ISIS Harvesting Organs To Sell On The Black Market … From Children

ISIS Harvesting Organs To Sell On The Black Market...From Children

The horrors of the Islamic State are unending and become more horrific day-by-day. Like the Ottoman Empire revived, ISIS is fulfilling the Mohammedan vision of establishing a world Caliphate by the sword, forcing all to convert to Islam or die for their infidelity.

Just as Muhammad beheaded children of the Banu Qurayza tribe, Muslim militants are slaughtering little ones to send a message that there will be absolute submission or blood.

According to one testimony, the heads of children slaughtered by ISIS insurgents were skewered and displayed in a park in Mosul, Iraq, a city with ancient Christian roots.

However, instead of meaningless killing, ISIS has found a way to turn the murder of thousands into a profitable business.

ISIS Harvesting Organs To Sell On The Black Market … From Children

While the terror army ISIS is making millions of dollars a day through its oil sales, it also is profiting from trafficking in human organs, according to a number of reports that have raised the issue in recent months.

Even while the reports concede firm figures are practically impossible to corroborate, the Al-Alam news source said the chief of forensic pathology at Damascus University told the Syrian al-Watan that there have been more than 18,000 organ trafficking cases in the northern part of Syrian in recent years.

The report from Hossain Noufel said many of the victims are children.

“Syrian people … are now dealing with organ traffickers who are slicing off their own share from the unfortunate Syrian families,” the report said.

And according to BioEdge, which monitors bioethics developments around the world, a physician from Mosul told the publication Al-Monitor that large-scale organ-harvesting is taking place in local hospitals and that ISIS “was reaping significant profits from the scheme.”

The sinister acts come after a survivor of an actual human slaughterhouse revealed disturbing details of the organ trafficking business, alleging that many victims were “still alive” while the butchers began to harvest their organs.

According to locals sources in Mosul, the money ISIS receives from organ sales is then distributed to fighters to encourage more recruits to join jihad.

The report also confirms that “Surgeries take place within a hospital and organs are quickly transported through networks specialized in trafficking human organs. Mosuli said that the organs come from fallen fighters who were quickly transported to the hospital, injured people who were abandoned or individuals who were kidnapped.”

While many are victims of ISIS, some have voluntarily sold their own organs. One source in Lebanon claimed that he sold his kidney for $5,000 cash on the black market.

The Islamic State has become the master of joining horror with profit, creating the most powerful, richest terrorist organization in the world.

Isis agents in London dispatching gullible teenage jihadi brides to Syria


This gives me an idea….get a group of guys with strong arms and “special” tools. Set up a meeting with the ISIS spies. Corner the spies, take them to an undisclosed location and use the “special” tools. Discard body parts in the Thames River.

Problem solved!!

Islamic State (Isis) militants, aided by a British-based intermediary, are offering to pay travel expenses to young and possibly good-looking British teenagers interested in joining the extremist group in Syria as jihadi brides.

Reporters posing as two teenage schoolgirls held regular conversations via social media with a jihadist in the Isis stronghold of Raqqa, northern Syria, for three months.

Upon showing interest in travelling to the self-styled caliphate, the two purported girls, aged 17 and 19, were told they would be given the money to pay for their trip from London to Syria via Turkey.

The sum was to be delivered via cash transfer to a Western Union branch in Sterling, and picked up by an Isis operative in the UK, who in turn was to hand it to the girls.

The investigation by The Times gave an insight into Isis’ use of social media and the extent of its worldwide reach to recruit young Muslim women in the West, with the aim of marrying them off to the group’s fighters.

Using mainstream social media such as Facebook, Twitter and, as well as instant messaging systems like Wickr and Kik, an Isis militant calling himself Abu Abbas al-Lubnani vetted and groomed the two purported girls over a three-month period, before finalising the money transfer.

‘Mujahideen like a good-looking wife’

The jihadist reassured them about the safety of their journey, claiming that thousands of Sunni hardliners travelled to Syria every month without encountering difficulties.

He also asked the girls to provide him with a series of personal details, including a description of their appearance.

“Sorry but I need to know if ur good looking, the colours of your skin,” Lubnani told the undercover reporter. “Usually mujahideen don’t request a beauty queen, but they like to have a good-looking wife.”

He finally agreed to send over cash to Western Union branch without security cameras in London. The girls were to wait near the premises while an Isis middleman picked up the money for them.

“The brother has a wife they can pick up from a certain place that doesn’t have a camera then give you the money in their car,” al-Lubnani wrote.

The day of the meeting a white man appearing to be Muslim convert showed up at the given location accompanied by a woman in a burka.

To check this was the correct couple, The Times reporter changed the exact location of the “girls” several times in the space of a few minutes and set out the details in messages to the Lubnani messenger account. Each time the pair moved to the new location,” the newspaper wrote.

Realising they were being watched the pair left, the paper said, adding that Counter-terrorism police are aware of the investigation.

An increasing number of women, including dozens of Britons, are believed to have joined Isis in Syria and Iraq over the last 12 months.

Taliban threaten to kill politicians’ kids next

In Islam…the killing of children is “justified”….SAVAGES ALL!

temp12-20-1   NEW DELHI: After the gruesome killing of children in Peshawar this week, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan has warned the Nawaz Sharif government that it will start eliminating children of politicians, including Sharif’s family, and army officers if the Pakistan government keeps its commitment to hang militants owing allegiance to the terror outfit.

“We, in light of Islamic teaching, consider the killing of the children of army personnel as justified…”

The warning came in the form of a letter, written apparently by Mohammed Kharasani, believed to be a top commander of Tehrik-e-Taliban chief Mullah Fazlullah. It was received by Pakistan authorities on Friday evening. TOI has access to the letter.

Top sources said they were trying to verify if the letter was genuine. The letter justified the killing of young children saying the kids were committed to following in the footsteps of their parents.

While the letter doesn’t mention India, it is still of interest as one of those facing death sentence in Pakistan is Omar Sheikh, one of the terrorists released in the Kandahar hijacking and also the killer of Daniel Pearl.

The letter says that if any incarcerated terrorist is killed, TTP will take revenge by killing more young children. “Let us make it clear to Pakistan establishment that if any of our associates is harmed, we will avenge ourselves by targeting your children. We would ensure that houses of army generals and political leaders become centers of mourning,” said the letter.

It accused the Pakistan government of falling prey to the designs of the army and ISI when what was required was a reform of these institutions. “Why the human rights organizations, which are not aware of the reasons of the attack on Army Public School, silent on this decision of the infidel government. We, in light of Islamic teaching, consider the killing of the children of army personnel as justified as they are not opposing the anti-Islam role of their parents and are committed to follow the path of their parents. We are giving an open invitation of debate to religion leaders who are issuing decrees in favour of the government.”





savages1aPakistan cleric says anti-Taliban fight ‘un-Islamic’

fake islam flag

Islamabad (AFP) - The head of a hardline Islamabad mosque Friday called an army offensive against the Taliban “un-Islamic” and said the militants’ massacre of 133 children was in retaliation for air strikes against them.

(Oh well…THAT makes it OK then!! Its OK that 133 innocent children are slaughtered because of “air strikes”. See what kind of SAVAGES these bastards are?! That’s how they take care of their children. THAT’S how much they value the lives of their families. I wait for the day when some valiant muslim post a video on Youtube showing hanging bodies of clerics, all in a row. One after another . With signs on each one, stating “I was a vicious, cowardly, savage child killer.”) -BBJ

The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), claimed the assault as revenge for an ongoing military offensive against its strongholds in the tribal northwest.

Maulana Abdul Aziz told worshippers at the Red Mosque he “shared the grief” of the victims’ families but said the TTP’s response was understandable.

  baseball bat“O rulers, O people in power, if you will commit such acts, there will be a reaction,” he said.

The army has killed more than 1,700 suspected militants since June in operations against bases of TTP and other militants in North Waziristan and Khyber tribal areas.

In the wake of the Peshawar attack the army has pledged to redouble its efforts to wipe out the scourge of militancy, but Aziz condemned their struggle.

“This operation in the North Waziristan is un-Islamic,” he said.

“You may debate it, you may call scholars from abroad, from India and Bangladesh, I will go before them and prove it that this operation is un-Islamic.”

The Red Mosque, which stands a stone’s throw from the parliament buildings in the centre of the capital, was the scene in 2007 of a week-long military siege against radicals which left more than 100 people dead.

The scale of the Peshawar attack and the fact the victims were almost all children has horrified Pakistan and prompted many to demand action against Taliban sympathisers, including radical preachers.

savage Pakiman1  But a civil society protest outside the Red Mosque on Friday afternoon was broken up by police, while members of a hardline group were allowed to stage their own demonstration nearby.

Earlier this month female students affiliated with the Red Mosque issued a video statement praising the Islamic State group and calling on it to avenge the death of Osama bin Laden. (In praise of savages)

The women belong to the Jamia Hafsa seminary which in April named its library in honour of the slain Al-Qaeda leader.


Australian Police Kill Muslim Jihadi While Sydney’s Islamic Community Feigns Shock

 Here is an idea for the Islamic leaders:  stop killing non-Muslims or be prepared for a real backlash. Police stormed a cafe in Sydney today (Dec 15) killing an Iranian Sunni Muslim who had taken hostages and made demands, ending the siege which began yesterday.

This incident is instructive in so many ways because of:  (1) the language used by all sides to describe the perpetrator – Man Haron Monis (a Jihadi); (2) attempts by the media to differentiate Monis from the broader Muslim community which claims he was completely “unknown” to them;  (3) what Monis said and did, which is being interpreted through a Western lense instead of the Islamic lens (Sharia);  and (4) the immediate response from the Islamic community in Australia, which is calling for more concessions from Australia for Muslims at the same time one of it’s own killed people in the non-Muslim community.  This last note is the exact same response we always see around the world when a Muslim kills a soldier in Arkansas, beheads people anywhere, blows up a bomb in Boston, shoots and kills soldiers at Fort Hood, or any of a number of other events in recent memory.  Muslims kill, then demand more concessions and call for protection from the oncoming “backlash” which, oddly enough, never comes.

The Language We Use to Describe the Enemy

At the outset, let us all be reminded that the filter through which Islamic jihadis speak, communicate and understand words is SHARIA (Islamic Law).  So when they speak, the words they use, although they may be in English, cannot be interpreted the way we understand those words in the West.  We must use Sharia as the filter through which we understand these words.  As an example, when Muslim leaders say they “condemn terrorism” they are not lying as some have suggested.  “Terrorism” as Islam understands it is to “kill a Muslim without right.”   Under Sharia, Western troops are, in fact, terrorists when killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.  This is an important fact for our military and law enforcement leadership to know when local Imams decry terrorism, because it does not represent a friendly move towards us or our position.  In Sharia, it is lawful for a Muslim to be killed in only a few instances, most notably when he or she leaves Islam (Apostacy).  In this case, if the Muslim refuses to return to Islam he/she must be “immediately killed.” (Um Dat al Salik, Book O Justice, o8.2)

The Prime Minister of Australia – Tony Abbott – referring to the siege in Sydney, said it is “profoundly shocking” that a man would take “innocent” hostages like this, and was unsure of the motive for this attack.  How shocking is it that a Muslim cleric who recently converted from Shia to Sunni Islam would participate in jihad since it is not only an obligation in Islam until the world is under the rule of Sharia, but is the sixth right of pure worship between man and Allah.  Jihad is not a “pillar” of Islam because when the entire world is under Sharia, the need for jihad goes away.  There is no such thing as a “version” of Islam that does not include this requirement.

Only Muslims are “innocent” under Islamic Law (sharia),

How does Islam define “innocent” people?  Only Muslims are “innocent” under Islamic Law (sharia), so, according to Sharia none of those hostages were “innocent” therefore they can always be killed by a Muslim jihadi.

Many in the news media have been quick to call Man Haron Monis a “lone wolf” a “radical Muslim Cleric” or (this one I love) a “violent extremist,” which means absolutely nothing at all.  Are these accurate statements?  Is there such a thing in Sharia as a “lone wolf?”  The answer to both questions is a resounding ‘No.’  As a matter of fact, the Law of Jihad in Sharia defines ‘Individual Jihad’ and provides the requirements for it.  Individual Jihad is the kind of jihad we have seen at places like Fort Hood, Little Rock Arkansas, Wichita, New York City, and elsewhere.  Australia’s leaders and media use phrases like “lone wolf” and “radical Muslims” because these are the phrases fed to them by the leaders of the Islamic community, most of whom are Muslim Brotherhood/Salafis, as is true in most other nations in the West.

Watering Down Monis’ Actions

It is also interesting to witness the Australian media bending over backwards to distance Man Haron Monis’ actions from “true Islam” because “no religion supports violence” as world leaders continue to say – which is contrary to a factual analysis of Sharia (Islamic doctrine).  In fact, 100% of all published Sharia mandates jihad until the entire world is under the rule of Islam and Islamic Law (Sharia), and 100% of all published authoritative Sharia only defines “jihad” as ‘warfare against non-Muslims.”  These are statements of fact with cannot be contradicted factually or by any Islamic doctrine.  Therefore, Islamic doctrine not only condones violence, it mandates it.

SydneyBlackFlag  When hostages were made to hold the black flag of jihad in the window of the cafe in which they were being held by Monis, many news organizations reached out to their “Muslim experts” to help us all understand what this could mean.  The most absurd of these was the UK’s Guardian which quoted Aftab Malik, a “high level expert” working for with the UN, who stated “It has no politically dominant or ideological meaning.  It only has a spiritual meaning.”  Friends, this is a lie.

This is the same man who blames Australia’s jihadi threat on those who essentially speak truth about Islam.

The black flag of jihad contains the Shahada in Arabic, which is the statement of conversion into Islam.  It is the flag which has been used by jihadis since the earliest days of Islam.  To disconnect this flag from Jihad is to be disconnected from reality.


The leading Islamic organizations in Australia (read: Salafists/Muslim Brotherhood) are calling for help and protection against the backlash directed at the Islamic community, and even offered up the story that a Muslim woman was harassed in light of the cafe siege in Sydney.  It appears the intellectual honesty is completely gone when it comes to these matters.

I believe if we put the facts on the table of what Islam commands from its adherents, as well as the fact that the leading Islamic organization are a part of the global Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and then we tally up the hundreds of thousands of people killed around the world in the last 10 years by Muslims, it gets a little tough to sympathize with people in the Muslim community getting harassed.

Here is an idea for the Islamic leaders:  stop killing non-Muslims or be prepared for a real backlash.

Psaki: Kim Jong-un Comedy Totally Different from Mohammed Film Slammed by State Dept.

To the Obama Administration…a little reminder:

1st ammendment

Sony Pictures officially decided not to release The Interview on Dec. 25 as planned, citing the major theater chains that refused to show the movie after hackers made 9/11-style threats against screenings.

“We respect and understand our partners’ decision and, of course, completely share their paramount interest in the safety of employees and theater-goers,” the Sony statement said.

“Sony Pictures has been the victim of an unprecedented criminal assault against our employees, our customers, and our business. Those who attacked us stole our intellectual property, private emails, and sensitive and proprietary material, and sought to destroy our spirit and our morale — all apparently to thwart the release of a movie they did not like. We are deeply saddened at this brazen effort to suppress the distribution of a movie, and in the process do damage to our company, our employees, and the American public. We stand by our filmmakers and their right to free expression and are extremely disappointed by this outcome.”

The Associated Press reported moments ago that federal investigators have connected the hacking to North Korea.

At the State Department earlier today, Jen Psaki said department officials did meet with studio executives during production, as revealed in leaked emails, but disputed reports that they OK’d the picture. “We’re not in the business of signing off on content of movies or things along those lines,” she said.

“I can confirm for you that [Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel] Russel did have a conversation with Sony executives, as he does routinely with a wide range of private groups and individuals, to discuss foreign policy in Asia,” Psaki said. “[Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues] Bob King, contrary to reports, did not view the movie and did not have any contact directly with Sony.”

“As we have — as we’ve noted before, entertainers are free to make movies of their choosing, and we are not involved in that,” she added.

Psaki said she wouldn’t compare the comedy about the assassination of Kim Jong-un to the Mohammed film initially blamed for the Benghazi attack, a movie heavily criticized by the State Department.

“I would not put them in the same category, which I’m sure does not surprise you,” Psaki said. “We don’t have — it’s a fiction movie. It’s not a documentary about our relationship with the United — with North Korea. It’s not something we backed, supported or necessarily have an opinion on from here.”

After violent reactions to Innocence of Muslims in 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

“We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of other,” the U.S. Embassy in Cairo said back then.

fake islam flagRevealed! The sick men behind the Peshawar Siege

   Peshawar, Dec 18: The ghory images fail to go from one’s psyche, especially when more blood-ridden photos of the Army school and young school children flood the Internet. The mind boggles at the insanity, the recklessness and the heart gets frustrated at the utter dismay in the face of humanity. Who could have the heart to kill school children? The answer was delayed but the bloodied hands of the faces of terror appeared soon.
   Surprisingly, there was nothing on their faces that showed a remorse or a regret at what they were about to do. Instead, they posed with pride, flaunting their machines. And behind them, a banner read ‘There is no God but Allah’. The six men, one of them on the extreme left was probably the age of the senior students who were killed.

The men behind the Peshawar Siege

    Spotting both traditional Taliban attire and Army uniforms to avoid suspicion before they stormed into the school, these men were to slaughter 132 innocent children who knew nothing about the war. The picture was taken just a few hours before the rampage, but was released only by yesterday by the Taliban. This was followed by an e-mail, which justified the siege, siting that this was a revenge against the Pakistani army that killed Taliban’s children and families.
      Khurasani, the terror group’s spokesperson further warned that there would be more such attacks. He warned Pakistani civilians to detach themselves from all military institutions, saying,”We are still able to carry out major attacks. This was just the trailer.”

Read More HERE

Accused Boston bomber says satisfied with defense lawyers

I want to see this savage in prison for the rest of his life.

In this courtroom sketch, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is depicted sitting in federal court in Boston Thursday, Dec. 18, 2014...

BOSTON (Reuters) - The Boston Marathon bombing suspect, in his first court appearance in more than a year, told a judge on Thursday that he was satisfied with his lawyers’ preparations for the January start of his trial over the deadly 2013 attack.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 21, was dressed in a dark sweater and wore his hair shaggy for his appearance at U.S. District Court, where he will be tried on charges of killing three people and injuring more than 260 with two homemade bombs at the race’s crowded finish line on April 15, 2013, as well as fatally shooting a university police officer three days later.

Tsarnaev looked alert and healthy, showing no signs of the injuries suffered during a gunbattle with police on the night of April 18, 2013, that ended with the death of his brother, Tamerlan, also accused with playing a role in the attack. In his prior court appearance, in July

... Ensaio Gonzo sobre Bob Dylan (+ Discografia Básica Para Downloadar

The defendant, who had grown a light beard, appeared in a courtroom packed with victims, supporters and curious onlookers.

2013, Tsarnaev’s left arm was in a cast and his face appeared swollen.

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole asked Tsarnaev if he was satisfied with his defense attorneys in a series of questions intended to avoid any post-trial assertions that he was not provided a proper defense.

“Yes, your honor,” Tsarnaev replied briefly to questions about whether his attorneys were keeping him abreast of court developments. He looked somewhat fidgety during the 25-minute hearing.

O’Toole also said that many of the court documents filed under seal ahead of the trial will be made public after the jury is seated in January.


Tsarnaev faces the possibility of execution if convicted in a trial that is expected to run for three months. The court plans to weed through more than 1,000 people to find 12 jurors and six alternates to hear the case.

(Oh by the way…that second picture in the post…..that’s Bob Dylan. Thought you oldsters like me, would get a kick out of it.)  -BBJ



Muslim Women Sue in US Courts for Right to Wear Islamic Garb on the Job

Reuters File Photo

The Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a case concerning the rights of a woman to wear hijab, a headscarf, while working at Abercrombie and Fitch. This case began in 2008, in Tulsa, Oklahoma on behalf of then seventeen-year-old Samantha Elauf and is known as Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc.

infidel - Phyllis Chesler   France has banned the burqa (a head, face, and full body covering), as well as the hijab (headscarf); to do so in a religion-neutral way, they chose to ban all other religious insignia in public. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the French ban. Other governments (Denmark, Germany, Turkey, Russia, China) have also banned the headscarf in school or in general. Yes, even Turkey– although, paradoxically, it has begun to force more children into religious schools where hijab is mandatory.

In this case, it is our own federal government which has brought the suit against Abercrombie and Fitch, Inc.

At least ten “friends of the court” briefs have been submitted by religious and civil rights organizations, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Commission, the American Jewish Committee, the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations aka the Muslim Brotherhood in America and the un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation lawsuit.

The issue is framed in this way:

Whether an employer can be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a ‘religious observance and practice’ only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer’s actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee.

Similar right to wear hijab cases have been brewing all across America for the last decade.

In 2004, the U.S. Justice Department supported a lawsuit brought on behalf of a sixth grade student in Oklahoma who wanted to wear hijab in her public school. That same year, the school reviewed their policy, amended their dress code, paid the student an undisclosed sum, and allowed her to attend classes wearing hijab.

In 2006, in a small claims matter in Michigan, a Muslim woman, Ginnah Muhammed, refused to take off her face mask (niqab) while she testified. Judge Paul Paruk dismissed her case. Muhammed sued, and the ACLU backed her. They argued for a “religious exception” to courtroom attire. Although Muhammed’s small claims case was against a car rental agency, here is what Michael Steinberg, legal director of the ACLU of Michigan stated:

The Michigan Supreme Court should not slam the door of justice on a category of women just because of their religious belief…Under the proposed rule, women who are sexually assaulted do not have their day in court if they wear a veil mandated by their religion.

Sexual assault was not at issue nor was the victim afraid that testifying might lead to her death. Leave it to the ACLU to almost always get it wrong.

On June 17, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court, in a 5-2 vote, ruled that a Judge had the power to “require witnesses to remove head or facial covering as (the witness) was testifying.”A Judge has the right to see a witness’s “facial expressions” to determine her “truthfulness”while she testifies.

Both the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have gone to court in Florida (2002), California (2005), Michigan (2008), and Oklahoma (2008) to fight for a Muslim woman’s right to cover her hair or face—whether it is while being photographed for a driver’s license or for a police mug shot or while working at McDonald’s or at Abercrombie Kids.

In 2007, CAIR wrote a letter on behalf of a Muslim woman in Georgia who refused to remove her headscarf in order to enter a courtroom to plead “not guilty” to a traffic ticket.

Religious Muslims are outraged that Christians can wear crucifixes, nuns and priests can wear habits, Jews can wear skullcaps or wigs and head coverings, Sikhs can wear turbans, Hindus can wear veils and saris, but Muslims cannot wear hijab, burqas or niqab.

They have a point. The face mask (niqab) and the burqa (ambulatory body bag) mask all five senses and make human interaction impossible. But what’s wrong with hijab (a head covering)?

Over the years, I have interviewed a number of religious Muslim women who are completely westernized, educated, modern, and certainly anti-Jihad. They “cover” their hair for religious, ethnic, and feminist reasons. It is a statement of “who they are” and what they believe in. This sometimes includes a desire to publicly signify a belief in God and to separate themselves from a secular, promiscuous world in which women dress provocatively.

Religious people do not want the government telling them how to dress or limiting their religious practices. Many secular feminists have viewed Islamic “coverings” as either a Muslim woman’s religious right or as her culturally sanctioned expression of modesty. In addition, many progressives see the ban on the burqa (not to mention discrimination against hijab) as a form of “racial profiling,” or as “Islamophobic.”

I am on record as calling for an American ban on the burqa (face mask, ambulatory body bag) as a violation of woman’s rights and a health hazard. Dr. Daniel Pipes is on record about the burqa being a national security risk. A head covering is more problematic. The Qu’ran mandates “modesty” for both men and women. Mullahs have interpreted the hadith as requiring women to cover their hair.

However, some people fear that if America legally accepts hijab in the public square that doing so may represent the proverbial “nose of the camel.” Once the camel’s “nose” is permitted in the tent, soon enough, the demands for halal food, separate classes for boys and girls, separate swimming facilities, breaks for prayer, and the recognition of Muslim holidays in public, tax-funded public schools and in government employment may soon follow.

Some counter-terrorism experts fear that permitting what is Arab and Islamic clothing on the job, at school, in the United States at this time in history may not be the same as allowing a nun, a priest, a rabbi, or a religious Jew or Sikh to wear a head covering. Why? Because no other religious ideology calls for supremacy over infidels or for violent Jihad against infidels and against other Muslims who do not adopt extremist views. None of the other religions mentioned views the state and religion as one or views non-co-religionists as “kafirs,” infidels, whom Muslims are supposed to dominate, tax, persecute, and convert via the sword. Islam is also the only religion among them in which believers are commanded to kill all those who leave the religion. In addition, since global Jihad is upon us, permitting head coverings at work may frighten or offend some customers and may not comport with the expected dress code on the job.

I am not suggesting that any individual hijab-wearer would kill anyone. But neither will she necessarily oppose those who exercise such rights under Sharia law.

The Supreme Court will have to carefully balance the separation of religion and state; freedom of religion; the nature of public space and business bottom lines; and individual civil rights—over and against the meaning that the Islamic headscarf may have in such dangerous times.

I eagerly await the oral arguments and the Supreme Court ruling.

Supporters of Freedom of Speech, Democracy, Individualism and Womens Rights around the world. We are against Radical Islam and the terror it brings.