And Britain slides deeper into Islam's clutches....

A 15-year-old British girl has been arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after she allegedly set fire to an English-language copy of the Koran and posted footage of the incident on Facebook.

The unidentified teen is accused of torching the Muslim holy book as other students watched, at her school in Sandwell near the city of Birmingham in central England. She was questioned by police on Friday and was released later in the day pending further inquiries.

Wake up, England. Each day you let your country slide deeper into the clutches of Islamofacism. Almost 2 years ago the Daily Mail reported the alarming number of British Muslims fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and yet you continue to kowtow to Shariah Law and this sick notion that Islam is a peaceful thing. In today's UK Guardian there's an article about Afghani Brits fighting for the Taliban. In fact, one of them works as a cab driver in England when he's not off fighting a Jihad against the very people who offer him a place to live & work. This is nothing new; the Brits have worried about this for years, since the 9-11 and Shoe Bomber attacks, but have done bugger-all to stem the tide in their country.

And from this little chart put together at the Pew Center, as far back as 2006 81% of British Muslims view themselves as Muslims first and Brits second.I mean, we all know just how peaceful Muslims are in the UK. And just today the Daily Mail reported that a Muslim artist has painted a picture of the 7/7 London terror bombing of a city bus with angels over the bus in the same number as the terrorists who took part in the attack

And we have all these lovely images to remind us as well.





At this rate you'll have to give Kate Middleton a copy of this magazine to plan her & Wil's wedding.


Missed my other looks at Britain's death-dive into Muslim lunacy?

Here or here or here or here or even here.

Hey, Britons...Take back your country!

That’s it. I give up.

England, I renounce you as the ancestral homeland of the bulk of my gene pool. I grew up with a deep love of the U.K., but I’m really disillusioned now.

Once upon a time, the sun never set on the British Empire. You used to run half the world. And now you’ve become a ridiculous shell of your former glory because your government bends over backwards in its absolutely asinine efforts to kiss every Muslim ass on the island. You may as well just close Number 10 Downing Street and turn it into a mosque. Wrap the Queen in a burka and change your name to the United British Emirates.


You can have a separate Emir for England, Scotland, and Wales…and then when the Islamics kill off all the Catholics and Protestants, Ireland will be united once again as the Islamic Emerald Emirate.


Where France has banned Muslim women from swimming in public pools whilst wearing “burquinis”, you idiots not only support the burquini, but British swimming pools have begun hosting special Muslim swim sessions during which swimmers — including non-Muslims — are banned from entering the pool if their swimming attire doesn't comply with dress code required by Islamic custom. One British lawmaker defended the Muslim swim sessions, stating that they show an appreciation for certain religious groups, like Muslims, who have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports.


Hey, snapperhead…what about the fact that England is NOT a Muslim country and that the Muslim minority should adapt to the country they willingly moved to instead of imposing their will on their hosts and expecting everyone to acquiesce else they get a car bomb?

How about this little tidbit? It seems that many customers of Lloyds TSB banks are being hit with charges of up to £200 a month if they go into the red and overdraft their accounts, while Muslims who use the bank are only being charged £15.

The partly-nationalized bank has been accused of religious discrimination over the disparity between overdraft charges on its standard current account and its Islamic account. The Islamic account was set up by the High Street bank to attract Muslim customers by allowing them to keep faithful to their religion. It seems that Sharia law does not permit the payment of interest so the 'typical' Islamic account at Lloyds TSB has been set up without an overdraft facility.

Again, what in the bloody hell are you doing by allowing Sharia Law to sink its teeth into British life?

You sold out when BP and the government made a deal with Libya…and then the Scots allowed that terrorist scumbag to go home to a hero’s welcome. Way to go, guys.
Your newspapers bitch and complain about your soldiers being killed in Afghanistan and clamor for their return home? Well, maybe they SHOULD come home, so they can fight off the Islamic Invasion from within?


I notice that there’s nary a word from the Queen on any of this. I realize that she’s merely a figurehead, but why give the woman any deference when you won’t defer to her for any leadership? Where’s Prince Charles, the nominal successor to the throne? Why hasn’t he said anything? Because he’s off at Balmoral riding that polo pony he married. Prince of Wales, yet he spends more time in Scotland than in his own principality. Go figure. Maybe he can’t pronounce the name of his estate at Wnsgttevskklspsksnbebegtsgbgh or some other impossible-to-say Welsh-ism?


At least Prince Harry, bless his soul, was trying like hell to deploy with his unit to go fight the enemy. He may have made some youthful errors in judgment before he went into the Army, but he seems to be the last Royal with his priorities straight.

HRH, Prince Harry....Lieutenant Windsor if you prefer.

Keep it up, England. Pretty soon you won’t be able to go sit with your mates for a pint at the local…because Muslims don’t drink…and Sharia Law will outlaw pubs. Maybe when they come for your lager you’ll wake up.

Have they issued a Fatwa against me yet?

No sooner do I point out how Afghanistan is one of the most ass-backwards places on Earth than they go and verily prove my case for me yet again. I mean, how bad of a shit-hole do you have to be living in to try to escape into Iran?

Officials said yesterday that Taliban gunmen used a firing squad to kill a young couple in a lawless, militant-controlled section of southern Afghanistan for trying to elope, shooting them with rifles in front of a crowd, for trying to elope. I'm serious.

The woman, 19, and the man, 21, were accused by the militants of immoral acts, and a council of conservative clerics decided that the two should be killed. Oh, yes, the Religion of Peace strikes again.

The two had fled their homes and hoped to travel to Iran, that bastion of freedom, but their parents sent other villagers to bring them home. Details were sketchy, but reports say that once back home, the pair was either turned over to the Taliban by their parents or the militants came and took them by force. Either way, they were soon shot by some dudes with AK’s.

The Afghan government has no access to the remote region where the two were shot, said Jabar Pardeli, the provincial police chief of Nimroz Province. Yeah, Nimroz; I’m not making this up. The province has a police chief though, so supposedly some sort of government trickles down that way.

Not to be outdone, though, Saudi Arabia takes absurdity to an even sicker level.

On Saturday, for the second time since December, a court in the Saudi town of Unaiza upheld the marriage of an 8-year old Saudi girl to a much older man, on the condition that he does not have sex with her until she reaches puberty.

Please, chew that morsel a minute before you choke on it. It leaves a rather foul aftertaste, no?

You see, financial problems prompt some Saudi families to marry off their underage daughters to much older men, a practice the kingdom's chief cleric Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdelaziz Al al-Sheikh endorses. Media reports claim that the 8 year-old girl's father arranged the marriage in exchange to clear his debts with the man.

But the dude promised to not have sex with her till she hits puberty. Yeah, sure. This after Afghan clerics said it’s okay to demand sex every 4 days, according to the Koran. So, my question to ya’ll is this: do you really think this pedophile asstard is gonna wait a few years to take what Allah says is his? If she says no, he can have her beaten or killed or both. Hell, he might just do it because she’s not progressing to puberty fast enough. No, way…that poor girl is doomed, and we can thank not only her asshole father but the shitbag clerics who twist around the already-twisted teachings in the Koran.

Maybe the White House will issue a terse statement? Maybe there will be a stern warning from Number 10 Downing Street? Maybe the U.N. will huff and puff and threaten a sanction or two? Or maybe, as usual, no one will do jack diddly shit in the name of appeasement and keeping that oil flowing.

Marital Rape is Okay!!! Allah Says So!!!

Boy, it must truly suck to be Hamid Karzai.

In case you’ve been living under a rock, His Islamic Excellency The Honorable Hamid Karzai is the President of The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

On one hand he’s trying to bring his nation out of the Stone Age and at least into being Third World and not Sixth World, but he has to deal with tribes and clans and warlords and an economy based upon the sole cash crop being opium poppies to make heroin, and a society based upon an insanely strict adherence to Islam that keeps his country’s women enslaved and men too afraid to do anything remotely Western or modern so that they may as well still be living in caves as hunter-gatherers looking for a herd of Baluchatherium to spear for dinner. Oh wait, it’s 2009; they’d hunt wooly mammoths with an RPG.

He’s trying to help America fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but he can’t be seen to help too much because if he does he’ll get a truck bomb delivered to his doorstep in the name of Allah and Mohammed his Prophet, blessed be their names, yadda yadda yadda.

And it’s really hard to be taken seriously on the world stage when you have asshats like Mohammad Asif Mohseni making your country and Islam as a whole look like total uncivilized douchebags by publicly supporting a law that critics say legalizes marital rape and rolls back women's rights and who rejected an international outcry as foreign meddling, insisting the law offers women many protections.

The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse, and regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone. Yeah, Allah forbid that a woman should slip her chains, unhook her collar and leash, and actually go outside. And since when has Islam cared a whit whether a woman was harmed?

"It is essential for the woman to submit to the man's sexual desire," the law says. (By force, I guess.)

The legislation raises again the specter of the militant Taliban regime, which fell in 2001 after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban required women to wear all-covering burkas and banned them from leaving home without a male relative. Of course, that relative might not be the right relative and both might be killed out of hand, depending upon which insane cleric has a bug up his ass that day.

Following an international uproar over the new law President Karzai put it under review. The move puts enforcement on hold, at least until some more car bombs can be built.

Mohammad Asif Mohseni, the aforementioned top Afghan cleric and one of the law's main drafters, said the legislation cannot be revoked or changed because it was enacted through a legislative process — passed by both houses of parliament and signed by Karzai. Oops. Shit, oh dear.

"The Westerners claim that they have brought democracy to Afghanistan. What does democracy mean? It means government by the people for the people. They should let the people use these democratic rights," Mohseni told reporters in the capital, Kabul.

Well, shitfire. Using our own democracy against us. We just got served.

Surrounded by supporters, Mohseni unfurled reams of paper with hundreds of women's signatures and thumbprints backing the law. The legislation came out of three years of debate and revision involving both Islamic scholars and members of parliament, Mohseni said. Most of those thumbprints came from thumbs hacked off of women whose hands were showing from under their burkas, though.

Afghanistan is an Islamic state and its constitution defers to the Koran as the ultimate authority, of course, regardless of what the Western world would prefer. Mohseni said the law simply reiterates rules from Islam's holy book.

"In Shariah law, it states that a woman cannot go out without the permission of her husband," he said. He argued that the law is permissive because it allows a woman to go out for a medical emergency or other urgent reason without asking. She’ll just be beaten or stoned after she gets out of the hospital. But hey, she was allowed to go to the hospital, right? That’s progress!

Mohseni said much of the uproar has come from people misinterpreting the law. He said a woman can refuse sex with her husband for many reasons beyond illness, including fasting for Ramadan, preparing for a pilgrimage, menstruating, or recovering from giving birth. Refusal, however, will result in death, or worse.

Though the law only applies to the country's Shiite population, which is 10 percent to 20 percent of Afghanistan's 30 million people, Mohseni, the country's top Shiite cleric, said most of the articles could also be applied to Sunnis. A prominent Sunni cleric, Mawlawi Habibullah Ahsam, said the rules about women submitting to sex and leaving the home would also be acceptable to Sunnis. Well, holy shit. You mean we finally get Sunni and Shiite Muslims to agree on something besides hating each other and hating Jews and hating us, and it’s to say okay to treating your women as slaves? Yeah, that’s progress, baby!

Dozens of Afghan lawmakers and officials condemned the legislation, saying it encourages re-Talibanization. And then they immediately began fearing for their lives for speaking up.

Much has improved for women since the fall of the Taliban. Millions of girls now attend school, and many women own businesses. Of 351 parliamentarians, 89 are women. But in the conservative country, critics fear those gains could easily be reversed. Of course they can…governmental overthrow is always just a few car bombs away.

Mohseni argued that women and men are very far from equal in today's Afghanistan and should not be treated as such. He said many rural women are illiterate and would not be able to find work. Men are typically expected to provide for their wives and children.

"For all these expenses, can't we at least give the right to a husband to demand sex from his wife after four nights?" he said.

Dude, the reason women and men aren’t equal is because of people like you who keep them chained up as cattle. They’re illiterate because you Sharia Law dickbags keep them from going to school, or to work, or beyond the 19th century.

Religion of peace…whoo hooo!!!!

England, Sharia, Paranoia, and Puritanical Hypocrisy.

Somebody please tell me what in the hell is in the water in England these days that’s making people insane? I’ve recently highlighted the push for Sharia Law in the UK by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chief Justice, and there’s just no explaining the fascination the English seem to have as of late with giving up being English and catering to the wants of every ethnic minority that refuses to assimilate into British society.

A recent poll for the Centre for Social Cohesion found that two in five Muslims in British universities support the idea of Islamic Sharia codes being enshrined in British law and almost one third of British Muslim students think it is acceptable to kill in the name of Islam. A third of Muslim students interviewed also supported the creation of a world-wide caliphate or Islamic state.

In further British lunacy, there’s been a huge furor over a version of a Barbie doll that’s being released in September to promote a DC Comics superhero named Black Canary. She hangs out with Green Arrow. The dolls will come equipped with fishnets, leather jacket, black gloves and boots. As if the Brits can’t come up with something legitimate to protest, such as the low approval rating of the Prime Minister and all the violent crime I keep reading about, they instead complain about commemorative edition Barbie.

Black Canary Barbie will destroy all of Britain

One religious group, the Christian Voice said, “Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far. A children’s doll in sexually suggestive clothing is irresponsible – it’s filth.” It’s a fuckin’ doll, people. I guess you’d rather see Barbie in a burka and Ken wearing a kaffiyeh?



And then you have poor Gary Crutchley. When Gary started taking pictures of his children playing on an inflatable slide he thought they would be happy reminders of a family day out. However, as he was taking snapshots of his kids Cory and Miles, the woman running the slide at asked him what he was doing and other families waiting in line demanded that he stop. One cow even accused him of photographing kids to put the pictures on the internet, insinuating he was a pedophile.

Mr. Crutchley, 39, who had taken pictures only of his own children, was so enraged that he went and found two policemen, who confirmed he had done nothing wrong.

Crutchley said, ‘What is the world coming to when anybody seen with a camera is assumed to be doing things that they should not? This parental paranoia is getting completely out of hand. I was so shocked. One of the police officers told me that it was just the way society is these days. He agreed with me that it was madness.The children wanted to go on an inflatable slide and I started taking photos of them having a good time. Moments later the woman running the slide told me to stop."

"When I asked why, she told me I could not take pictures of other people’s children. I explained I was only interested in taking photos of my own children and pointed out that this was taking place in a public park. I showed her the photos I had taken to prove my point. Then another woman joined in and said her child was also on the slide and did not want me taking pictures of the youngster. I repeated that the only people being photographed were my own children. She said I could be taking pictures of just any child to put on the internet and called me a pervert. We immediately left…"

Crutchley’s wife Tracey said "I was shocked by the reaction of those women. It is very sad when every man with a camera enjoying a Sunday afternoon out in the park with his children is automatically assumed to be a pervert."

Gary Crutchley, his wife, and two boys

So we have complaints over a tarty Barbie doll and accusations of perversion for taking pictures in a park. This uptight behavior from a nation that features topless women on page three of the Sun tabloid newspaper…think National Enquirer meets USA Today. In fact, I think the tits may be the biggest selling point of the paper.

Quit being so prudish and puritanical and paranoid and focus more on the true threat looming within…if you can bloody well turn off watching Big Brother for five minutes.

Will Teacup Yorkies be the Downfall of Islam?

As usual, I’m slightly ahead of the power curve in reporting how effed-up things are in IslamoLand. Back in March, I reported that a man in Iran had been beaten by Islamic Morals Police thugs for walking his dog, and that the government there considered dogs “impure”. (Read my pearls of wisdom here: (http://mojosteve.blogspot.com/2008/03/still-more-sharia-law-crapola.html)

Well, now the Saudis are getting into the mix, for even stranger reasons. It seems that the Mutaween are concerned that single men are using pets as bait to lure women into immorality, so they want to ban pets. What utter bullshit.

In Riyadh, the capital, Saudi Arabia's Islamic religious police, in their zeal to keep the sexes apart, want to make sure the technique of pets-as-babe-magnet doesn't catch on there. Their solution: Ban selling dogs and cats as pets, as well as walking them in public.

The prohibition went into effect last Wednesday in Riyadh, and authorities in the city say they will strictly enforce it, unlike previous such bans in the cities of Mecca (the holiest of holy cituies) and Jiddah, which have been ignored and failed to stop sales.

Violators found outside with their pets will have their beloved companions confiscated by agents of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, the official name of the Mutaween religious police, tasked with enforcing Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic code. After the Olympics, maybe China will buy them?

The commission's general manager, Othman al-Othman, said the ban was ordered because of what he called "the rising of phenomenon of men using cats and dogs to make passes at women and pester families" as well as "violating proper behavior in public squares and malls."

Dude…when’s the last time someone walked a cat on a leash through a shopping mall? Ever try to leash a cat? It’s not a wise move, Othie.

"If a man is caught with a pet, the pet will be immediately confiscated and the man will be forced to sign a document pledging not to repeat the act," al-Othman told the Al-Hayat newspaper. "If he does, he will be referred to authorities." (Those same authorities will no doubt declare an anti-kitty jihad, and strap a bomb to the cat for use as a kittybomb. The owner will then be flogged, stoned, and have a limb severed, ostensibly the limb most used to pet the pet.)



The Saudi-owned Al-Hayat newspaper announced the ban in its Wednesday edition last week, saying it was ordered by the acting governor of Riyadh province, Prince Sattam (Blessed Be His Name, of course), based on an edict from the Council of Senior Islamic Scholars and several religious police reports of pet owners harassing women and families.

C’mon. I’ve watched COPS for almost 20 years. I used to *be* a cop. In all my 39+ years of converting O2 into CO2, I have yet to run into dude harassing single women, let alone entire families, by waving a Cockapoo at them and making lewd suggestions. Sure, I’ve seen guys casually sit on benches with ferrets, yellow Lab puppies, an occasional snake, and maybe once a kinkajou, and girls would walk up to them and coo over the little beasties, but never have I seen the same people harass anyone with the animals. If they were bait, then it was subtle bait, not overt. Maybe the guys in Saudi Arabia haven’t learned subtlety yet?

Commission authorities often do not formally announce to the public new rules that they intend to implement. That way, you can stone and cane dozens to help get the word out, I guess. Officials from the commission and Riyadh city government could not be reached for comment on Thursday, which is a weekend day in Saudi Arabia. The English-language Arab News reported on the ban on Thursday. Wow…Thursday is a weekend day? When do these guys find the time to make billions of dollars? Oh wait, Sunday is a Christian thing…..Saturday’s a Jewish thing……Our weekends are Zionist Infidel days and therefore don’t count.

So far, the new prohibition did not appear to have any effect in Riyadh. It's extremely rare, anyway, to see anyone walking a dog, much less carrying a cat in public, in the capital, despite the authorities' claims of flirtatious young men luring girls with their pets in malls. Salesmen at a couple of Riyadh pet stores on Thursday said they did not receive any official orders from the commission banning the sale of pets. Cats and dogs were still on display.

"I didn't hear of the ban," said Yasser al-Abdullah, a 28-year-old Saudi nurse, who was at one pet store with his 3-month-old collie, Joe. Al-Abdullah, who also owns an 8-month-old Lab, said a couple of Western friends had been told to get off the streets by the religious police for walking their dogs. But of course. Harass the Western Infidels.

"I won't allow the commission to take my dogs from me," he said. Brave words, dude. Good luck.

The religious police prowl streets and malls throughout the kingdom, ensuring unmarried men and women do not mix, confronting women they feel are not properly covered or urging men to go to prayers. They also often make attempts to plug the few holes in the strict gender segregation that innovations bring. In 2004, they tried to ban cameras on cell phones, fearing that men and women would exchange pictures of each other, though the prohibition was quickly revoked. Every year, religious police warn against marking Valentine's Day, even trying to prevent people from wearing red clothing on the holiday, which they consider a Western creation that encourages vice. These dudes have WAY too much time on their hands.

There was no word whether commission authorities intend to expand the dog and cat ban beyond the capital. The prohibition may be more of an attempt to simply stop the owning of pets, which uber-conservative Saudi Islamists view as a sign of our insidious corrupt Western Infidel influence, like the fast food joints, shorts, jeans and pop music that have become more common in the kingdom. You’ll gladly take our money, but not anything else?

From what I gather, pet ownership has never been very common in the Arab world, though it is increasingly becoming fashionable among the upper class in Saudi Arabia and other countries such as Egypt. The rich and privileged can act decadently Western, but not the average everyday Achmed on the block.

In Islamic tradition, dogs are shunned as unclean and dangerous, though they are kept for hunting and guarding. Several breeds originated in Muslim countries, such as the Afghan Hound (Afghanistan), the Pharaoh Hound and Saluki (Egypt), the Sloughi Hound and Aidi (Morocco), and no fewer than twelve breeds from Pakistan. In large cities around the Middle East, stray dogs often wander the streets and are considered pests, the same as in almost any large city.

The ban on cats is more unusual, since there's no similar disdain for them in Islamic tradition. Cats are everywhere in ancient Egyptian art, although much of that predates Islam’s arrival. One of the Prophet Mohammed's closest companions was given the name Abu Huraira, Arabic for "the father of the kitten," because he always carried a kitten around with him and took care of it.

A number of hadithas, traditional stories of the Mohammed, show him encouraging people to treat cats well. Once, according to legend, he let a cat drink from the water that he was going to use for his ablutions before prayers.

So, contrary to public desires and modern sensibility, the clerics of Islam continue to keep the Muslim people locked in the Dark Ages out of zealotry. I wonder how the Brits will take to the curbing of pet walking and ownership once they start allowing more and more Sharia Law and Wahabism and Islamist control take a foothold in the United Kingdom.

There's no "honor" in an honor killing

Chaudry Rashid, not exactly Father of the Year


A Pakistani man accused of killing his daughter because she wanted out of an arranged marriage told a judge Tuesday that he had done nothing wrong. Chaudhry Rashid, 54 has been charged with killing his daughter in yet another Muslim “honor killing”.

Twenty-five-year-old Sandeela Kanwal was not happy with the marriage her father had arranged for her. So after the ceremony was performed in Pakistan three months ago, she went to Georgia and her husband went to Chicago. The young woman's husband was living in Chicago, police said, but Kanwal remained at her father's home and worked at a metro Atlanta Wal-Mart for a brief time.

Early Sunday, after a heated argument with her father, police in Clayton County near Atlanta said, the Pakistani immigrant allegedly took a bungee cord, wrapped it around his daughter's neck and killed her.

"The victim was not interested in neither marrying, nor remaining married to her husband," the police report said, citing information authorities received from Rashid's wife. "This was causing a great deal of friction between the victim and her father," so much so that the two had not spoken in two months, the report said. The two argued over the marriage and Rashid is alleged to have strangled his daughter to maintain family honor, feeling his daughter had disgraced his family.

The problem of "honor killings" and other domestic violence after failed arranged marriages is spreading as some culturally rigid Pakistani and Indian immigrants settle in different parts of the country, said Najma Adam, a sociology professor at Governors State University in suburban Chicago who co-wrote a 2007 study on the issue. When the marriage breaks down, both families are dishonored, especially the bride's, she said.

Subsequently, "family members, parents, are the ones who end up either taking their life or further abusing them," Adam said.

In arranged marriages, "even if [the husband] is beating her and very abusive toward her, because of the very strong patriarchal underpinnings, she is the one who has committed the crime by leaving him or by wanting out of this relationship," Adam said.

This kind of crap happens all the time in Muslim countries, where women are treated worse than house pets. This is also the kind of crap you can expect if you start letting Islamic laws take hold in your country. Hey, Britain, take notice. You too, Canada. Your tolerance of Muslim customs that run counter to English & Canadian common law just so you can look all sympathetic and liberal and open-arms to the “poor downtrodden masses” is allowing honor killings to take place in your countries. This is your immediate future if you don’t do something about it.

On the plus side, I somehow think that that the good old boys of the Clayton County, Georgia judiciary system are gonna be a lot les inclined to give this guy any sort of break or to embrace Sharia Law with open arms. It’s a horrible shame that an unhappy young lady was brutally murdered by her own father, and hopefully this will be a HUGE wakeup call for Americans to keep vigilant against this sort of bullshit. There’s no honor in honor killings.

Again, as I have said numerous times in the past: Religion of peace, my ass.

Want a civil war in England? Add Sharia and stir...

And so England continues on its downward spiral towards riots in the streets, and a possible civil war. I say civil war because more and more half-wits in the British government keep acquiescing to Islam, pushing for the allowance of Sharia Law and pushing other aspects of Islam in England, and the British people are only going to take so much of this nonsense before they raise up against it.

Two prime examples from the past week:

Two schoolboys were given detention last week after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped. They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise, which included wearing Muslim headgear, was a breach of their human rights.

One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: "This isn't right; it's taking things too far. I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Muslim prayer. Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.”

Another parent, Karen Williams, said: "I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don't find it acceptable. I haven't got a problem with them teaching my child other religions and a small amount of information doesn't do any harm. But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said 'we are now going out to pray to Allah'. Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right. They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."

One grandparent summed it up perfectly: “… if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."

No shit, Gramps. If you tried to get the Muslim kids to do something Christian or, Allah forbid, Jewish (gasp!!!),then there’d be absolute bloody Jihad and an Intifada called out upon all of the United Kingdom for a slap in the face of Islam. Piccadilly Circus would run red with innocent blood.

And if that wasn’t bad enough, the most senior judge in England last week gave his blessing to the use of Sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

Lord Chief Justice Nicholas Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance. In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of Sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.

The Lord Chief Justice of The Islamic Kingdom of England

When appointed Lord Chief Justice, Phillips gave the impression he would steer an uncontroversial course. His first act in office was to declare, “I intend to keep out of politics”. Yeah, right.

But his remarks, which back the informal Sharia courts operated by numerous mosques, provoked a barrage of criticism. Lawyers warned that family and marital disputes settled by Sharia could disadvantage women or the vulnerable in supposedly voluntary Sharia deals. Conservatives said that legal equality must be respected and that rulings incompatible with English law should never be enforceable.

Lord Phillips said: 'Those who are in dispute are free to subject it to mediation or to agree that it shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator. There is no reason why principles of sharia law or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of dispute resolution.'He further said that any sanctions must be 'drawn from the laws of England and Wales'. Severe physical punishment - he mentioned stoning, flogging or amputating hands - is 'out of the question' in Britain, he added.

The Arch-Imam of Canterbury. Looks like a real Imam to me, no?

Lord Phillips spoke five months after Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams suggested Islamic law could govern marital law, financial transactions and arbitration in disputes. I called the good Archbishop out on it then too, and I call the good Lord Chief Justice out on it today.

Are you bloody daft, m’lord? You expect the people of England to just give over their civil rights nder English Common Law to appease a bunch of bullies who don’t ascribe to the generally accepted rules of governance and religion in your nation? You can say all you want that the basic rights of English citizens won't be affected, but oce you let Sharia in, it will just fester and grow like a rash until Big Ben will only chime to tell Londoners when to kneel on their rugs.

Pretty soon, and rightly so, the people of England are going to backlash against the Islamics and the government that’s kissing their bearded arses. The Brits may seem all proper and reserved to us Yanks, but I foresee riots on a scale that will make football hooliganism seem like a spring stroll across Hyde Park. Perhaps its high time that the Royals speak up and say something about keeping England English, before they find the good Queen wearing a Royal Burka and being less a figurehead of state and more a third-class citizen not allowed outside without a leash.

Of course, we Americans are fast becoming a colony of Mexico because no one will stand up and say enough is enough, but that’s a blog for another day.

Soon, the Queen will only be allowed outside on Islamic holy days like Ramadan

It's okay to rape infidels. Mohammed said so.

I know it looks like I’m carrying on a one-man Crusade against Islam with my blogs about what I see as the evils of Islam and Sharia Law. Maybe I am. But just the same, people like to ignore the crap that’s going on around them, too.

A report posted on Islam Watch (www.islam-watch.org), a site run by Muslims who oppose teaching intolerance and hatred for Non-Islamic “unbelievers”, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and his lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims, including killing and rape.

A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin Khalisadar in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch. His interviewer asked, “…Imam Hamza Mesri said Muslims can kill British infidels and have sex with their wives and daughters. Do you agree with him?”

Khalisadar replied, “It is not what Imam Hamza said nor is there a question of my agreeing with him or not. It is in Koran, thus those are Allah’s orders.”

Well, that seems pretty cut & dry for all of us. It’s in the book, so it’s gotta be the truth.

So then the interviewer asks, “But why would Allah tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims?”

His reply was more side-stepping and religious crap. The Imam said "Because non-Muslims are never innocent; they are guilty of denying Allah and his Prophet. If you don't believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain."

The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam's position, saying that all Muslims are innocent. "You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary told the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

Wow…so much for the religion of peace & tolerance…

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action. "As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."

The interviewer, a woman who was pretty much force-fed exactly what to ask to set the Imam up for proselytizing, further asks of Khalisadar, “ But our Prophet was sent as a mercy for all the humanity; he never hurt any body in his life.” , to which the reply was, “Yes, he never hurt a Muslim in his life. But Allah said non-Muslim are lowest beasts and worst creatures … and Muslim are ordered to kill them."

And when asked if the Prophet Mohammed approve of killing them and raping their wives, Khalisadar said, “Yes, he did. He not only approved of such acts, he and his Sahabas (the companions to the Prophet, much like Jesus’ disciples) practiced it regularly under Allah’s orders. He was helpless in it... If you don’t believe me, you have to believe sahih hadiths" (a hadith is the personal recollection of Mohammed or one of his companions, much like the various Gospels of the Christian Bible).

Khalisadar then went on to quote a couple of passages from the Koran that described the sacking of a Jewish village and the resulting slaughter of the men and the taking of a certain specific young woman of 17,who was the wife of the village chief. After telling the story and working the male audience members into a bit of a lather, Khalisadar hatched a plan by which seven of the men agreed to lie for Main and say he was preaching to them at the local mosque if he ended up being apprehended for rape, and likewise he would lie for any of them.

Khalisadar ended up raping a local 27-year old woman in her home at knifepoint, and after being apprehended his cronies lied for him. What the Koran didn’t plan on was that he’d be convicted with DNA evidence. The Imam got 7½ years for rape and 2½ for conspiring to pervert justice. The seven members of the East London Mosque plead guilty to perverting justice and got 12 months each. Their burka-clad wives, present in the court, couldn’t believe this supposed miscarriage of justice. They yelled abuse at the judge for punishing their husbands for practicing their religion. They asked why an act approved by Koran and practiced by the holy Prophet punishable in a country which claims freedom of religion. They also claimed that it was clearly a discrimination against Muslims and definitely important for Muslims to implement Sharia Law in England as suggested by the learned Archbishop. (Oh yeah, in case you missed that blog, the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks that Sharia in the U.K. is inevitable. Only if you roll over and allow it to happen, your Holiness…)

But Imam Abdul had no regrets. For the first time in his life he had a white woman and in addition he gained a lot of sawab for following in the footsteps of his beloved prophet. Sawab is like a version of virtue, so this guy scored brownie points with his homies for raping a white lady.

Sad to say, had this happened in a Sharia country, he would have skated away scot-free, since Sharia Law requires four male witnesses to prove a rape, and chances are that those four witnesses were participants first.

So, I shall continue my little one-man Crusade against radical Islam and Sharia Law. Wake up, Sheeple! There’s more going on outside your window than trying to keep up with the Kardashians and worrying over who’ll get kicked off Flavor of Love this week.

Still more Sharia Law crapola

This sorta continues with the can of worms opened with this blog:
http://mojosteve.blogspot.com/2008/02/shariayou-know-rhymes-with-pariah.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, kids, it would seem that in my hiatus away from blogging that the Mutaween, and other Islamic Morality Police groups, have been busy relieving people of the tremendous burden of human rights.

Where to begin?

A university professor allegedly caught in a Saudi-style honey trap has been sentenced to 180 lashes and eight months in jail for having coffee with a girl. The man, a prominent and well-respected teacher of psychology at Umm al-Qra University in the holy city of Mecca, was framed by the religious police after he angered some of their members at a training course, his lawyer said.

The professor has not been named by the local media, which have given his case wide coverage, but one senior Saudi journalist told The Times of London that he was Dr. Abu Ruzaiz, a married man in his late 50s with children.

“He is highly respected and above-board. Nobody believes the religious police’s version of what happened. The whole of Jeddah (the main city near Mecca) is in uproar about this. Everyone believes he is innocent and was set up,” the journalist said.

Abdullah Al-Sanousi, the man’s lawyer, told local newspapers that his client had drawn the ire of some of the Mutaween’s staffers for speaking at length during a training session about how important it was for them to be polite to the public. Some of the trainees also wanted revenge because they had failed the course while others were not happy with their examination results.

Ruzaiz is said to have received a call from a girl purporting to be one of his students who asked to meet to discuss a problem that she did not want to talk about over the phone. The professor agreed to meet at a family cafe, provided she brought her brother along as a chaperone. When he arrived, he was surprised to find the girl alone, and was promptly surrounded by the ubiquitous robe-wearing, beared, cane-weilding religious policemen who handcuffed him and hauled him into custody. He was accused of being in a state of khulwa — seclusion — with an unrelated woman.

The lawyer insisted that because the two met in a public place frequented by hundreds of families, the question of khulwa never arose. However, the commission insists that the family sections at coffee shops and restaurants are meant only for families and close relatives. The professor is said to have taped a later conversation with the girl in which she admitted that she had been sent to the cafe by the religious police. The professor is relying on an appeals court to overturn the verdict. His lawyer has urged local human rights associations to back his plea for reviewing the case.

A spokesman for the commission in Mecca denied that his officials had conspired against the professor. “They are honorable people and would not create such a trap for any kind of personal revenge,” Ahmad Kasim Al-Ghamdi, told Arab News, a local paper.

Sounds like crap to me, Ahmad.

In other news, an illiterate Saudi woman is hoping that King Abdullah will spare her life after she was condemned to death for “witchcraft.” Her accusers included a man who claimed that the woman, Fawzi Falih, had made him impotent with her sorcery.
An international human rights group said Falih, who faces being publicly beheaded was allegedly beaten by religious police and forced into fingerprinting a false confession.
Another excellent example of progressive Islam…a man can’t get it up and a woman gets her head cut off because of it.

However, all is not lost

Women in Saudi Arabia can now stay in a hotel or a furnished apartment without a male guardian according to decision by the Ministry of Trade, according to a local Saudi press report. The daily paper Al-Watan, which is deemed close to the Saudi government, said the ministry issued a circular to the hotels asking them to accept women in their rooms even if they were alone, provided that all their information immediately is sent to a police station in the area.

The decision was adopted after a study conducted by the Interior Ministry, the Supreme Commission of Tourism, and or friends the Mutaween.

The paper interviewed some Saudi women who complained that they had been severely inconvenienced by the rules banning them from staying in the hotels alone. It quoted a woman identified as saying that she once arrived late at night at King Fahd airport on a flight and was denied a hotel room because she was alone. Another woman, Fatima Ibrahim, said her son-in-law quarreled with his wife and daughters and threw them out of the house. When they tried to get a hotel room, they were asked to get a permission from the police.

So, progress is being made. Soon we’ll see Islam reach the Dark Ages. And just think, back in August the Mutaween had insisted that authorities of Medina, one of Islam’s holiest cities, should build separate sidewalks for women, stating men and women should not be allowed to mix on the streets of the Islam’s second holiest place, where the Prophet Mohammed is buried.

And for the sake of equality, a man is being persecuted for a change, and this time in Iran instead of Saudi Arabia. (Oh, wait…an Iranian is being persecuted? This is news?)

A 70-year-old Iranian man was arrested and sentenced to four months in jail and 30 lashes for walking his dog. Police caught the man on the street with his dog in Shahr Rey, a suburb of Tehran. Owners of domestic animals are forbidden from taking them on the streets of the city because Islam considers dogs to be impure. An Islamic judge later charged the man for "disturbing the public order,” it was reported.

Despite repeated warnings by the police, dog owners continue to defy authorities by taking their dogs outside their homes. Typical punishment for people caught with dogs outside is a fine or the "detention" of their animals in a pound. So instead of just outlawing dogs, they claim to be tolerant of your right to own one, provided you keep it locked inside and let it crap on the floor.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently provoked debate in Iran about dog ownership when he took possession of four guard dogs, bought in Germany for approximately $161,040 each. Wow, you mean to tell me that Uncle Mahmoud can own dogs but the average Iranian can’t? No surprise there. Oh, wait, those are for security reasons. They aren’t really dogs, per se, but guard weapons. And who the bloody hell pays $644,160 for four dogs? They better be some pretty damned talented dogs.


So, as usual, the Islamic world once again leaves me scratching my head and wondering why everyone is pushing so hard for acceptance of Sharia Law and strict Wahhabism. I think I’ll go walk my dog now.

Sharia.....you know, rhymes with "Pariah"

The new sexy English schoolgirl's uniform if things don't change soon

Once again, the so-called religion of peace is rearing one of its Hydra heads. Sharia Law, the uber-conservative strict set of rules that governs Islam, is once again in the news after a 37-year old American businesswoman, a married mother of three, was arrested in the Saudi Arabian city of Riyadh and held for a day, interrogated, strip-searched, and made to sign false confessions.

Her alleged crime? Sitting with a male business colleague in a Starbucks.

Yeah, you read that right. I am NOT kidding.

The woman, who declined to give her full name for fear of retribution (and rightly so) from these zealot fruitbags, is married to a prominent businessman, has lived in Saudi Arabia for 8 years and is a managing partner for a finance company. When the power to their office went out, she and her work colleagues all went to a nearby Starbucks to use the wireless internet connection. She sat in a curtained booth with her business partner in the café's “family” area, the only seats where men and women are allowed to mix, since in Saudi Arabia, public contact between unrelated men and women is strictly prohibited.

“Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked ‘Why are you here together?'. I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin,” recalled the woman.

The men were from the Mutaween, Saudi Arabia's Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, a police force of several thousand men charged with enforcing dress codes, sex segregation, slave-like subjugation of women as second-class chattel, and the observance of prayers. They took her cell phone, pushed her into a cab and drove her to Malaz prison in Riyadh. She was interrogated, strip-searched and forced to sign and fingerprint a series of confessions pleading guilty to her “crime”.

“They took me into a filthy bathroom, full of water and dirt. They made me take off my clothes and squat and they threw my clothes in this slush and made me put them back on,” she said. Eventually she was taken before a judge. “He said 'You are sinful and you are going to burn in hell'. I told him I was sorry. I was very submissive. I had given up. I felt hopeless,” she said.

Her husband had to call in favors from his political contacts to find where she was and secure her release. Very few women in Muslim countries have that luxury. She was later visited by a representative from the American Embassy, who promised to file a report. That report, if ever written at all, will be laughed at by the Saudi government and then promptly ignored, and we’ll go back to the status quo of kissing the royal Saudi ass to keep oil flowing.

Under Sharia Law, pretty much everything is outlawed except praying and subservience. (Yeah, I made a blanket statement about another religion. So what? I’m already an infidel.)

This set of codes allows for cutting off the hands of someone suspected of thievery, for unmarried fornicators to be whipped with canes and adulterers to be stoned to death. It cites that homosexuals must be executed, and drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear she’s just being uppity. And here’s a good one: Islam orders death for Muslims and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Mohammed and the Koran and even Sharia itself. So, that means if you criticize Islam, doom on you and we’ll come after you.

Looks like I just invited a Jihad down on myself. I say BRING IT ON.

It’s often claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of these strict laws, and customs like women wearing veils over their faces, abaya headscarves, or even full bodybag burkhas, or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual “crimes” have negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, Sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights the more closely Sharia Law is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women cannot vote, cannot drive, cannot be treated in a hospital or travel without the written permission of a male guardian. They cannot study the same things men do, and are barred from certain professions. In Iran women's testimony counts half that of men and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

Here’s some more examples of peace and tolerance:

In February 1998 the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over on three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy. This might be why President Ahmedinijad claimed on his visit here last summer that there are no homosexuals in Iran. No shit, buddy…you killed them all.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric said homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for “gay conduct.” These homosexuals were lucky. Most of Islam would have executed them.

In December 2004, an Amnesty International report stated that:
“An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.”

In December, 2007, a 57-year old man killed his 16-year old daughter in an “honor killing” in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. The teen had recently clashed with her family after ceasing to wear Islamic headgear and adopting a more Western style of dress.

Last year a 19-year old Saudi woman was abducted and gang-raped by seven men, and a court in Saudi Arabia sentenced her to 90 lashes because she was in a car with an unrelated man before she was abducted. She met a high school friend in his car to retrieve a picture of herself from him. Two men, armed with knives, got into their car and drove to a secluded spot where five others waited. The young woman had the courage to appeal the sentence and publicize her story in the media. And so the court increased her punishment to 200 lashes and six months in jail. Her lawyer, a prominent human rights defender, was suspended and faced a disciplinary hearing. However, under a barrage of world criticism, the Saudi King pardoned the girl.

In 2002, 15 Saudi schoolgirls died when officers of the morality police would not let them out of their burning school building - and barred firefighters from saving them - because the girls weren’t wearing the headscarf and black cloak that all women must wear in public.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex and for drinking alcohol.

In 2005, in Nigeria a Sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.

In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others were scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

In 1989, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, the novelist who wrote “The Satanic Verses”, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Koran.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended, and brought the suit. Appallingly, they won.

In January 2008, a Belarus court sentenced a newspaper editor to three years in prison for reprinting a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed that sparked worldwide riots when it was initially published in a Danish newspaper last year. According to the Associated Press, “less than 1 percent” of the population of Belarus is Muslim. Nevertheless, it appears that Sharia law has been instituted in the former Soviet republic.

Sharia law is also trying to keep criticism of Islam from being printed in American books and media outlets. Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz has filed lawsuits through British courts over articles, books, and publications that were critical of Islam or showed Islamic funding of global terrorism.

The Supreme Court has defined (in New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964) libel or slander by a journalist as stating or writing falsehoods or misrepresentations that damage someone’s reputation, and in cases of public figures doing so with malice. Under Sharia, by contrast, libel constitutes any oral or written remark offensive to a complainant, regardless of its accuracy or intent. Slander “means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him,” according to “Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat”.

That means Sharia regards even the truth as slander if its subject dislikes the facts. Now applied through foreign courts, Sharia law interpretations of libel are undermining the viability of the American press. Though Mahfouz never proved merits in any libel case, he has threatened or sued more than 35 journalists and publishers (including many in the U.S.) through Britain’s High Court, and exacted fines, apologies and retractions from all but one. Way to go, Britain.

Unfortunately, in many western countries with large Muslim populations there have been calls to allow and adopt Sharia law, at least for the Muslims, but since they also want to forcibly convert everyone to be Believers that means they want it to apply to everyone. The call has been especially loud in Britain, and it galls me that the Brits have been pretty spineless in not nipping that crap in the bud. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said today that it was inevitable that Sharia law would come to England for Muslims to handle their own family affairs and that it “seems unavoidable” that elements of Islamic law be accepted into the British legal system. The head of the Church of England believes that officially sanctioning Sharia will improve community relations and aid integration. What a load of crap, your Holiness. You’ve just given them ammunition to make England less English and more Islamic.

Sharia law should be opposed for imposing of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual freedom of thought, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments. There is a naïve notion going around that if you display tolerance everyone will live peacefully side by side, singing “Kumbaya” and roasting marshmallows. This nation was indeed founded upon religious freedom, but when “tolerance” starts to impede upon the values that our nation was based upon and puts our other basic freedoms at risk, I gotta say “Whoa, hold up”. Separation of church & state means we also need to keep religion from ruling every aspect of our society.

I don’t doubt that most Muslims are peaceful folks and that we can all get along just fine. It’s the radical fundamentalists that I have a problem with, and archaic repressive laws from their religion, (or frankly anyone’s religion) trying to impose their will upon free-thinking peoples everywhere. Keep Sharia law out of American society, or American society will cease to exist.




Special thanks to James Arlandson of The American Thinker and Alyssa Lappen of Pajamas Media for providing much of my information.