Tag Archives: Islam

Tony Blair’s sister-in-law converts to Islam

Posted on by
4

Lauren Booth, sister-in-law to Tony Blair and journalist – or shrill harridan – for the Islam Channel has decided to become a Muslim. She is not known for accuracy in her reporting, is the recipient oAdd an Imagef the Dishonest Reporter of 2008 Award and is creating great anticipation as millions wait for her to don a full body burka and finally keep quiet.

From here:

Tony Blair’s sister-in-law has converted to Islam after having a ‘holy experience’ in Iran.

Broadcaster and journalist Lauren Booth, 43 – Cherie Blair’s half-sister – said she now wears a hijab head covering whenever she leaves her home, prays five times a day and visits her local mosque ‘when I can’.

She decided to become a Muslim six weeks ago after visiting the shrine of Fatima al-Masumeh in the city of Qom.

‘It was a Tuesday evening and I sat down and felt this shot of spiritual morphine, just absolute bliss and joy,’ she told The Mail on Sunday.

When she returned to Britain, she decided to convert immediately.

‘Now I don’t eat pork and I read the Koran every day. I’m on page 60.

Bacon smell offends Muslims

Posted on by
2

From here:Add an Image

A cafe owner was ordered to remove an extractor fan because the smell of her frying bacon offended passing Muslims.

Planning officials acted against Beverley Akciecek, 49, after being told her next door neighbour’s Muslim friends had felt ”physically sick” due to the ”foul odour.”

The fan has been in Beverley’s Snack Shack takeaway in the Shaw Heath area of the town for the past three years.

I presume this is the burka syndrome at work in a different form. Delicate Muslim sensibilities are so inflamed by the enticing smell of cooking bacon that, once exposed to it, repressed Muslim men living on a pork hair trigger will succumb to what they secretly dream of day and night: an orgy of depraved gammon gorging. Similar to what could happen on seeing a woman who is not dressed as a sausage – a pork free sausage, of course.

London Ontario caves in to Muslims demanding censorship

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

Strictly Right sent out a press release earlier today to Canadian media with some rather startling news about the upcoming Mark Steyn speech in London, Ontario that we’re putting together. Mark Steyn will be speaking on November 1st in a speech entitled “Head for the Hills: Why everything in your world is doomed.” Apparently, London-area Muslims didn’t like that idea too much.

Due to capacity constraints at the University of Western Ontario, the original venue for the event, we had booked the London Convention Centre (LCC,) London’s premiere conference facility. On Tuesday, I received a phone call from the LCC telling us that our venue had been pulled, and that Mark Steyn would not be permitted to speak there. The reason offered by the LCC was that they had received pressure from local Islamic groups, and they didn’t want to alienate their Muslim clients. It’s interesting to note that the LCC is owned by the City of London, and is therefore a government operation.

I’m sure these Islamic groups are populated with moderate Muslims – just like the moderate Muslims who want to build a victory mosque at ground zero.

Archbishop Rowan Williams and the human sausage

Posted on by
2

Rowan Williams thinks men should be allowed to force their wives to dress like a bratwurst; from here:

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has deplored attempts by governments in Europe to prohibit Muslim women from publicly wearing the burqa, a garment that covers the entire body.

“Governments should have better things to do than ban the burqa,” Williams, the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, told an interfaith meeting organized by the National Council of Churches in India at its headquarters in Nagpur, during a visit to India.

Archbishops should have better things to do than tell governments they have better things to do.

Burka Rage

Posted on by
1

From here:

A retired teacher is facing three years in prison for ripping off a Muslim’s face veil in the world’s first known case of ‘burka rage’.

The 63-year-old woman, so far only referred to by her first name Marlene, appeared before the Paris Correctional Court to defend her attack on Shaika, 26, who originally comes from the United Arab Emirates….

Marlene, who is accused of aggravated violence, is said to have ‘lost control’ when she saw Shaika choosing furniture in a department store.

‘I knew I would crack one day,’ said Marlene. ‘This whole saga of the burka was really getting to me.’

Speaking in English to her victim, Marlene, who has taught in Morocco and Saudi Arabia, said: ‘I told her to take off the veil she had on her face. I grabbed and pulled it.

‘To me wearing a full veil is an attack on being a woman. As a woman, I felt attacked.’

A few minutes later Marlene is said to have started hitting Shaika, who refused to take her veil off.

‘I went over to her and tore her veil,’ said Marlene in a police report. ‘We came to blows. I was very upset.’

After allegedly slapping Shaika, Marlene bit her hand before successfully removing the veil, shouting: ‘Now I can see your face.’

Security guards had to separate the women, with one describing the fight as being motivated by ‘pure burka rage’.

Wearing a burka in public in France is now illegal – it wasn’t when Marlene went burka bonkers – but a pre-emptive citizen’s arrest defence isn’t likely to fly. I wonder if she would be facing three years in prison if she’d ripped a ku klux klan hood off its hapless wearer?

Where’s Muhammad?

Posted on by
4

The editors of the Washington Post exercised their right of craven poltroonery last weekend by not publishing a very mildly satirical cartoon about Muhammad.
From the Annals of Dhimmitude:

What is clever about last Sunday’s “Where’s Muhammad?” comic is that the prophet [sic] does not appear in it.

Still, Style editor Ned Martel said he decided to yank it, after conferring with others, including Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli, because “it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message.” He added that “the point of the joke was not immediately clear” and that readers might think that Muhammad was somewhere in the drawing.

Would they have published a cartoon that did have a clear – but offensive – message? Obviously not.

Muslim in the UK woman fired for not wearing a headscarf

Posted on by
1

From here:

A Muslim woman has been awarded more than £13,500 after she was sacked for refusing to wear a headscarf at the estate agency where she worked…..

However, within days of working there she was left feeling ‘very uncomfortable and intimidated’ when Mr Ghafoor put it to her that she had not been brought up as a ‘good Muslim’ and that if she had been his daughter she would not be allowed to work and would have been long since ‘married off’.

He asked her to wear a headscarf at work – even though white non-Muslim women he employed in the same office were never asked to and never did.

On the day she was due to start her third week in the job, Mr Ghafoor told her not to bother coming in.

So much for Muslim women being free to choose whether to wear a head covering or not – and this coercion came from a fellow who was not even her husband.

An Anglican priest who understands Islam

Posted on by
Reply

From here, where he had this to say about those speaking out against the Islamization of the West and the ground-zero mosque:

There is this idea floating around that those who are speaking up about Islamic radicalism must be bigots and therefore they must be ignorant. Ironically the loudest critics of Islam are usually the ones who have studied the fundamentals of Islam the most rigorously. Those crying “bigot” can be the most ignorant, and will come up with absolute howlers, real nonsense, spoken with a poker face as it were the most serious thing in the world. They decry accurate and reliable information about Islam as “Islamophobic facts,” just as the Soviet courts used to reject what they called “calumnious facts.”

When non-Muslims go into interfaith dialogue without a good understanding of Islam, they are severely handicapped. The dialogue can easily be manipulated to become an exercise in da’wa, or proclaiming Islam. A good example is the label “Abrahamic faith.” This is a Koranic term, and in Islam it stands for the idea that Abraham was a Muslim. According to the Koran, the faith of Abraham is Islam. Getting Jews and Christians to speak about “Abrahamic religions” has been a great coup – it is a manifestation of the Islamization of our religious discourse.

The problem of dialogue is especially acute if your Muslim counterpart subscribes to the doctrine of taqiyya, which favors the use of misleading impressions, or even direct lies. Everyone involved in interfaith dialogue with Muslims needs to understand that under certain circumstances – for example, if Muslims feel threatened – giving a misleading impression could be regarded as a righteous act. Not all Muslims will go down this track, but for some it is a real option, and there are plenty of clear examples of it happening all around us. In The Third Choice I give a very clear explanation of the doctrine of taqiyya, and explain how it arises in Islamic theology, how it is being taught by Muslims, and how it is being applied today.

So perhaps the suspicion that the cultural centre cum Anglican Ladies Tea-room is really just a cover for a victory mosque isn’t so far off the mark. Shocking.