Ottawa Imam Worries About Increase In Young Male Converts To Islam

The rise in young male converts in their 20s and 30s has the imam of a Canadian mosque in Ottawa plenty worried. Sam Metwally heads one of the largest mosques in the city, and it seems this increase has occurred ever since the shooting last October when convert Michael Zehaf-Bibeau gunned down a soldier, and then made his way into the Canadian parliament guns a blazing.

Metwally said anywhere from 15 to 20 men in their 20s to 30s have come to the mosque to convert since the shootings.

“This is the biggest number after an event like this happens, and it was strange,” he said.

What is worrying for the Muslim community is that the new converts are not returning back to the mosques for further education about Islam.

“We try to give them our contacts, we try to encourage them to come again, but unfortunately the vast, vast majority of new converts, they come once and they disappear,” Metwally said.

“They never come back again. And this is a big concern for us.”

Some Muslim leaders demand a strict policy in place at all mosques across Ottawa, requiring potential converts to take a course in order to understand the religion.

“What we’ve been hearing from converts for years is that the Muslim community actually needs to do more for converts,” Amira Elghawaby, a member The National Council of Canadian Muslims, said.

She added: “The community needs to be providing more Muslim 101 classes, we need to be inviting people who are new to the faith to come in and learn.”

If he's that worried, don't do it. Most other religions require lessons before conversion. Maybe he should follow the lead of those other Muslims who allow conversion only after taking a course.

At least he's bringing it to the light.

Women Need To Cover Up To Prevent Rape, Claims Toronto Muslim Preacher

Like England, Canada has its fair share of radical Muslims, including 33-year-old street preacher Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana, a convert from Christianity who blames women who get raped on the way they dress. There have been a rash of sexual assaults against women at Toronto's York University, and his solution: make 'em dress like Muslimahs. The dolt told the Toronto Sun:

"the reason ... these sex attacks are continuously happening is because (of) Canadian laws, which give too much freedom to women" when it comes to how they dress. You should take your example from the way Muslim women dress. Why does (sic) Muslim women who wear long dress and covers her head aren't targeted for sex attacks?"
[snip]

"the reason ... a woman gets raped is because of the way she (dresses)"

He wants the city of Toronto to set a precedent by becoming:

"..the first city in North America to introduce laws that would make it illegal for women to dress provocatively. If (women) want to prevent being sexually assaulted, they should cover themselves."

Though he knows women in the West won't adopt Muslim dress, he says there should definitely be a "dress code".

Blaming sexual harassment and assault on a provocatively dressed woman is a fallacy, since fully veiled women are subjected to rape and sexual assault all the time in Muslim countries. In fact, this UK cleric claims there is no rape within marriage- in other words, it's okay to rape your wife. And sexual harassment in Egypt is commonplace, something Egyptian women have to deal with on a daily basis.

But few in the Muslim world will admit to the fact that there is as much, if not more, sexual violence in their world as there is in Western societies. And in Muslim majority countries, women who are raped are jailed, killed, or forced to marry their rapists.

Antagana has a website- Muslimsupport.net - that advises men and women how to dress:

"Men must cover their body from the navel to the knees. But when praying he must also cover his shoulder."

"Women must cover their whole body except the face, hands and feet while inside. But they are also required to cover their whole body including a part of the face while going out, according to the majority of the Madhabs (school of thought)."

In response to Antagana's quest to cover up Toronto women, Dr. Farzana Hassan, former president of the Canadian Muslim Council, wrote this opinion piece in the Toronto Sun.

Women are "raw meat" waiting to be devoured by men because of their dress, declared an Australian imam in 2006.

Six years later, and in our own backyard, a young convert to Islam, Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana is proposing new laws in Canada that would require women to cover up "like Muslim women," concealing all but their eyes and hands. He contends that the high incidence of rape in North America is because of how women dress in Western countries. The new laws would make it "illegal for women to dress provocatively in the streets," and would thereby take away the freedoms Western women enjoy.

Canadian women would have to be covered up in burkas, abayas and hijabs. They would presumably also be segregated, and their male relatives would monitor and control their behaviour. So what is it about Islamist men and their preoccupation with sex that awakens such paranoia about women's garb?

First, many Islamist men do not understand the imperative of consent in a sexual relationship. They believe rape is a normal rather than a criminal reaction to female physiology, and assume that this would be every man's response to a glimpse of some skin.

Read the rest of her commentary here.

Muslim men need to start taking responsibility for their own lack of self control.  It shouldn't be so hard for those who claim to be so religious and pious. Just don't look!

Muslim Cabbies Refuse Passengers With Dogs- In Canada and U.S.

Looks like Canada is having Muslim cabbie troubles now. Back in 2007, Minneapolis-St Paul Airport had a major problem with Somali (mostly) Muslim cab drivers refusing service to passengers with alcohol or dogs.  Even someone with a seeing-eye dog could be stranded for a long period of time. That's because of the 900 or so licensed cabbies at the airport, a good three-quarters of them are Muslim. And Muslims don't like dogs. They're haram (forbidden) per Islam, because their saliva is considered unclean. And transporting alcohol is a major sin, forget about actually imbibing.

This article was written at the beginning of 2007, and for the five years prior to that at least 5,400 travelers were refused service for either having a pet or guide dog, or were carrying alcohol. So airport commissioners were contemplating punishing those cab drivers who discriminate against people for those reasons. They, of course, claimed that they were the ones being discriminated against.

"It is against our faith and the airport is discriminating against Muslim drivers," says a cab driver who would only give his first name, Hashim.

According to Patrick Hogan of the Metropolitan Airports Commission:

"There are times where cab after cab will refuse service, and passengers can be waiting for 20 minutes. We've had complaints of people being asked if they had any alcoholic beverages in their luggage. We were seeing an average of 77 refusals a month," he says, "Now we're seeing between 8 and 20."

That's because, thanks to 9/11, we can't travel with anything larger than 2 or 3 ounces on board anymore.

Licensed cab drivers aren't supposed to discriminate, unless they feel threatened in some way, and surprisingly the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) agreed :

"This is a public access issue," says Chuck Samuelson, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, "Bottom line is we are a secular society, and that's the way it is."

After the commission refused attempts at compromise, CAIR finally stepped in and resolved the issue.

After CAIR-MN facilitated dialogue between the two groups and cleared the misunderstanding, the Muslim taxi drivers offered free rides to attendees of the American Council of the Blind Convention in downtown Minneapolis. Abdinoor Ahmed Dolal, owner of Twin Cities Airport Taxi, said “Islam forbids us to turn away a blind passenger, whether they have a guide dog or not. Their rights come first.”

Apparently, dogs aren't such a major issue for Muslims after all:

An Iman from the local Az-Zahraa Islamic Centre, Javed Jaffri, researched the dog topic and served as an expert witness for a blind man refused passage by a Muslim taxi driver. Jaffri spent long hours on this, and provided an unbiased interpretation of the Koran that indicated “there is nothing saying that one must refuse service to another person because of the fear of contamination by a dog.”

He also said that “there can be exceptions to blanket refusals to deal with dogs, especially if it means helping someone in need. All that would be required in most circumstances would be for a Muslim person to wash their hands before eating if they have been in contact with a dog. That’s not a terrible task to go through,” he said.

But there are still problems in Canada, according to a post on Blazing Catfur.

Toronto Sun columnist Sue-Ann Levy discusses her trouble hailing a cab at Pearson Airport because of her dachsie Kishka. At 1:30 a.m. On her third try she finally found a cabbie who would take her and Kishka home.

After posting on Facebook, she found out she wasn't alone.

What I realized is that this occurs quite often not only at the airport but in Toronto proper and is happening due to religious reasons — that is, because dogs are considered unclean in certain religions.

In fact, Gail Beck-Souter, general manager of Beck Taxi that operates about 900 cars in Toronto, confirms that if certain Muslims take a dog in their vehicle, they are required to go home and shower afterwards (before they pray).

It would seem that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) which licenses limos that pick up at Pearson airport and the companies that operate out of the airport have bent over backwards to accommodate the religious demands of their drivers — who clearly have strength in numbers.

McIntosh Limousine manager Anne Ruddy claimed the driver who turned me down, a gentleman from India, did so because he “doesn’t have to” take dogs.

But the driver would have to take Kishka if he was a service dog — that’s the “law,” she said.

She denied Muslim drivers in their fleet would ever turn down dogs for religious reasons contending it has more to do with “them being scared” of dogs.

Asked how she felt about a woman being denied a ride at 1:30 a.m., Ruddy said she “hates the idea” but they have to “abide by the GTAA rules” — they “don’t have a choice.”

I had to laugh when I read the description of their drivers on the McIntosh website, most particularly this gem: “Our drivers have taken sensitivity training...”

Guess that sensitivity training didn’t include the part about not leaving a woman stranded at 1:30 a.m.

Read her whole ordeal here. 

Someone needs to start educating these people that if it's just the saliva they're worried about, carry a nice big bottle of Purell, and keep it in the car. Ironically, they are probably handling things that are far dirtier and unclean than a dog's saliva, which is pretty filthy.

"Islam Will Rule" Plastered On Beth Tikvah Synagogue In Toronto, Canada

From Blazing Cat Fur in Canada: Beth Tikvah Synagogue in Toronto was prominently defaced with a nazi swastika and "Islam Will Rule".

There is no place for such hate in a civilized society, but it is apparently an ever increasing occurrence especially in Toronto, so it seems.

Read more.

Freedom of Speech Canuck-Style- Blue Host Shuts Down Blogger At Behest of Canadian Immigrant Dr. Asad Raza

There are some who obviously have no clue about the concept of 'freedom of speech', or 'public domain', 'fair use' or what the definitions of slander, defamation and libel are. Perhaps it's because freedom, let alone free speech, doesn't exist in the countries they emigrated from, but it's something most Westerners cleave to, like a baby to its mother's breast. It's something we cherish deeply and will defend at any cost. We might disagree with what an individual says or does, but we almost always agree that they have the right to say or do it. That is, as long as it harms no-one physically.

Many non-Western immigrants who move to the West are grateful for their new opportunities and new-found freedom. Many others have a challenging time adapting to certain aspects of Western society including the fact that we are all entitled to criticize anyone or anything we choose, right or wrong. And whether they like it or not it's one of our inalienable rights, at least in the U.S. At least for now. I'm not so sure about Canada, as it seems our poor cousins up north are going the way of the UK, and their freedom of speech is being challenged left and right. Using the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) as a weapon, bloggers are being sued by these people for alleged 'hate crimes' for something that is nothing more than criticism. My Canadian blogger buddy Blazing Catfur has written extensively about the problem there. We haven't quite reached that point in this country, yet, but I'm sure we're not too far behind. Thankfully, we can still blast someone here, including our President, without being thrown in jail or killed, like in Egypt or Pakistan or Iran. And suing is something that is becoming very common with many of these entitled immigrants when they feel they are being criticized or their demands are not met. And with the help of the CHRC in Canada, and organizations like CAIR (Council on American and Islamic Relations) in the U.S., they often win. As a result, all they have to do is threaten to sue and people cave in to their demands.

This is what happened to a Canadian blogger, Marginalized Action Dinosaur (MAD), who wrote a post about one Dr. Asad Raza, founder of a website that no longer seems to exist called notcanada.com . Essentially a site dedicated to griping about being an immigrant in Canada, Dr. Raza wrote a list of top 8 things he hated about his adopted country including the health care crisis, high taxes and cost of living, no jobs, no culture and the bad weather. (U.S. Obamacare proponents take note!) An ingrate, sure, however all that criticism was absolutely within his rights in a free country; although I'm assuming no-one put a gun to his head and forced him to emigrate to Canada. MAD then chose to respond with a post of his own, referencing Raza's gripe-fest and commenting on each gripe made. Absolutely within MAD's rights too, in a free country. No slander, no defamation, no libel. Raza has since left Canada and has been working in the U.S. on an H-1B Visa, though I'm not sure what his legal status is since he was querying about it on online immigration forum just seven months ago.

The bizarre thing is, MAD's post was written back in 2007, but for some reason Raza stumbled upon it, got a bug up his you know what and decided that MAD's criticism was slanderous and defamatory and demanded that he remove it. Hmmm. Lets see. What's the dictionary definition of slander:

a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

Since all MAD happened to do was re-post something Raza actually wrote, with a link and attribution along with a few side commentaries (none of which were defamatory, as you can see for yourself), there is quite obviously no slander involved. Had he called him an incompetent, psychopathic pedophile axe murder, that's a totally different story; yes that would be defamation of character and slanderous. But being critical of someone for something they said or did is not defamation of character, nor slander if it's based on unequivocal truth. Gossip maybe, but not slander. And in this case, these were Raza's own words. But when the doc didn't get his way, like a spoiled child, he turned to MAD's ISP BlueHost.Com, which in turn threatened MAD and eventually shut him down. It was re-instated, several days later, but not before causing MAD much grief. He was threatened for publishing

....so called personal and private information from the dear doctors website.

Excuse me, but none of the information MAD published was personal or private. The Internet is a public forum, as was Raza's website notcanada.com, and if you don't want people to access that information then stay away from the world wide web. If you're stupid enough to think that anything you write won't be accessible (forever!) through google's cache, and that you won't eventually be tracked down if you post your email address and deep 'private' thoughts on some public forum, then you deserve what you get. People have been fired because they have posted something critical about their work place or bosses on some forum or social networking site or via email, and their bosses happened to discover it. People have not been hired for the same reason. Word to the wise, nothing is private on the WWW. If you don't want the world to know it, don't write it.

So, as a result of the initial shut-down of MAD's blog by Blue Host, fellow freedom-loving Canuck bloggers became naturally outraged, banded together and took to their respective blog platforms to rally against this obvious attack on freedom of speech. This has sent the already angry doc into paroxysms of rage, and now he's on a rampage threatening to sue everyone for defamation. Good luck with that one.

Message to Asad Raza if you happen to google your name and come across this post:

The West is very different, doc. Please adapt. Get to know our laws. And had you understood the concept of 'freedom of speech', and the notion that if you can criticize so can others, and that this post was three years old, and had you left well enough alone and not forced an ISP to shut down a blogger, none of these people would be writing about you on their blogs, and you wouldn't be threatening to sue them if they refuse to remove their posts about your foolish actions. Don't even think about suing me, because this is a free country and your legal status here is questionable. And yes, I am giving you permission to criticize me for my commentary- you have as much right to criticize me as I have to criticize you, so go ahead, I'm a big girl, I can take it. But please just move on with your life. It's not worth it. You made this non-issue into a huge one by challenging those who embrace freedom with as fierce a will as a lion mama protecting her cub. Just know that we will continue to fight for your right to criticize Canada (and wherever, whatever and whomever else you choose) along with our right to criticize you.

Physician, go in peace. You'll have a much better life.

Pro-Palestinians And Anger Managment Issues: Or,why did Ali Mallah Assault Pro-Israeli Blogger at anti-Israeli Rally?

One thing that is becoming quite evident is that many Muslims, particularly of Arab and Asian descent, have some major, heavy-duty anger management problems. It's not just any perceived slight against their prophet Mohammad that sends them into paroxysms of rage, any little insignificant thing seems to get them all roiled up, including being videotaped at the numerous anti-Jew/Zionist/Israel rallies that seem to be increasing at an alarming rate. They hate being videotaped, although one would think they'd enjoy having their anti-Israel invective taped for posterity, but I guess they just hate being taped by anyone who happens to be pro-Israel. I've seen the videos of citizen journalists being harassed at Detroit Muslim festivals and elsewhere, and now, one of our own- Canadian blogger Blazing Catfur- was assaulted as he peacefully taped an anti-Netanyahu demonstration in Toronto. Although BCF was not hurt, the man who shoved him, Ali Mallah, needs some major therapy. Mallah happens to be a major player in the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the VP of the Canadian Arab Federation.

BCF, who is often found taping anti-Israel demonstrations, was at this protest of the Annual Walk With Israel event when Mallah, the goon, walked up to him and asked him who gave him permission to take pictures. See the video below for what ensues. Excuse me, but no-one needs permission to videotape any public event. And why did Mallah become so indignant? BCF was just quietly taping the event, which he had every right to do, just as Mallah had his own right to be there. What freedom loving Canadians took offense to, was the fact the anti-event was being sponsored by Palestine House, which happens to be funded by Canadian taxpayers' dollars.

For more detail, or pictures and updates check out Blazing Cat Fur's blog.

Free Speech Takes a Dive In Canada- Richard Warman Sues Conservative Bloggers

Major trouble is brewing for our conservative, Canadian brother and sister bloggers to the north. For those of you who might not be aware, one twisted Richard Warman is on the war path. Formerly employed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), he has turned into a one-man vigilante force bent on depriving people of their rights to free speech. To date he has filed at least 26 complaints against various respondents, utilizing the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) Section 13.

The Commission has a unique role in combatting hate on the Internet. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act empowers the Commission to deal with complaints regarding the use of the Internet to transmit hate messages.

What was initially a quest to silence the neo-nazi voice in Canada, has turned into an attack on the conservative blogosphere, as a whole, and anyone that Warman (and his CHRC cronies) happen to disagree with. Warman has been instrumental in the demise of many bloggers who did not have the resources to fight back.

Since the introduction of CHRA, Section 13, those critical of Islam have been targeted as well, including conservative Mark Steyn. Publisher Ezra Levant, was also targeted for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Whether one agrees, or not, with the message that certain individuals put forth in their blogs, (and personally I find the neo-nazi agenda abhorrent) UNLESS it directly encourages violence against others, it is NOT a hate crime. And, frankly, if people choose to consider mere words as hate crimes, should not those calling for death to those who insult Islam be liable, as well?


The conservative blogosphere has been highly critical of Warman and the CHRC's less than ethical behaviour and, as a result, Warman has added another suit to his long list of complaints. This time he filed a mammoth Libel Suit against some of the most prominent Canadian bloggers, plus a Canadian newspaper:

Ezra Levant, Connie & Mark Fournier of Freedominion, Kathy Shaidle of FivefeetofFury, Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals, and Jonathan Kay and The National Post.

Unlike others, who have fallen prey to Warman's warped, litigious nature and given up, these people intend to fight back, in the name of freedom of speech. They have various defense funds you can donate to via paypal on their various blogs. If you have a few spare dollars, donate to their funds, or blog about this.

The Canuck conservative blogosphere is in a fight for its very existence, battling both Warman and the CHRC's thought police.

Are we headed down that same road if Hillary or Obama are elected? Remember the attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, by the liberal Democrats?

Freedom of speech is worth fighting for, wherever it's threatened.

Also blogging:
Michelle Malkin
The Nose On Your Face


Via Blazing Cat Fur