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law.”** {my emphasis – dda}.

    ‘…Djavann stresses that Islam can exist without the veil, but the Islamist system cannot, because “the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system.”

    {Let’s cut to the chase and, for ‘the Islamist system’ and ‘the Islamic system’, read ‘Sharia’ – dda}.

    Djavann, to go by Maruani’s summary and citation of her writing, is not as forthright as she could be; nevertheless, she still makes some useful points. And the observation that the hijab, or Slave Rag, on a Muslim female ‘constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law’, is spot-on. ‘Islamic law’ – that is, the sharia.

    And as Nonie Darwish, ex-Muslim, has pointed out, in the end, Islam is sharia and sharia is Islam; that is the point that Djavann either evades or obscures, or has not yet grasped.

    Here are the ‘money quotes’ from Djavann’s work, that are worth learning by heart, as regards the Slave Rag, the Islamic ‘veil’, hijab:

    “It [and she doesn’t just mean burqa or niqab, she means every form of the Islamic veil, including the headscarf – dda] has always signified the submission of women to men and the denial of legal rights to women in Islamic countries”.

    “It [the Islamic female slave rag – dda] constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law.

    “the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system.”

  10. says

    Now to see if I get a ‘hung posting’ with *this* attempt.

    (Apologies in advance if this creates a double posting).

    Judging by the Islamic names of the girl’s mother and aunt – the aunt was named ‘Shahadah Rashid’ and was wearing a niqab, that is, a Slave Mask – this looks like the fallout from some intra-ummah feud.

    Nevertheless, it is a sharp reminder of the fact that the Slave Mask permits people to evade identification by, for example, CCTV, when engaged in criminal activity. (It is also, of course, if imposed against a victim’s will, a good way of concealing a *non-Muslim* kidnap victim or hostage; if the Authorities are not prepared to check under *every* Slave Mask that enters or leaves the country, how can they know whether a/ it *is* a woman under there and/ or b/ whether the ID documents proffered – a passport, or a driver’s licence – actually match the person hiding or hidden behind the mask?

    One should note that the really, really fanatical Muslimahs often wear..**gloves** as well. Which means that someone in *that* costume will also avoid leaving any pesky fingerprints in their wake…

    (Besides of course the fact that a man’s hands are hard to pass off as a woman’s hands; so if the Muslimahs in a particular part of the Ummah usually wear black gloves, and the infidels get used to seeing them do it, a Muslim male who wishes for whatever reason to ‘pass’ as a female, will then be able to conceal the hairy backs of his hands, by wearing gloves).

    In any official-type situation (a transaction in a bank or a large transaction in a shop, or something like this case – an adult ‘collecting a child’ from school):

    Make them take the mask off.

    Make them take the gloves off.

    Demand a visual and a signature…made whilst holding the pen in an *ungloved* hand.

    If they refuse, or kick up a stink, they’re Up To No Good.

    (Frankly, any Mohammedan female in the Slave Sack with her face hidden – whether by niqab/ yashmak, or by the burqa – should not be admitted into a large department store or a shopping centre, without being first intercepted and frisked and made to reveal her face so the CCTV can get a nice long look at her).

    Right now, our Authorities all over the Lands of the Infidels are not anywhere near the point of slapping a ban on Muslim immigration.

    But in the meantime, until we reach that point, there are still lesser measures that can be taken, to reduce the threat to the general Infidel public somewhat.

    Given that some nations such as France have already, for very good and sufficient security and public safety reasons of all kinds, at least got a burqa ban *on paper*, even if they’re not consistently enforcing it, an excellent case can be made for all non-Muslim citizens in countries like Australia and the USA and Canada and the UK to demand a **burqa / niqab ban**: that is, a ban on the wearing in public (and that includes, in malls/ shopping centres, on school and university campuses, in lecture halls and examination rooms, in the street and in the square and in the park and in the public toilets, and on buses, trains, and planes, and when driving a car – of any form of the Mohammedan female slave rag that involves concealment of the face.

    This is about public health and safety.

    There is, of course, a further angle.

    *Every* form of the Mohammedan Female Slave Rag, even the most faux-innocent wisp of headscarf, is the functional equivalent of the Black Flag of Jihad. It’s like the Hell’s Angel jacket and patch, or the KKK hood and robe, or the Nazi swastika armband of Gestapo/ SS death’s head badge. It signifies the Sharia order that Muslims intend to impose world-wide; it is a badge of allegiance to the sharia; it declares the intention of the Ummah to demand that all humans everywhere shall submit to the sharia, that is, to Muslim male despotism.

    It is, as some here have pointed out, “the rape-someone-else rag”; the article of clothing that not only identifies the wearer as a Mohammedan Gang Moll, but also identifies all females in the neighbourhood who are *not* wearing it, as Dirty Kuffar Sluts, Un-Owned Females, Rape Fodder for any Mohammedan Male who feels like exercising what he regards as his allah-awarded right to the persons and property of all kuffar.

    There is a lucid exposition of just this point, in a classic article by N Maruani, from 2009, discussing and summarising the work of a Persian writer – either ex-Muslim, or MINO – one Chahdortt Djavann, which helped lay the groundwork for the French burqa ban.

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=148041

    Outlaw the hijab
    N. Maruani
    07/08/2009 20:54

    …’She [Djavann] writes that the veil cannot be presented as a personal choice, disregarding centuries of Islamic history…

    ‘Djavann explains further: “The veil has never been innocent or innocuous.

    “**It has always signified the submission of women to men and the denial of legal rights to women in Islamic countries.”** {my emphasis – dda}…

    ‘ADDRESSING THE growing phenomenon of veiled women in Europe, Djavann points out its centrality to Islamist propaganda:

    “The political, ideological and psychological impact of the veil goes far beyond its appearance… If this weren’t the case, why would the Islamists make it their main focus?…

    “**It constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law.”** {my emphasis – dda}.

    ‘…Djavann stresses that Islam can exist without the veil, but the Islamist system cannot, because “the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system.”

    {Let’s cut to the chase and, for ‘the Islamist system’ and ‘the Islamic system’, read ‘Sharia’ – dda}.

    Djavann, to go by Maruani’s summary and citation of her writing, is not as forthright as she could be; nevertheless, she still makes some useful points. And the observation that the hijab, or Slave Rag, on a Muslim female ‘constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law’, is spot-on. ‘Islamic law’ – that is, the sharia.

    And as Nonie Darwish, ex-Muslim, has pointed out, in the end, Islam is sharia and sharia is Islam; that is the point that Djavann either evades or obscures, or has not yet grasped.

    Here are the ‘money quotes’ from Djavann’s work, that are worth learning by heart, as regards the Slave Rag, the Islamic ‘veil’, hijab:

    “It [and she doesn’t just mean burqa or niqab, she means every form of the Islamic veil, including the headscarf – dda] has always signified the submission of women to men and the denial of legal rights to women in Islamic countries”.

    “It [the Islamic female slave rag – dda] constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law.

    “the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system.”

    As I said: if this is a double posting, sorry.

    The cyber attack on jihadwatch is clearly continuing at some level, or at least, for me, right now, late morning on January 17 Aussie time, the jihadwatch comments is simply ..cray-cray.