PDA

View Full Version : Minneapolis Shari'a Watch


Paparock
03-14-2007, 01:48 AM
Minneapolis is the scene of yet another intrusion of extremist shari’a law into US society, as Muslim cashiers at Target stores are refusing to handle pork (http://www.buzz.mn/?q=node/898).
The other day, I got a call from someone who said that an employee at the Target store downtown refused to run his bacon through a scanning machine. He was mighty upset, arguing that the cashier had “no right to work as a cashier at Target” if she wasn’t prepared to swipe his groceries.
But he was a little vague on the details, so I decided to check it out myself. At the Target store on E. Lake Street, a cashier wearing a burka looked uncomfortable when I showed up at the cash register with a frozen pepperoni pizza. She immediately called for help, and another employee rang up the pizza and placed it in the basket.
I asked her if it was because she was Muslim, and she nodded her head. “I can’t even touch it,” she said.
Of course, any bacon or pepperoni pizzas for sale at Target would be shrink-wrapped in plastic, then boxed in some kind of cardboard package, so no cashier could ever physically touch the dreaded pork.
But then, this really isn’t about the pork.

Cougar
03-14-2007, 07:01 AM
A cashier dressed in a burka???????????????????????

I boycott Target anyway since they kicked out the salvation army a few years ago when the SA did its usual Christmas charity fundraising drive, but I would never ever enter a store where someone works dressed in a burka.

This country is more and more becoming an asylum for insane people.

paracollector
03-14-2007, 11:01 AM
Having spent many years living in the Peoples Republic of Minnesota, this little bit does not suprise me. I figure in a few years or so, they'll have a guy standing behind the golden horses on the capital roof shouting the call to prayer five times a day.

*titanium*
03-24-2007, 04:29 PM
In Berlin Butchers who sell pork are getting death threats. Muslims arent suposed to eat pork because its dirty. They copied this from Judaisam but these days you can actualy buy pork in Israel. Sure the religious people will boycott those shops but in secular cities they do just fine and there are no death threats or anything like that. Why are muslims so intolerant? Hindus dont eat beef because cows are sacred to them. You dont see Hindus kicking up a fuss in the west because we are eating their sacred animals. Yet Muslims get angry over the people they hate eating dirty animals.

Paparock
03-25-2007, 05:04 PM
Katherine Kersten is one of the few mainstream journalists who understands the Islamist reasons behind cab drivers who won’t carry passengers with alcohol or guide dogs, and the CAIR-fueled grievance circus of the six non-flying imams: Shariah in Minnesota? (http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110009832)

Minnesota is home to tens of thousands of Somalis, most recent immigrants. Behind the scenes, moderate local Somali leaders are engaged in a power struggle with national Muslim organizations that seek to exploit this vulnerable population. Islam prohibits the consumption of alcohol but not its transportation, say Somalis who reject the taxi drivers’ stance. Yet in June 2006, the Muslim American Society’s (MAS) Minnesota chapter issued a “fatwa” forbidding drivers here from carrying alcohol to avoid “cooperating in sin.”

Hassan Mohamud, one of the fatwa signers, praised the two top-light proposal as a national model for accommodating Islam in areas ranging from housing to the workplace. But according to Omar Jamal of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center in St. Paul, MAS is “trying to hijack and radicalize the Somali community for their Middle East agenda.” ...

The events here suggest a larger strategy: By piggy-backing on our civil rights laws, Islamist activists aim to equate airport security with racial bigotry and to move slowly toward a two-tier legal system. Intimidation is a crucial tool. The “flying imams” lawsuit ups the ante by indicating that passengers who alerted airport authorities will be included as defendants. Activists are also perfecting their skills at manipulating the media. After a “pray-in” at Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C., one credulous MSNBC anchor likened the flying imams to civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

The comparison is misplaced: Omar Shahin, leader of the detained imams, has helped raise money for at least two charities later shut down for supporting terrorism. From 2000 to 2003, he headed the Islamic Center of Tucson, which terrorism expert Rita Katz described in the Washington Post as holding “basically the first cell of al Qaeda in the United States.” CAIR has long been controversial for alleged terrorist ties, while the Chicago Tribune has described MAS as the American arm of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, which “preaches that religion and politics cannot be separated and that governments eventually should be Islamic.”

So far, Minnesotans have said a resolute “no” to Muslim activists’ agenda; in an informal Star Tribune poll, 92% of respondents blamed the imams’ own behavior for their airport detention. And Target—after unsuccessful attempts to accommodate Muslim cashiers—is reassigning them to other jobs. Still, there is a sense that we’ve seen just the opening skirmishes. As MAC spokesman Patrick Hogan put it, “I think people are afraid there will be a chapter two.”

There will be a chapter two. They always come back. The Muslim Brotherhood and their “activists” in the US are in this for the long haul, and they’re slowly increasing the pressure.

Paparock
03-29-2007, 08:56 PM
Legal Jihad Escalates in Michigan (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24948_Legal_Jihad_Escalates_in_Michigan&only)

They always come back, and yesterday the woman whose small claims case was thrown out when she refused to remove her face mask filed suit against the judge: Muslim sues judge who barred veil (http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070329/LIFESTYLE04/703290384).

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20070329MichiganNiqab01-sm.jpg

A Muslim woman who was told she had to remove her veil if she wanted to testify in 31st District Court in Hamtramck filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the judge who made the ruling.

Ginnah Muhammad filed the complaint against Judge Paul Paruk, alleging he violated her religious rights and denied her equal access to the courts.

Muhammad had gone to small claims court last October in a dispute with a car rental company when Paruk said she could not testify unless she removed her veil, the lawsuit alleges.

“If in fact, you do not wish to do it, then I cannot go forward with your case and I have to dismiss your case,” Paruk told the woman, according to a transcript attached to the complaint filed by Dearborn Heights lawyer Nabih Ayad. Muhammad refused and Paruk dismissed the case, the lawsuit alleges. Paruk did not return a phone call.

“I’m a human being and I wanted to come to court to get justice,” Muhammad said at a news conference Wednesday outside the federal courthouse in Detroit. “When I walked out, I just really felt empty, like the courts didn’t care about me.”

The Quran doesn’t explicitly require women to cover their face, but many Muslim women wear a hajib or other covering as a sign of piety and modesty.

The Detroit News is amazingly clueless on this issue. Forget about the fact that they won’t even consider the possibility this is a radical Islamic agenda at work; that’s not a “veil” she’s wearing, it’s a niqab, a full-body disguise, one step away from the burqa (which obscures the eyes as well). And the word for the veil that covers the head and hair is “hijab,” not “hajib.” Sheesh.