Paul Sutliff on the jihadi murder in France of Samuel Paty

 

Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by sending a check to Paul Sutliff, PO Box 12846, 4455 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14612.

What do Islamic social norms say about the Treatment of Dogs?

 

      In Western civilization, dogs are often called “man’s best friend.” Thousands and thousands of people own and love their dogs. Some treat them like their children. Dogs are also used in Western Civilization in various jobs. Some hold traditional roles such shepherding, while others work as sighted guides, and others are valued for their noses and serve in multiple roles from law enforcement to the military.

      The United States government uses dogs in the military to sniff out bombs. This enables a quicker rate of response of Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) teams to ensure the safety of those who would be effected. For the handlers of these dogs, a special bond forms that allows them to be highly effective. One of the EOD dogs who received a K-9 Medal of Courage was Coffee. Coffee served three tours of duty. His handler, Army Sgt. 1st Class James Bennett, shared their story.

“Coffee’s purpose originally was IED defeat … so her job was to clear routes, buildings, paths, looking for explosives, anything that might injure troops. And beyond that, to find caches where they would hide stockpiles of them,” said Bennett…

“Overall, her job was literally to lead units, be in front of units and get them from point A to point B safely, so they could effectively do their mission,” Bennett said.

“We got every troop home safe, back to base on mission safe, every time we went out. She’s never let me down. Not once.”[1]

      The effectiveness of these dogs was the number one reason it was felt a sign of good friendship to give EOD trained dogs to Islamic countries to aid them in fighting terrorism. This was a great idea, at least it seemed so at first. Then the Islamic social norm about the treatment of dogs prevailed upon our four footed friends and major news outlets carried the sad stories of neglect in December of 2019.[2]

      Kate Ng wrote about this for the Independent. She writes that, “The US has stopped exporting bomb-sniffing dogs to Egypt and Jordan after a number of animals died from mistreatment and neglect, US authorities said.”[3]

      Why were dogs trained to sniff out explosives being neglected in Muslim countries? The only commonality in these countries is their belief in Islam. What would Islam have to do with poor treatment of dogs?

      Muhammad apparently did not like dogs. We know this from a hadith in Bukhari:

“Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, ‘We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.’” (Sahih Bukhari 4.54.50)

     As research on this topic progressed a question was formed. If Muhammad did not like dogs, would he treat them badly? Would he cause them to be harmed? In the hadiths, Muhammad does exactly this. He orders the killing of dogs with no explanation.

“Abdullah (b. Umar) reported: Allah’s ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.” — Sahih Muslim 3811

     This upset many. Especially those who owned working dogs such as hunting dogs, herding dogs guard dogs and more. They posed the question about allowing working dogs to live.

“Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time.” — Sahih Muslim 551

So only those dogs who work were allowed to live? Does this mean in Islam, that only working dogs are allowed to live? Would Muhammad have all dogs who live as pets killed?  

But the real problem today is how are dogs treated by those who feel a need to imitate their prophet Muhammad. Would they want to be near a dog whose very presence negates their prayers? A Muslim who would be responsible for an EOD dog, would not be able to pray even on break. Simply, because Muhammad claimed their presence negates prayers. 

      This explains the actions of Muhamad’s followers around the globe who work in transportation.

      In the UK a Muslim Uber driver refused to allow a sighted guide dog into his vehicle. The law requires him to allow this since the dog is assisting a visually impaired person. Colin Perreira, 24, from Hemel Hempstead said this is his fifth time taking an Uber driver to court for refusing to allow him AND his dog a ride.[4] The commonality of course is left unsaid to protect Muslims.

      In Austria, the same issue arises among Muslim cabbies. In August of 2019, Gabriele Jandrasits from Innsbruck attempted to pre-order a taxi to the airport bringing her beagle in an “airplane friendly transport cage.”[5] This proved to be problematic because drivers for the company she called refused to transport a dog even though the animal was in a cage. In this article by Michael Domanig, others had difficulties taking dogs in taxis.

Ms. Jandrasits, who works for the Tyrolean Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired, gives yet another example: A former board member of the association - the lady is completely blind - also ordered a taxi via the radio control center. On the assumption that her companion dog for the blind had to be taken with her anyway, she didn't mention the dog on the phone. The taxi driver then refused to take it with him.[6]

      In this article they do reference that “around 80 percent of the drivers now have a migration background - and that Muslims traditionally often view dogs as “impure.”[7]

      This means a social norm does exist that is strong enough to impact the majority of Muslim cabbies in Austria. Is this any different in North America?

      On February 2, 2019 CTV news aired a item on a woman being again refused a ride with Uber due to her sighted guide dog. In the video, Shelby Travers a visually impaired woman complains that this has happened at least a dozen times. The last time the driver drove off with her hand still on the door.[8] “According to a follow up article by CTV, the man was charged with a bylaw offence.  “Travers said she’s experienced similar incidents in Calgary and Toronto and added, “I just want this to stop happening.”[9]

      In the USA this would be deemed a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act also known as ADA. It would also be considered a violation of their civil rights. This incurs severe fines, and should remove drivers from working. However, the same issues are happening in the USA, and no one is talking about why! What is the reason? Why are the news sources hiding the names and the religions of those who won’t allow a rider with a dog in their cars.

In 2007, cabs, Ubers etc., had so many refusals by Muslims to take dogs in their vehicles that the Minneapolis-St Paul airport took action. At this point 75% of the drivers were Muslim and primarily from Somalia. Muslim cabbies were not only reusing to transport dogs, they were refusing to transport alcohol, and claiming it was against their religious belief. Patrick Hogan, the spokesman for the Metropolitan Airport Commission said, "There are times where cab after cab will refuse service, and passengers can be waiting for 20 minutes."¹¹⁶ Mr. Hogan also said that they were seeing about 77 refusals a month! 

This problem caused Chuck Samuelson of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota to speak to this issue. He addressed that this was an issue of people used to living under shariah when he said:  

 

This is a public access issue.  Bottom line is we are a secular society, and that's the way it is.¹¹⁷ 

 

The airport already had a penalty in place for refusing access to people with service dogs. They instituted two penalties. A first offense gets a 30 Day suspension and a second offense earns a two year revocation. This only removed their ability to pick up at the airport. Refusing service dogs comes with a more severe penalty including the possibility of being sued for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.  

Muslims tried to fight taking dogs into their cabs again and took their case to court. In 2008 they lost their appeal. 

Perhaps the worst case of cruelty to a dog by a Muslim that went national occurred on October 1, 2019 an resulted in the man pleading guilty. Kyle Hanney, Lead Animal Control Officer  said that “the man confessed that he had picked the dog up and then slammed it on the ground multiple times which then caused several compound fractures to the right-rear femur of the dog."¹¹⁸  He is charged with animal torturing in the second degree. There is no reason given for the horrendous crime. He did work out a deal that required no jail time. 

Was this last news item due to his Islamic beliefs about dogs? The issue here is that the Muslims in non-Islamic countries wish to impose their hatred or at least refusal to transport or be near our four footed “best friends.”  The USA protects service animals as workers. This may be a reason there is less news on this topic. 

Knowing what you know now, would you invite a Muslim to your house if you have a pet dog? Should you be expected to walk on the other side of the street with your dog when a Muslim passes by to appease a Muslim new to your country?   

 

 

Further Reading

https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/ESP-19-06.pdf

---

[1] Basch, Michelle. 2017. "5 military dogs honored with K-9 Medal of Courage ." WTOP. October 11. Accessed April 17, 2020. https://wtop.com/animals-pets/2017/10/5-military-dogs-honored-k-9-medal-courage-photos/.

[2] Ng, Kate. 2019. "US suspends export of sniffer dogs to Jordan and Egypt after series of deaths." Inependent. December 24. Accessed April 17, 2020. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-sniffer-dogs-exports-jordan-egypt-deaths-trump-administration-a9259211.html.

[3] ibid

[4] Andrews, Luke. 2020. "Moment Uber driver refuses to give a ride to a blind man's guide dog before driving off - as he is fined £1,700 for breaching the Equality Act." MailOnline. March 2. Accessed April 22, 2020. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8066065/Moment-Uber-driver-refuses-ride-blind-mans-guide-dog-driving-off.html.

[5] Domanig, Michael. 2019. "Taking dogs in Innsbruck taxis remains an excitement." Tiroler Tageszeitung. August 8. Accessed April 22, 2020. https://www.tt.com/artikel/15929619/mitnahme-von-hunden-in-innsbrucker-taxis-bleibt-ein-aufreger?sfns=mo.

[6] ibid

[7] ibid

[8] Griff, Kate. 2019. "Ont. woman says Uber driver rejected her guide dog." CTV News. February 3. Accessed April 22, 2020. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ont-woman-says-uber-driver-rejected-her-guide-dog-1.4280881.

[9] CTV News Ottawa. 2019. "Uber driver who allegedly refused ride to woman with service dog charged." CTV News. February 10. Accessed April 22, 2020. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/uber-driver-who-allegedly-refused-ride-to-woman-with-service-dog-charged-1.4290370.

Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by sending a check to Paul Sutliff, PO Box 12846, 4455 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14612.

What your children are learning about Islam in schools is dangerous!

 

Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by sending a check to Paul Sutliff, PO Box 12846, 4455 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14612.

DeBlasio and the NYPD concede a loss in the Battle for the Hijab

 When is it safe to NOT wholly inspect someone, when you are a prison guard? According to the Mayor of New York City, Bill DeBlasio and the New York City Police, department it’s when the perp is a Muslim woman and has yet to have her mugshot taken. Yes, you heard that right the Mayor of NYC and the NYPD have just given Islam an elevated place as far as those who are arrested and female.

This story is actually much bigger than it seems. For those who keep up on terrorism, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and so much more this story is actually much bigger. Why? Because this is not a court case that was won. It is a case that was settled as part of what Al Qaeda leader, Ayman Al-Zawahiri called "The Battle of the Hijab.” After 9/11, an attack initiated by Al Qaeda against the United States of America, which destroyed the World Trade Center, took out part of the Pentagon and led to the deaths of those on Flight 193 who rose up in defiance of the Al Qaeda terrorists who took their plane, when it fell to the ground in Pennsylvania, DeBlasio and the New York Police Department has awarded a win to Al-Qaeda.

What did they win? The “right” for Muslim women not to have their hijab head-scarves removed when they are arrested and posed for mugshots. While a stipulation is given that creates an exception that allows the headscarves to removed for a search for weapons and contraband, the way the policy is communicated leaves a lot of room for the searches of the coverings to be paused until after a mugshot is taken. Namely the hijab-scarf, and the area underneath that covering to now not be implement at all until after a mugshot is taken. UPI wrote about DeBlasio’s politically correct lawyers, portraying this as a win for all by stating, “The agreement applies to not only hijabs, but also other religious head coverings, such as burqa, turban, or wigs worn by Orthodox Jews.” 

BUT, if they are forbidden from having religious garb searched before before a mugshot is taken, what approach will law enforcement be forced to take in respect to weapons and contraband search of Muslim women and any wearing religious headgear? But wait this is much worse on its face than you can imagine. The Burqa is a garment that covers the face and the hair as well as the body. It is considered all the same garment!

So only the Muslim does not have to remove head gear and facial coverings? I asked Patrick Dunleavy, a former  New York State Deputy Inspector General of the criminal intelligence unit of the department of Corrections what this could mean if it goes beyond and effects searches for weapons and contraband. He pointed me towards the 2012 ruling of the US Supreme Court on the  Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, which states:

The question here is whether undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from the invasive search procedures at issue absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon or other contraband. Correctional officials have a significant interest in conducting a thorough search as a standard part of the intake process. The admission of new inmates creates risks for staff, the existing detainee population, and the new detainees themselves. Officials therefore must screen for contagious infections and for wounds or injuries requiring immediate medical attention. It may be difficult to identify and treat medical problems until detainees remove their clothes for a visual inspection. Jails and prisons also face potential gang violence, giving them reasonable justification for a visual inspection of detainees for signs of gang affiliation as part of the intake process. Additionally, correctional officials have to detect weapons, drugs, alcohol, and other prohibited items new detainees may possess…”

Dunleavy stated that it is extremely important that law enforcement continues to search religious wear, and shared with me his personal experiences, saying,  “In my almost 30 years in law enforcement, I have personally seen numerous incidents where men and women have hidden drugs, weapons, etc... in articles of clothing when entering a detention center.  Some have gone so far as to hide contraband in an infants diaper.” I believe Mr. Dunleavy is correct. We can only hope that those who will train officers about this ruling within the NYPD does not mistake this ruling as saying you cannot search for weapons and contraband.

Patrick Dunleavy has been writing on this pollical correctness insanity of giving in and not defending good practices of those in law enforcement as being dangerous. He sees the actions of Mayor DeBlasio and the NYPD as “Capitulation in a time of conflict, <that> is demoralizing to the rank and file charged with protecting the community they serve.” Remember this is not from a case won in the courts. It is a concession and a win that is now being claimed around the world for political Islam.

Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by sending a check to Paul Sutliff, PO Box 12846, 4455 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14612.

Its been 5 years since the "Syrian Crisis" Has Europe survived?

 Germany had an 11 year old Muslim threaten his teacher’s life because of a required talk about the death of Samuel Paty in France. An Imam was called who spoke to the child, likely in Arabic saying one thing while saying another in German claiming that “nobody should be killed.” This wording likely comes from a passage in Quran 5:32:

Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.

Note that the passage refers to Jews taking a life being wrong, not to Muslims.

This week Germany also had, an Imam seen dragging a man wearing a leash with a picture of France’s president, Emannuel Macron covering his face. “Syrian YouTuber Fayez Kanfash dragged by rope "Macron, the dog" – a man wearing a mask of French President Emmanuel Macron through the streets of Berlin. While burning pictures of Macron, Kanfash hit the man and shouted at him that he is a lowlife and a dog.” This open display of a belief in Islamic supremacy over all other governments and beliefs was encouraged by Muslims heard in the background saying Allah Akbar. But it was barely noticed by the Germans now accustomed to such displays.

But perhaps the most caustic alarm about the hijrah/migration of Syrians was in the German Berliner Kourier that reported a Syrian man who lamented on missing being a jihadi. He wants to go back and be a jihadi again. Of course that led to his immediate arrest.

Five years ago I wrote an article titled, “When is a Refugee not a Refugee?” When I wrote this article a massive Hijrah was underway to take Europe by storm with the deception that these migrants were fleeing persecution. This deceptive claim made it to North America. Here we were calling them “refugees.” Europe knew better. There they were calling these travellers “economic migrants.” The Independent, a United Kingdom news source, titled a article on this topic “Refugee crisis: 'Economic migrants' and asylum seekers are coming to Europe for the same reasons, report says.” In 2015, political correctness demanded a blending of terminology that would serve as a deception to Europeans and Western civilization as a whole. Refugees, asylum seekers and, economic migrants, are by definition two separate groups as the have two different reasons behind their moving from their native lands. Asylum seekers are very much like refugees, however there is one big difference.  Asylum seekers are already in country.

In the United States of America a refugee is currently defined by 8 USC §1101 (42):

The term "refugee" means

(A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or

(B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

The term "refugee" does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

If you are paying attention to the highlighted material above you can see a requirement of fear of persecution is required to meet the status of a refugee. This is extremely important considering the United Nations definition of refugee was in agreement with US law when I wrote my article on November 19, 2015.

The link above to the legal definition on refugees also cites, President George H.W. Bush explained in a memorandum dated February 7, 1995 (60 F.R. 7885):

It is a fundamental right and duty for a nation to protect the integrity of its borders and its laws. This Administration shall stand firm against illegal immigration and the continued abuse of our immigration laws. By closing the back door to illegal immigration, we will continue to open the front door to legal immigrants.

My Administration has moved swiftly to reverse the course of a decade of failed immigration policies. Our initiatives have included increasing overall Border personnel by over 50 percent since 1993. We also are strengthening worksite enforcement and work authorization verification to deter employment of illegal aliens. Asylum rules have been reformed to end abuse by those falsely claiming asylum, while offering protection to those in genuine fear of persecution. …

Seeking a better economic status is not by any stretch of the imagination an equivalent of someone fearing persecution! In 2015, I wrote specifically about the Syrians migrating. Not any other nationality. Here is a portion of the article.

Today, it is of special importance to notice read this definition! Basically, the 1980 definition of a refugee is a) any person who is outside any country and b) who is unable or unwilling to return, c)  because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.

Do the Syrians slated to be received by America meet this definition? Do they meet the three conditions?

1)      Yes, these persons are outside of the country.

2)      Are Syrians unable or unwilling to return ? This is up to the individual. Many have gone back and forth.

3)      Persons slated to come to America as “refugees” are Muslim. Are Syrian Muslims facing persecution or do they have a well-founded fear of persecution? The Islamic State is targeting and persecuting :

a.       Religions other Muslim: mostly Christians and Jews

b.      Shi’ite Muslims

c.       Homosexuals

d.      Journalists

e.       Females

f.       Muslims against sharia

Those persons who are coming from areas threatened by or currently under control of the Islamic State have no reason to fear persecution IF they do not meet any of the 6 conditions listed above, the Islamic State would not persecute or cause fear of persecution.

Most of those slated to be received by America as “refugees” do not qualify as refugees under the 1980 definition, simply because they have no reason to fear persecution as they are Sunni Muslims. Why then are these persons being classified as refugees?

It is now 2020, the UN now defines a refugee more broadly to include those fleeing conflict. This makes taking any refugee classified as such by the UN a violation of US law unless they are individually assessed to be threatened with having a legitimate fear of persecution. Pursuing a “better economic status” is not fearing being bodily harmed or persecuted!

From 2013 to 2015, a “Syrian crisis” had evolved because  of an Al Qaeda formed entity that morphed into ISIS and later became the Islamic State. It was a threat to non-Muslims as stated above. BUT, the majority of those who fled to Europe were NOT SYRIANS! They were Sunni Muslims from Algeria, from all over. A large percentage of them came from Northern Africa. I personally witnessed this when I was in Europe in 2017. Another fact about this “economic migration” is that it was suspect as not being a real “refugee crisis” because the majority of those migrating were simply were men between the ages of 18 and 40. What many call military age. There were almost no women and almost no children.

Some of these men later sent for their wives. Some had more than one wife and some had more than 5 children. The Daily Mail documented one “Syrian” migrant who made it to the UK and was receiving £320,000 in benefits every year to provide for his FOUR WIVES and 23 KIDS in 2016.  According to the Daily Mail, the man moved to Germany after being told by the government, they would only pay for one wife and her children.

At the time of this “crisis” the Islamic State had issued a statement claiming they were inserting their fighters into Europe through what they considered foolish acceptance of anyone claiming to be from Syria.

In 2013, Sweden started to grant citizenship to anyone making the claim they were from Syria. No questions asked!

Since this “crisis” happened, an endless stream of Muslim migrants from the Middle East, North Africa and Asia has throttled Europe, chocking it financially bringing each its countries into what seems unmeasured debt.

There never seems a day now, when there is not a news story that does not include a Muslim migrant crime or some act of terrorism expressing their love of Shariah above the laws of Western civilization.

When will Europe begin to protect its own? When will its natives and their culture be important? Or will they simply cease to exist swallowed up under the rule of Islam taken by invasion of an enemy they refused to understand.

Paul Sutliff is a federally recognized expert on Civilization Jihad in the United States. His blog can be found at http://paulsutliff.blogspot.com. You can request him as a speaker at http://paulsutliff.com. Paul’s books are on Amazon.

To support Paul please give here: https://www.givesendgo.com/GX8Q 

Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by sending a check to Paul Sutliff, PO Box 12846, 4455 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14612.