Airport Body Scanners Haram?

Citing the Koran and apparently seeking a religious exemption,

...[The Fiqh Council of North America and the Council on Islamic Relations]...say that body scanners are un-Islamic. Very well. There may be plenty of reasons to oppose body scanners, but when they put it this way, they suggest they'd be just fine with some sort of exemption from such scanning for Muslims. That would mean that the one group that would be subjected to lighter airport security checks than any other group would be...Muslims.

Read the rest HERE.

Talk about irony! It is Moslems that have made all these security measures necessary in the first place!

The big question: Will the West bow to yet another manifestation of Islamic supremacism?

Turn the page ....

Hajj 2009

(Note to family and friends: The most recent update on Mr. AOW is here)

The usual: chants calling for death to America and death to Israel.

Also note the following (hat tip to Jihad Watch, citing AFP):

..."We need all Muslims, Sunni and Shiite, to be unified and focus on important issues: Al-Aqsa (mosque in Jerusalem), the occupation of Palestine, the problems in Iraq, the Afghan occupation, and the fighting between brothers in Yemen. We need be purified from all infidels."...

And we have this news as well:

Investigations into Iran's nuclear programme will reach a "dead end" unless Tehran starts to co-operate, the UN nuclear chief has warned.

Mohamed El Baradei told governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that there had been no movement on issues that needed to be clarified....

"Investigations...will reach a 'dead end'"? The dead end of trying to reason with Iran's leaders was reached long ago.

Has Tehran cooperated with the West since the Iranian Revolution of 1979?

Only a fool would believe that such cooperation is even possible.

And this morning's "news" prattles on about the couple who crashed the state dinner at the White House and the shopping crowds on "Black Friday."

Turn the page ....

An Excellent Speech By Robert Spencer

Please pause the PlayList on the right sidebar before watching the following video from Jihad Watch:



[END OF THIS POSTING]

Turn the page ....

CAIR Sued Again (With Addendum)

And served papers at their own banquet in Washington, D.C. The grounds for this legal action can be found below the fold.


Quickie link: "CAIR Sued by Former Clients for Racketeering, Fraud, & Breach of Fiduciary Duties"

Watch the video, read the whole thing, and notice this in the article:

the now defunct CAIR MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia

Addendum: Radio Free Dar Al Harb has more, including videos.

Turn the page ....

CNN Notices Jihad Watch

I wasn't planning to post today. It's past time for me to make some serious blog rounds, now that I'm no longer in pause mode. But this can't go without mention. Excerpt:

"Words matter": Homeland Security rolls out newspeak campaign, cautions against use of terms like "jihadists," "Islamic terrorists," "Islamists" and "holy warriors"

Again, we see the argument that using those terms somehow "legitimizes" or "aggrandizes" the jihadist movement. But honestly, is the public deflection of the Islamic aspect of Islamic jihad going to hinder jihadists from making the connection, or will it hinder ordinary citizens seeking information? Obviously, it will be the latter. And when the public is discouraged from understanding the jihadist enemy's ideology, whom does that ultimately help?

[...]

"There are two legitimate sides to wars?" Baloney. The Nazis didn't have a legitimate cause in World War II. Recognizing a threat is not an endorsement of its existence.

Read the entire article.

Also see "The Great War against Nothing in Particular" at Jihad Watch. Excerpt:

Andy McCarthy wonders, since "war" and "terror" are no good, if it's okay if we call this present conflict the "On" -- "or would that offend all the moderate prepositions?"

Uh oh! The word "moderate" was used! Shouldn't that offensive-to-Moslems word be redacted or changed to "mainstream"? Pffffft!

Turn the page ....

The Dhimmis At The WaPo

Via Jihad Watch (emphases mine):

In "5 Myths About Terrorism" in the [September 11, 2007] Washington Post (thanks to Steve), Alan B. Krueger provides a sterling example of the politically correct myopia that prevents an accurate analysis of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. And he does so in such a clumsy way that it is remarkable that no one at the paper caught this before it was printed:

4. Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims.
Wrong. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism. (Sri Lanka, for instance, has grappled for decades with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that pioneered suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic and hopes to create a homeland for the country's mostly Tamil minority, who are largely Hindu.) Although radical Islamic terrorists are the worry du jour because of 9/11 and Iraq, the data show pretty clearly that the predominant religion of a country is not a good predictor of whether its people will become involved in terrorism.

After all, it was not long ago that homegrown villains such as Timothy McVeigh and the so-called Unabomber were the most notorious terrorists. That makes sense; the vast majority of terrorist incidents are local, motivated by local concerns and carried out by natives. Even international terrorist events tend to be local affairs, most frequently carried out by local militants who target foreigners who happen to be in their country. (Just think of last week's foiled plot to attack U.S. targets in Germany.) This suggests that the likelihood of attack by homegrown terrorists is far greater than the threat of another 9/11-style attack by foreigners.

Did you catch that? Terrorism isn't "mainly perpetrated by Muslims" because "no religion has a monopoly on terrorism." This doesn't even establish what Krueger wants it to establish, because the fact that people of all religions have committed terrorist acts doesn't disprove the contention that terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims. If one group is responsible for something, say, 80% of the time, it is mainly responsible for it: you can't point to the existence of the other 20% as if it were proof that the 80% group is not mainly responsible.

Also, it should be obviously absurd to everyone at this point, but of course it isn't, to drag out poor old McVeigh, and the Unabomber to boot, and stack them up as equivalent to the plethora of armed Islamic organizations that can be found all over the planet, and the more the 9,000 terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11. But of course since the overwhelming majority of those have not been reported by Krueger's friends with any significant mention or exploration of the Islamic texts and teachings that the perpetrators used to justify them, most Americans don't realize that they have anything to do with Islam in the first place -- while every schoolchild knows that McVeigh was a Christian (he wasn't).

Finally, it is in no way relevant to a discussion of terrorism in general, much less Islamic jihad terrorism in particular, to assert that "every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism." It's a shame that such superficial analysis is so dominant these days. While the statement may be broadly true, it brushes by the central question: does Islamic theology and tradition contain any elements that encourage its followers to be involved in terrorism? Do other religions? This is a central consideration of my book Religion of Peace?, and it is a question media and policymakers should be asking. They don't, of course, because CAIR and others have mau-maued them into thinking that even to ask such questions promotes "bigotry" and "intolerance," as well as that trumped-up concept "Islamophobia." It never occurs to them that such discussions would actually aid the moderate Muslims they profess to support, being a necessary step toward the self-criticism that would have to be an essential component of any genuine Islamic reform.

Today's WaPo on September 15, 2007, is promoting "7th Heaven," an interfaith game for middle schoolers. Article here. CAIR has approved the game. Sample question:

8. On what two levels does Islam seek to promote peace?

Answer: "Peace within one's self and peace with others."

Apparently, the creators of the game have chosen to ignore the last "revelation" of Allah: Sura 9. An excellent explanation of that Sura is HERE. An explanation of the concept of abrogation of verses is HERE. You can find even more about abrogation HERE.

Turn the page ....

Pseudostinian Propaganda

Aimed at children, of course.



From "World In Brief" in the August 25, 2007 edition of the Washington Post,

Hamas is televising a cartoon with a "Lion King"-type character to portray the Islamic group's victory in the Gaza Strip over the Fatah movement. In May, Hamas-run TV used a Mickey Mouse knockoff to preach Islamic domination to children. After an uproar among Israelis and Palestinians, the character was killed off.

VIDEO HERE

[Hat-tip to Roxie America at Independence Lost]

Excerpt from this posting at Jihad Watch:

The piece shows rats trampling over Gaza, burning houses, stepping over homes, uprooting trees, firing at mosques and desecrating the Quran, Islam's holy book.

Their leader is clearly a portrayal of Fatah's former Gaza strongman, Mohammed Dahlan, who has fled Gaza. Wearing a tie and smoking a cigar, the chief rat grabs a microphone and tells the crowd: "Move back and let Hamas shoot me." Dahlan made that comment during the showdown with Hamas, and his voice is dubbed into the scene.

Throughout the video, the lion silently watches the rats, preparing his claws and shaking his mane. When he pounces, the rats flee in terror as he knocks them about with his claws. Injured and limping rats then say: "Off to the West Bank."

Turn the page ....