| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Dear Mr. Khan:
It has come to my attention (via the BBC, with thanks to Interested) that you had to fork over eighty dollars for a fingerprint check when applying for a U.S. visa, since you share the name of some jihad terrorists.
I wish to apologize to you on behalf of the American government and people for the humiliation and outrage to which you were subjected. Please send me your address and I will personally send you the eighty bucks. I can be reached at director@jihadwatch.org. Imagine! Rogue American visa officials trying to keep jihad terrorists out of the country -- and in the process actually daring to inconvenience you! Imagine -- putting national security above your feelings! It's insensitive! It's an insult!
In fact, I plan, after sending you the eighty dollars, to advocate the adoption of a policy by U.S. officials requiring that anyone named Muhammad who applies for a visa be immediately admitted into the country, with no restrictions and no questions asked.
No, don't thank me. It's the least I can do to try to make up for the grave insult to which you were subjected.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
P.S. Here is a bit of that BBC report, "Muslim 'must pay for visa checks'":
A Muslim student had to pay extra for security checks when applying for a visa to visit the United States, because his name was Mohammed.Mohammed Umar Haleem Khan, 22, was told by US Embassy officials that "a lot of bad people" shared his name.
The Manchester Metropolitan University student had to pay an extra $80 (£45) to have his fingerprints checked against a US terror suspect database....
He said: "She asked me all the usual questions like what was my purpose for visiting and what was the nature of my job and then she said there was a problem with my name.
"She said there were a lot of bad people in the world with that name, meaning terrorists.
"Then she told me I would have to have some additional security checks, which meant all my fingers were fingerprinted and she told me these would be compared to a database in Washington. I had to pay an extra 80 dollars.
"I was totally speechless. I didn't know what to say to her.
"Now I am worried I may not get a visa and travel to the States because of my name.
"I'm sure that if some white candidate came along there would have been no problem."
Mr Khan added that he had never visited Afghanistan or any other trouble hotspots and could think of no reason why his name would cause a problem.
A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain Inayat Bunglawala said: "This is a worrying incident and seems to fit a recent pattern whereby the USA appears to be treating all Muslims as potential terrorists just because of their religion.
"Although Muslim parents name their children from a wide variety of names - just like other parents - many of them, especially those from the Indian subcontinent, will often give their male children the name of Muhammad as a kind of respectful prefix in honour of the Prophet, even though the actual name by which these children are known will be something else.
"US Embassy officials ought really to have had the training to cope with basic elements of Muslim culture which would help prevent these kinds of unfortunate situations."
Posted by Robert at April 25, 2006 8:41 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"In fact, I plan, after sending you the eighty dollars, to advocate the adoption of a policy by U.S. officials requiring that anyone named Muhammad who applies for a visa be immediately admitted into the country, with no restrictions and no questions asked."
Careful Mr. Spencer! George might just think you have a great idea and actually implement it -- especially if this student is willing to work for less than the minimum wage!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 25, 2006 8:56 AM
I'll throw in an extra 5 dollars for a nice hot cup of shut the hell up and stop whining about our laws
we are expected to follow other couintries laws without question when visiting ,but come here and have to subject yourself to the US laws oh that's gonna lead to speaking to the media about how unfair they are.
Cry me a river Mr.Khan if you dont like it stay out.
at April 25, 2006 9:01 AM
Quote - "US Embassy officials ought really to have had the training to cope with basic elements of Muslim culture which would help prevent these kinds of unfortunate situations." Unquote
They do have the training. You have a name like muhammad, you're muslim, etc -- the Embassy people are going to check you out. Simple to understand.
Posted by: CelticCoyote at April 25, 2006 9:05 AM
I have *NO* sympathy for this guy whatsoever and I wouldn't offer him one red cent to alleviate his wounded self-esteem.
If he feels, bad, TOUGH. He has no inalienable right to enter the USA. If he wants to visit, he'll have to undergo our bureaucratic processes just like anybody else. And how do we know he isn't lying? The visa process is a pain to everybody.
Today I'll be filing a form for a client so he can close his business, and the state requires a fee of greater than one hundred dollars to simply *end* his business. I wonder if Mr. Khan will feel bad for the hit to this kufir's wallet.
Posted by: Darius LaMonica at April 25, 2006 9:07 AM
"treating all Muslims as potential terrorists just because of their religion".
Well, duh! Tell Mohammed when baptists, methodists, etc. begin blowing people up and flying airplanes into buildings, we will treat them as suspect also.
With Islam showing its true colors as it did in New York City, it probably would be best to quarantine them for 90 days to see if they show any terrorist tendencies, just like we do with rabies.
Posted by: cactus at April 25, 2006 9:08 AM
Perhaps one day the name "Mohammed" will be illegal, as the name "Adolf" is in Germany.
Posted by: Interested at April 25, 2006 9:14 AM
Profiling! It's profiling! It's not to be tolerated!
Does anyone else share my urge to scream?
Posted by: Abscedere at April 25, 2006 9:21 AM
Let us accept that this gentleman is a perfectly decent citizen who, as many Muslims I have known, hates violence and wants nothing more than to be allowed to work for a living and live in peace. Nevertheless, the tone of his complaint shows that at some level he is not willing to consider the reality of what the rest of the world is facing from his Ummah. If anyone took seriously his implicit demand that Islam alone should not be treated as a factor of increased risk, the amount of death and destruction by Muslim terrorists would indubitably increase; and that alone makes him, consciously or not, complicit with those very terrorists he claims to reject.
Posted by: Paolo at April 25, 2006 9:24 AM
Hey Umar is right, how many white guys do you know named Mohammed?
Posted by: JanuaryMan at April 25, 2006 9:32 AM
RS, how about sending me some of that cash? I just paid about as much to get my passport renewed, and I didn't even get the complimentary fingerprint check! What a rip-off!
Posted by: longtime lurker at April 25, 2006 9:33 AM
"whereby the USA appears to be treating all Muslims as potential terrorists just because of their religion."
-- from the article above
One-Week Course for all INS agents:
Day One:
Sura 9.29. Read it. Now read all of Sura 9. Now re-read all of Sura 9. Let's discuss. What is an "Unbeliever." What are "People of the Book"? What is the difference in the treatment of Hindus under Muslim rule and of Chrstians and Jews. What is a "dhimmi"? Name six disablities to which dhimmis were subject under Muslim rule? Describe any changes over time in the Qur'an, and the Hadith, that would lead one to believe that Islam now offers a different view of the non-Muslim than the one that has been filling Muslim minds for the past 1350 years. Remember that Sura 9 has not been abrogated in whole or in part. It is the immutable word of God. Nothing aboutit can be questioned. How would you attempt to get around what it says?
Day Two:
You will spend today, and tomorrow, reading the Qur'an. Notes have been supplied for particular linguistic difficulties. You have at each desk a sheet which explains the doctrine of "naskh" or abrogation. Read all the Jihad verses assembled in the Calcutta Qur'an Petition.
Day Three:
Read Sura 2.256. Now read Sura 2.257. You have a handout that offers the Muslim view of the meaning of the phrase "There is no compulsion in religion." Read it carefully before class discussion.
Day Four:
The Hadith. Isnad. The problem of authenticity. Levels of authenticity. Bukhari. Muslim. The significance of the Sunnah to Muslims.
Day Five:
The life of Muhammad: Sirat al-Rasul. Ibn Ishaq. Other versions: Arthur Jeffery, Sir William Muir, Tor Andrae. The significance of Muhammad: 83% of the Qur'an and Hadith devoted to him; 17% to Allah. Muhammad as the Perfect Man: uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.
Banu Qurayza decapitations. Attack on the farmers of the Khaybar Oasis. Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf. Aisha. Why did the Ayatolah Khomeni, as virtually the first law of his regime, reduce the marriageable age of girls to Iran to nine years?
Day Six:
Muslim websitss. Ask Mr. Fatwa. Islamonline. What is a "fatwa"? What does the phrase "And Allah knows best" mean? What is Haram? What is Halal? Why does Islam "command" the doing of certain things and "forbid" the doing of certain other things? What kinds of things are regulated by Islam? Provide a list of what Islam "forbids" and "commands" in the following categories:
clothing, facial hair, personal hygiene, food, statuary, music, speech, Infidels, Muslim children of Infidel parents, discussion of Islam with non-Muslims, the duty to spread Islam, instruments of Jihad. Be specific as to whether or not the relevant authority is to be found in the Qur'an, or the Hadith, or in the model of the Perfect Man, Muhammad.
What other sources of authority does Islam possess? Briefly describe them.
Day Seven:
Fill in yourself.
Posted by: Hugh at April 25, 2006 9:38 AM
The student should blame some of his fellow Muslims for misunderhijackingabusivelyinvoking Islam.
The ludicrous Islamophobia Watch is on the case.
Apparently he was going to work for Camp America. (Julian Clary once tried to a job with them but he didn't go down too well.)
Posted by: Interested at April 25, 2006 9:49 AM
A Guy I knew, an Israeli, dark skinned, olive man of the middleast,
and a fine fellow, laughed after 9/11, with people complaining about 'profiling'.
He said...'Are they kidding?!?'
With my features, I should be inspected all over the place; all kinds of places I'd go.
He's smile, be gentlemanly, cooperative and completely unoffended if that happened to him. But he was a bit baffled, at the lackadaisacal attitude to self preservation that we in America insist upon.
Mark
Posted by: mgoldberg at April 25, 2006 9:52 AM
" the Indian subcontinent, will often give their male children the name of Muhammad as a kind of respectful prefix in honour of the Prophet,"
I wouldn't degrade my son with the name of a pedophile, hate-mongering, raping demon. But of course they love the demon.
It doesn't matter if he has to jump through hoops to make sure he's not a terrorist. It's for our own safety. Maybe these people should be put on a LONG waiting list to come for a visit.
Maybe we need to start a new rule....for every new muslim coming in, 10 have to go back from whence they came.
Posted by: freewoman at April 25, 2006 9:54 AM
The INS needs to add another zero to that figure, at least.
I pay more for my passport than $80, why should those trying to spread the Ummah pay less than ten times that amount for the honor of working to undermine, leech off, and ultimately supplant the unsuspecting infidel dogs?
Even if they are only long-term "sleeper" cell members who will be industrious as they wait for the inner or outer call to jihad, they can surely afford a mere $800 bucks?
Isn't the U.S. the hated international bully, real terrorist, imperialist warmonger and pariah state for all Muslims, (and most "intelligent, broad-minded Europeans") anyway?
The Great Satan?
What would any Muslim want to do in America?
But labor to abort it?
Let's have some trick questions added to the application-forms for all entrants.
Maybe an opening query like:
"What do you really think of America? (in 250 words or less) BE HONEST!"
The answers would at least provide comic relief reading for harried INS agents in foreign lands, if nothing else.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 25, 2006 9:56 AM
Robert,
My username starts with Mohd too. I could use the 80 dollars too.
I wonder if Mohammed was so disturbed he might think about a jihad on the US> After all, does he need more reason?
Posted by: Mohd Is Satan at April 25, 2006 9:59 AM
Don't like our rules? Stay out. Simple.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 25, 2006 10:04 AM
Hell, just keep his ass out of here on principle.
Doesn't the shill for the UN nuclear "watchdog"(what a crock) which is supposed to make the world safer (another crock) also have the name Mohammed ?
What an Orwellian universe.
Posted by: dgene at April 25, 2006 10:15 AM
Looking into this deper, I think it's a really goood thing for us. It is the start of somone getting enough khutspe (pronunced hootzpa) to begin profiling and sticking to their guns when questioned. Now if they would do this with EVERY middle eastern name that applies for a visa, we might make some progress here!
Posted by: Concerned USA citizen at April 25, 2006 11:18 AM
Finger printing and inconveniance are not "worrying incidences." How egocentric mr. bunglawala must be. Remember 911? London and Madrid bombings ring a bell?
Posted by: mustang65 at April 25, 2006 11:26 AM
I'm sure that if some white candidate came along there would have been no problem.Any white candidate with the name Mohammad would have the same "problem", and so would any red, yellow, purple, or green candidate named Mohammad. This is not about colour, it is about "bad" people and math. Statistically, people with the name Mohammad have a much higher probability of engaging in suicide bombing, kidnapping, decapitation, indiscriminant murder of civilians, car and truck bombing than people named George, Krishna, Kwaku, Wei Wen, and Hirotaro. When people with those names start doing the same they will also incur the additional cost of security. Posted by: Hulegu Khan
at April 25, 2006 11:55 AM
"Perhaps one day the name "Mohammed" will be illegal, as the name "Adolf" is in Germany."
interested:
you are spreading false information here. The name "Adolf" is not illegal in Germany. It may be considered indecent to be used, but the history of this name goes back centuries before Mr.Hitler was named with it and became world-famous.
at April 25, 2006 12:06 PM
No one is more concerned about security and immigration than me but the embassy employee's getting her knickers in a knot when someone's name contains Mohammed seems over the top to me. I suggest she should more concerned with the remainder of his name: Umar Haleem Khan.
I just checked the names of the 19 hijackers on September 11, only one had Mohammed in his name.
Posted by: johnb at April 25, 2006 12:09 PM
Cosmic Avenger - you're quite right. I was getting Adolf confused with Refrigerator which would be illegal, as would Grunkin-Paul. See here for further details.
Ivan isn't illegal in Russia, even though he was pretty terrible.
Posted by: Interested at April 25, 2006 12:19 PM
I agree, if you don't want to do it, stay out.
I won't be going to the US any time soon.
Posted by: SM at April 25, 2006 12:26 PM
Maybe I'm mis-reading but it seems there must have been another suspect of the name 'Mohammed Umar Haleem Khan' on a watch list. - the full name. It doesn't sound as though the name Mohammed by itself triggered the response. I believe it should be enough but doubt if it is.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at April 25, 2006 12:28 PM
A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain Inayat Bunglawala said: "This is a worrying incident ...
This is someone from whom we hear all too much.
In January 1993, Mr Bunglawala wrote a letter to Private Eye ... in which he called the blind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman "courageous" - just a month before he bombed the World Trade Center in New York.Five months before 9/11, Mr Bunglawala also circulated writings of Osama bin Laden, who he regarded as a "freedom fighter", to hundreds of Muslims in Britain
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007775.php
Then there are his repulsive anti-Semitic remarks, for which see here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19822
And here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/21/nbung21.xml
Naturally, the Biased Broadcasting Corporation while quoting this thug-with-BBC-imprimatur fails to mention such matters. Informing the Bristish public is most definitely not part of the BBC's agenda.
Blair's government for some unfathomable reason appears to be consulting this repulsive ceature on "tackling extremism among young Muslims". Actually, he should be deported, and a government that was not as irremediably corrupt as Blair's would do it.
Posted by: Yojimbo at April 25, 2006 12:34 PM
I believe the immigration service was actually scrutinizing the name "Khan" and not Mohammed.
After all the famous "father" of the Paki-nuke was a Khan, and if you go to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern India, etc., you can find that this Khan-name is widely spread and always obscurely involved among well educated professor-types, as well as tribal/rural warlords. Sort of family business on all fronts.
at April 25, 2006 12:42 PM
I wouldn't send this scrote a penny. If he is so dim that he "could think of no reason why his name would cause a problem", then he should be kept out of the country because he is a mental defective. I'm fed up with everybody in the world thinking they have a right to enter MY country, and whining and playing the race/ethnic card when challenged. Instead of $80, send that wanker a can of Whupass.
Posted by: MP at April 25, 2006 12:47 PM
Robert
Better suggestion - don't agree to process his visa in the first place: simply say, "Muslims not wanted". That way, he won't have to be deprived of his £45.
It's been said here a gazillion times before, but I'll say it again - "End Muslim immigration."
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 25, 2006 12:52 PM
See? Big ego/big mouth mohd. khan is already whining about us, yet still wants to come here. Probably thinking that he can find a "racial profiling" loophole - publicity and lawsuits, that much he can understand, but not the simple reasons why this is needed for all who are deemed suspicious, and we know who they are. His outrage is an insult to us here in the land of the free. This in one of the ways of keeping our country free. Anyway, fingerprinting is a common practice from where he originates, for opening bank accounts, voting etc. what's the big deal?
Bells and whistles!
at April 25, 2006 1:24 PM
I would like to commend Hugh on his clear and concise comments on the Jihadwatch website. His understanding of the subject matter and his ability to present the material is spot on.
Even with sarcasm his abilities shine. I, for one, am taking his lead and immersing myself in the history of the distasteful, Islamic culture to do my part in trying to stem the tide of dhimmitude. No need to watch the tube. Islamic history is more gory and violent than in Hollywood manna spectacle.
Reading only reinforces conclusions that I have had for the past decade. Our government and commercial leaders are selling our civilization out to those that will never give it back. The quandry that I find myself in is how and when can we stop it. Are we too late? Have Saudi petrodollars so infected or society that we cannot take it back? Have we given so much away that we will be unable to undo the damage?
Terrorism worries me, but not as much as the influx of Muslim immigrants that demand rights by which they have no basis to demand. Many of the things they demand are the very things that have stagnated their culture for the past 1400 years and turned their countries into the worthless theocratic shells which produce nothing and only export their people and propagate their backward cult.
The situation with Mr. Khan is another example of how the media takes the side of the poor, downtrodden, discriminated Muslim whose religious choice is no deemed a race by the media.
Everyone who enters an airport is inconvenienced. I have personally experienced how inspectors go to ridiculous extents to be fair and equitable with searches and document revision when it is known, albeit at this point in time, that those who are most likely to commit an act of terror are of a certain profile.
Posted by: detoquevilledisciple
at April 25, 2006 1:41 PM
Fit the moron with a radio collar and track him EVERYWHERE he goes. Should be a $5,000 entry fee and if they go 1 day over it's non refundable and he's exported back to the craphole he came from....Better yet put a moratorium on Muslim entry.
Went to the market this AM before work and had my DEFEAT JIHAD shirt on and the lady at the checkstand loved it. Told her to go to this site and really get informed....better yet get her own shirt!!
at April 25, 2006 1:46 PM
A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain Inayat Bunglawala said: "This is a worrying incident and seems to fit a recent pattern whereby the USA appears to be treating all Muslims as potential terrorists just because of their religion.
its about time the government started considering that
Posted by: patriot4 at April 25, 2006 1:53 PM
Our very own Sheikh Abu Hamza had this problem at Check-in. His fingerprint scan would show up as a [ ? ]. - Sorry
Posted by: western infidel at April 25, 2006 2:13 PM
I agree, if you don't want to do it, stay out.
I won't be going to the US any time soon.
Posted by: SM
You will be missed.
at April 25, 2006 2:24 PM
"Scrote" & "Wanker"
MP,
I have NO idea what those words mean, but I still intend to use them
at April 25, 2006 2:30 PM
he should just change his name to jesus. it will work fine til he tries to go home.
john
http://www.attackcartoons.com
at April 25, 2006 2:57 PM
"I'm sure that if some white candidate came along there would have been no problem."
There it is, the race card. Well my friend, had you been a white candidate who had taken the name mohammed I feel sure you would have had the same extra checks, so don't worry it's not your colour that's the problem, it's your religion.
at April 25, 2006 3:12 PM
Hugh's "One-Week Course for all INS agents" should be realized not only for INS agents, but for every individual Infidel, no matter what his or her station, as a universal pamphlet or booklet.
This pamphlet should balance two things:
1) Simplicity: to boil down the information that damns Islam so that it is accessible and wieldy
2) Substance: to include, within its covers, enough pertinent information invulnerable to counter-attacks.
It's 2006 already; why don't we have such a pamphlet already!?
Posted by: Television at April 25, 2006 3:19 PM
As a former Foreign Service Officer who worked the visa line, I know exactly what happened here. It's always so distressing to read a news story about something one knows about because you realize just how wrong reporters get the story almost every time.
Here is what happened here:
1) Mohammed applied for a U.S. Visa. British citizens don't need one for routine travel, so Mohammed is either not a British citizen or was planning to travel to the U.S. in a capacity other than routine tourism. From the story, I'd say he was gunning for a "J" visa, the "cultural exchange" visa that one typically sees many camps use.
2) Because of changes in our laws after 9.11, EVERY visa applicant must be interviewed by one of my former colleagues, a Foreign Service Officer, i.e. a diplomat who is a commissioned officer of the President with a commission specifically delegating the President's powers to that officer for consular purposes. There are no exceptions except for the very young and the very, very old (over 80). EVERY visa applicant means every visa applicant. Period. Brown, black and white, Christian, Buddhist and Muslim alike.
3) Mohammed filled out the visa application, paid the interview fee and was given an appointment date for his interview. He then travelled to Embassy London on the date and time specified, probably waited forever and then got in front of a really thick window behind which was a FSO working the visa line.
4) If the FSO was good (this one screwed up, but that's not to say he or she isn't good), Mohammed's application would have been reviewed while he was being called up. The FSO was probably working a batch of J visa applications, perhaps mixed in with student, perhaps not. In any case, the FSO knows what the standards are for qualifying for a J visa and the Foreign Service National staff in London would already have double-checked the bona fides of the inviting organization, i.e. the camp Mohammed was going to work on.
5) Mohammed would then be interviewed. Exactly what questions would be asked is a matter of the officer's discretion, but it's a safe bet to assume that he would have been asked what his purpose for going to the U.S. was, what he did for a living, what school he attended, whether he has visited the U.S. before, other countries he has visited in the past, etc. While this was going on, his passport would be inspected, the FSO constructing a mental picture of the applicant's prior travel.
6) Most non-immigrant visa applicants are considered as a matter of law to be intending immigrants unless they can convince an interviewing FSO otherwise. This FSO clearly felt Mohammed got over that hurdle since he was not "214-B'ed", which is the section of the INA that allows FSOs, as officers of the President, to pretty much deny a visa to anyone they feel doesn't overcome that presumption of illegal intent.
7) Now, here is where it gets tricky. I can't discuss what happens next, but I can say that the FSO should NOT have said "there is a problem with your name." What I can say is that given the security threat to the United States, the U.S. Govt. has made great strides in updating its computer databases and getting the latest and greatest information to its FSOs in the field, right there at the window.
8) And I think I can also safely say that cultures that produce a lot of similar sounding names will produce more concern than some others. There are a lot of Kims in Korea, and a lot of Mohammeds in the world.
9) If the FSO decides that an application like Mohammed's requires further processing, fingerprints must be taken and the applicant has to pay $80 more in fees. NOT because he is brown and not white. NOT because he is Muslim and not Christian. Rather, it is because the application, as a whole, has raised an issue that needs closer scrutiny.
Believe me, I personally sent loads of upper-class, white, Catholic Latin Americans to the fingerprint desk for further processing.
10) I can't tell you what the government does with the fingerprints. You'll have to figure that out yourselves. (Think really, really hard and you can figure it out!).
11) 99.9% of the time, the visa for a fingerprint case is ultimately issues within 2 weeks of the fingerprinting.
In short, Mohammed was subjected to a standard law that is bothersome to thousands and thousands of US visa applicants every year and is imposed on whites, blacks, browns and yellows of all sorts of beliefs.
Posted by: NewSisyphus at April 25, 2006 3:41 PM
And it set me back $120 to terminate my Visa for Indonesia
Posted by: shiva at April 25, 2006 3:56 PM
NewSisyphus, thanks for the breakdown of the system. Now we know there was nothing special about the process and it is all media hype. Thanks.
Posted by: Caratacus at April 25, 2006 7:22 PM
"US Embassy officials ought really to have had the training to cope with basic elements of Muslim culture which would help prevent these kinds of unfortunate situations."
WE DID!!! in 1979, 1982, 1983-9, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005.........
Yes, we have had "the training". Now, what we do with it is what concerns me.
CRUSADER18
at April 26, 2006 12:04 AM
This sort of thing is a step in the right direction, but obviously, the name isn't the problem. How hard would it be for a muslim to change their name? And if he did, would he get in with less thorough background checking?
at April 26, 2006 1:04 AM
I'd like to visit Saudi Arabia someday. Where can I get a tourist visa?
Oh, apparently "individual tourist visas are not available for travel to Saudi Arabia". Seems Mohammad can get a tourist visa to the USA just by paying a little extra, but I can't get one to Saudi Arabia no matter how much I pay. Whaddup wid dat?
Maybe I should change my name to "Mohammad" so I can get me a religious hajji visa there.....
Posted by: yadayada at April 26, 2006 5:27 AM
Nope sorry, no charity here. I would douse anyone with the name of mohammad, or any similar evil name, with gasoline and light a match while hollering a name of some obscure christian saint or something. What you don't believe my sincerety? I lied! To be perfectly honest I have nothing but hatred in my heart for anyone who practices the evil pseudo-religion called islam.
Don't come to my neighborhood. I don't care if it goes to 50.00 a gallon or 100.00 a gallon. It will be money well spent. I am the chairman of the welcome wagon and we don't allow towel heads in my neighborhood.
As God is my Witness...I will do whatever it takes to protect America against these vermin.
Posted by: theantimike at April 26, 2006 11:30 AM
Freewoman this is for you, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the greatest man to ever live on this earth, he was trusted by all for e.g his worst enemy aby suffyan married his daughter to muhammad (peace be upon him). If you cared to study his life you would see what a great man he was. and as for being a peadofile, you are totally wrong, he may have married a few women but look at the reasonings behind them, for e.g some where widows, and he looked after them
Posted by: muslim at April 27, 2006 5:46 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)