Every European mosque is an extension of irredentist Islam. One imam said Euro-mosques are part of dar al Islam, they are Muslim turf. These makeshift prayer rooms are the same. The arrogance of these foreign Muslims!! The stupidity of the Europeans to tolerate them

Posted by: dennisw at August 3, 2006 7:51 AM

Muslim Jihad via harassment, rape and petty actions--->>>

More Moslems came, and soon a small mosque was built, which attracted yet others. As long as Zoroastrians remained in the majority, their lives were tolerable; but once the Moslems became the more numerous, a petty but pervasive harassment was apt to develop. This was partly verbal, with taunts about fire-worship, and comments on how few Zoroastrians there were in the world, and how many Moslems, who must therefore posses the truth; and also on how many material advantages lay with Islam. The harassment was often also physical; boys fought, and gangs of youth waylaid and bullied individual Zoroastrians. They also diverted themselves by climbing into the local tower of silence and desecrating it, and they might even break into the fire-temple and seek to pollute or extinguish the sacred flame. Those with criminal leanings found too that a religious minority provided tempting opportunities for theft, pilfering from the open fields, and sometimes rape and arson. Those Zoroastrians who resisted all these pressures often preferred therefore in the end to sell out and move to some other place where their co-religionists were still relatively numerous, and they could live at peace; and so another village was lot to the old faith. Several of the leading families in Sharifabad and forebears who were driven away by intense Moslem pressure from Abshahi, once a very devout and orthodox village on the southern outskirts of Yazd; and a shorter migration had been made by the family of the centenarian ‘Hajji’ Khodabakhsh, who had himself been born in the 1850s and was still alert and vigorous in 1964. His family, who were very pious, had left their home in Ahmedabad (just to the north of Turkabad) when he was a small boy, and had come to settle in Sharifabad to escape persecution and the threats to their orthodox way of life. Other Zoroastrians held out there for a few decades longer, but by the end of the century Ahmedabad was wholly Moslem, as Abshahi become in 1961. [Boyce's footnote: The last Zoroastrian family left Abshahi in 1961, after the rape and subsequent suicide of one of their daughters.] It was noticeable that the villages which were left to the Zoroastrians were in the main those with poor supplies of water, where farming conditions were hard. 21
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16493 The Islamization of Europe

Posted by: dennisw at August 3, 2006 8:00 AM

There were no airplanes or airports in Mohammed's time. Let them travel by camel like their hero, Mo did.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 3, 2006 8:03 AM

dennisw: Interesting story from Spain. I take my name from an incident in 844 AD where the Vikings raided the then muslim town of Seville, destroyed to mosque and stroke terror into the hearts of the Moors. They then send a messenger to the Danish king to beg for peace...

http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/history/iberian.htm

Posted by: seville844 at August 3, 2006 8:11 AM

I don't know how long the muslim prays for, but, I would think they would be wasting an employers time. Unless of course if the muslim made up for their prayer times. If a non muslim works eight hours a day with two fifteen minute breaks, he is working his full eight hours. Does a muslim pray JUST during his two breaks or is he given extra time during the workday and therefore is on the job for longer to make up the time he takes off to pray? Or, does he just work a little and pray during an eight hour workday?

Posted by: freewoman at August 3, 2006 8:17 AM

Muslims and commercial airliners don't mix. Islam and airports don't mix. Seems to be a conflict there. There is no coincidence that so many muslims gravitate towards airports for employment. As a culture, they are disproportionately represented at airports. A prayer room at an aiport is nothing more than a place to wish the infidel's airplane to fall from the sky. That is what they pray for.

Posted by: August22 at August 3, 2006 8:27 AM

seville844
I like that Viking story. Yes, Islam needs to terrorized. This is the language Islam understands. Every underhanded stealthy cowardly way is used against the infidel. Muslims delight in this. High entertainment for them. Islam needs a large dose of it's own medicine.

From Scandinavia we (USA) hear Fjordman's accounts of women and teenagers being harassed and raped by these odious Arabians +other Muslims. Of males being beaten by wolf packs of Muhammad's yellow bellied cowards

Muslims adore all dramas that involves the ummah. Their strange psychology will turn on a dime from aggression to victimology. They like being bombed in Lebanon and proclaiming to the world their righteous victimhood. Islamics like suffering and like making others suffer. This makes for continual flow of the dramas they thrive on

Posted by: dennisw at August 3, 2006 8:31 AM

freewoman

I don't know how long the muslim prays for, but, I would think they would be wasting an employers time. Unless of course if the muslim made up for their prayer times. If a non muslim works eight hours a day with two fifteen minute breaks, he is working his full eight hours.

If they will build prayer rooms where they please, they will pray when they please. Pray to their phony baloney idol named allah

Posted by: dennisw at August 3, 2006 8:34 AM

It is not so much as to how long a Muslim prays, it is what he prays for that is important. Many employers are reluctant to hire Muslims as they use a large portion of their work hours to prayer.They demand prayer rooms and they demand the time to pray.
It has come to light that Muslims often pray just prior to committing terror acts. It has come to light many Muslims spend more time praying than working. We should pass new laws allowing employers to only pay for time worked. Time spent praying should be unpaid time.

On the other hand, I am happy to see the French actually doing something that may save lives.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 3, 2006 8:34 AM

And what of the prayer rooms at Dulles, pray tell? I kid you not.

Posted by: Mr. Slugworth at August 3, 2006 9:50 AM

Are there muslim prayer rooms at Dulles? Wow!

Posted by: bonncaruso at August 3, 2006 9:58 AM

Not just in Dulles
All sorts of places.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at August 3, 2006 11:18 AM

"far-right politician's.."
-- from the article above

Philippe de Viliers is no more, and no less, as "far right" as the late Democratic Senator Henry Jackson, or for that matter the late Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, or William Proxmire, or any number of others. Philippe de Villiers is as "far right" as Raymond Aron, or Alexis de Toqueville, or Benjamin Constant, as "far right" as Jean Moulin, fighting the more obvious Fascists of the more obvious army, the Wehrmacht, in France.

This kind of epithet shoudl not be here. It is intended to frame the reader's reception, to make him already hostile to this supposedly "far-right" politician. Philippe de Villiers has been consistently, over the past few years, possibly the most intelligent commentator on the menace of Islam among figures in French political life.

During the war that the Muslims, the "Palestinians" and the locals, unleashed on the Christians of Lebanon, a phrase appeared all over the Western world. It was always and everywhere "the right-wing Christians." Ionesco observed that "the paper that everyone reads" [he meant Le Monde; he did not have to specify further] always calls the Lebanese Christians "right-wing." In what, Ionesco, wondered, did their "right-wingness" consist? Were they for a certain economic policy normally associated with the "right-wing"? Were they supporters of, or supported by, Fascists and unreconstructed Nazis all over the world? No, the Fascists and the Nazis,including known war criminals, have always been on the side of Muslims, and Hitler himself expressed outrage, dropped ready crocodile tears over the "oppression" of the "Arabs of Palestine," especially in 1938, when he was also deploring what the horrible Czechs were doing to those poor and oppressed Germans of the Sudetenland, carefully called "Sudeteners" (unfortunately for Hitler, the "Palestinian people" had not yet been invented, so "Arabs of Palestine" it was).

Why do newspapers, or the radio, or television, permit this propagandistic use of epithets for which not the slightest evidence is presented? The word "far right" or "right-wing" cannot be used, as it has been used, to blacken the name and reputation of anyone at all who happens to grimly perceive the menace of Islam. What made Pim Fortuyn, the bemused libertine, "right-wing" as he was routinely called, so stupidly, in the French, British, American press? What? There was nothing. Was Bertrand Russell "right-wing" becuse of how he saw Islam? Churchill, was he "right-wing" or "far right-wing"? Spinoza? Hume? John Quincy Adams? Jacques Ellul? Are they all "right-wing" because they grasped the essence of Islam?

The AP is now out of control. Whether delighting in the sensationalism of the photographs -- the contextless, and very doubtful in other ways -- photographs provided by its nearly all-Arab staff in southern Lebanon (just as Hassan Fattah and Jad Mouawad are the reporters selected for their ability to be fair in their dispatches from Lebanon for The New Duranty Times, which cannot quite conceive of the notion that no Muslim reporter can possibly convey the real nature, attitudes, atmospherics, of the entirely unequal -- but not in the way the Arabs present it -- battle between Israel and not only the bezonians of Hezbollah, but between Israel and the monstrously-biased presentation, by monstrously-ignorant reporters, and those who emloy them, and have no sense of context, or of warfare, or of the teachings of Islam or of the asymmetry of the aims: the Israelis not wishing to wipe out, to efface from the earth, Lebanon or the Arabs or the Muslims, but the other side, Hezbollah and behind it, the Islamic Republic of Iran, have gleefully and repeatedly declared that that, sooner or later, will be the goal, announced well in advance, which they will someday attain.

Posted by: Hugh at August 3, 2006 11:19 AM

IF the muslims were so humble, they wouldn't need all this special attention drawn to their prayer habits. Why not pray in silence of the heart, no matter where they are? It is the THOUGHT that counts, not the ritual, especially when they are at work, and in public places. They HAVE to show off, make a big deal , draw attention to themselves.
In each host country, they want to change the very foundation to suit themselves, BUT they can't move with the times, and change their thousand year old writing regarding something so simple.
Next thing you know, they'll want a prayer section on the bus, the train etc. etc.
Get a GRIP !

Posted by: freetoBEfree at August 3, 2006 1:46 PM

seville844, dennisw

I hate to bust your Viking love bubble but if I remember my military history right Vikings were the ones who were trading white Christian Europeans to Arab and Moorish muslims. They were friends! The Rus (Vikings in Russia) raiding Slavic and Germaic tribes and selling them to Arabs and Persians. Viking long ships grabing Irish and Brits and selling them to muslims in Spain and Africa. Of course the Vikings also raided a few Moorish and Arab towns too. After all they were Vikings!

Vikings can't always be blamed however, many other europeans were trading slaves within europe to Arabs and of course to themselves.

An example is below from William of Malmesbury (1080-1143) in Bristol, England.

"You might well groan to see then long rows of young men and maidens whose beauty and youth might move the pity of the savage, bound together with cords, and brought to market to be sold"

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 3, 2006 3:24 PM

"Are there muslim prayer rooms at Dulles? Wow!"

Not only are they there, I was totally floored when I heard them announce a prayer service on the intercom.

Stupid Dhimmi's

Posted by: Lorgan at August 3, 2006 5:58 PM

"IF the muslims were so humble, they wouldn't need all this special attention drawn to their prayer habits. Why not pray in silence of the heart, no matter where they are? It is the THOUGHT that counts, not the ritual, especially when they are at work, and in public places."

Thats not how it works for them.

http://www.bahagia.btinternet.co.uk/prayer1.html

Mat 6:7-8 (Phi) "And when you pray don't rattle off long prayers like the pagans who think they will be heard because they use so many words. Don't be like them. For your Father knows your needs before you ask him."

Posted by: Lorgan at August 3, 2006 6:09 PM

Attention muslims: New fatwa. When performing WUDU, SNIFF THE WATER DEEPLY INTO YOUR NOSES. You must clean the deepest recesses of your nostrils. SNIFF DEEPLY. Remember: A clean nose is a .........clean nose. You may go back to banging your head on the ground now.

Posted by: freewoman at August 3, 2006 6:48 PM

Ah freewoman, you forgot to mention something essential. During the performance of the wudu-voodoo, it is important to completely submerge one's head, keeping it so for at least ten minutes. That's the only way to be sure to get to all the little devils.

Posted by: Eisenhund at August 3, 2006 8:21 PM