Dunkin' franchise ends over refusal to sell pork

WESTCHESTER, Ill.—A Muslim franchisee of a suburban Chicago Dunkin' Donuts has surrendered his longtime store ownership after losing a legal battle with the chain over religious objections to selling pork.

Walid Elkhatib, 59, removed Dunkin' Donuts signs from his Westchester store, his attorney Robert Habib said in a story posted Wednesday on the Chicago Tribune's Web site.

Last week the chain sued Elkhatib, who has owned a Dunkin' Donuts franchise since 1979, to bar him from using the company's trademark.

That lawsuit followed a federal jury's ruling earlier this month that the chain did not discriminate against Elkhatib for refusing to renew his franchise agreement because he would not sell breakfast sandwiches containing ham, bacon or sausage. Muslims are forbidden from eating pork and many also refuse handling the meat.

For nearly two decades, Dunkin' Donuts allowed Elkhatib to not sell pork, even providing him with signs that read "No meat products available." But in 2002, the company said it would not renew the franchise agreement unless he sold all company products.

Habib did not immediately return messages Wednesday from The Associated Press.

Andrew Mastrangelo, manager of public relations for Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin' Brands Inc., noted that the jury's verdict was unanimous and the court ruled against Elkhatib's discrimination claims.
"As this is pending litigation, we are unable to comment further," he said.
Since he was not employee of the company, Elkhatib could not sue it under federal laws prohibiting workplace religious discrimination. So he sued under a law that bans racial and ancestry discrimination in the making of contracts.

Elkhatib, who is Arab, is "forbidden from dealing in, buying, or selling pork products, because of his race's tradition and religious practices," according to court documents.

A federal judge in Chicago ruled against Elkhatib, saying it was religious and not racial. But an appellate court allowed the case to go to trial in 2007, finding the chain was not consistent in applying rules to franchisees.

Habib found a Chicago location that did not sell pork products because many customers followed Jewish rules restricting pork.

Elkhatib's franchise agreement ended in April 2008, but the company said he could operate the store until the end of the trial.

In a March 27 lawsuit, Dunkin' Donuts said Elkhatib had continued to use company trademarks and not returned company operating manuals.

Habib said his client would no longer be associated with the company, but he held a 10-year property lease and would still have a business.

"He plans to continue to operate a restaurant," Habib said. "Walid will survive."

It is about time that a US company stood up to the muslims. I for one am going to be visiting my local Dunkin Donuts soon.

Hundreds mourn man who killed police officers

Nearly 500 people gathered at an East Oakland church Tuesday to say goodbye to Lovelle Mixon, the 26-year-old parolee who was killed by police after he went on a shooting rampage that left four Oakland officers dead.

The open-casket service, held at Fuller Funerals on International Boulevard, was about an hour long and had such a large turnout that a number of guests were forced to stand.

Singers sang. Poets read, and speakers remembered Mixon as an intense and animated storyteller, for his big smile, love of boxing and football and what they called a long and loving relationship with his wife of seven years.

Authorities say Mixon fatally shot four Oakland police officers March 21 before he was killed as he hid in his sister's apartment.

While no one spoke directly of the incident that left him dead, one family member spoke briefly of Mixon's stray from God, and a Nation of Islam minister urged mourners to remember they were there to support Mixon's grieving family.

Keith Muhammad of Oakland Mosque 26B said losing a member of the community is tragic no matter the circumstances.

"We see our young brother first as a brother," he said. "We can't do anything for him. We need to think about what we can do for the living."

I did not know that this thug was a muslim. I did not hear that anywhere in the main stream media. I just thought he was another crack head nigger. Sounds like spontaneous jihad syndrome to me. The FBI needs to be monitoring every mosque, communittee center and madrasa here in the US. They all need to be profiled.

OBL surrogate: "Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world"

"Terrorism experts...say his threat to carry out an attack in Washington should not be discounted." Incidentally, back in December, the Pakistani army -- U.S. "friend and ally" -- declared that this same man was a "patriot."

The United States has put a $5 million bounty on his head, and he says militants under his control are planning a terrorist attack in Washington that "will amaze everyone in the world."

And he isn't Usama bin Laden.

Baitullah Mehsud, commander of the Taliban in Pakistan, told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday that his group was responsible for Monday's attack on a police academy in his country that killed seven police officers and injured more than 90 others.

He also said, chillingly:

"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world."

In an interview with local Dewa Radio, which was obtained by The Associated Press, Mehsud identified the White House as one of the targets.

FBI spokesman Richard Kolko told FOXNews.com that the bureau is not aware of a specific or imminent threat to the United States. He added, without elaborating, that Mehsud has made similar threats to the U.S..

"The U.S. government and other allied governments cannot afford to ignore this threat because [Mehsud] has acted on targets in the past," Phillips said. "Because he has a relatively secure base of operations in South Waziristan, he has been able to extend his influence throughout the border region and even into Pakistani cities."

Steve Emerson, executive director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, said that of the many terrorists who have issued "blustery threats" in recent years, Meshud is considered a "rising young star" among militants.

"He's a dangerous guy," Emerson told FOXNews.com. "It just reaffirms the fact that Washington is a major target.

"He seems to be a pretty bloody, bold guy who is not afraid to have a marker on himself and knows how to exact publicity ... The real issue is what U.S. intelligence knows."[...]

I doubt they will hit the white house with our muslim president living there. It would be interesting if they were able to kill Obama though. It would have to be by suicide bomber.

Madness: Judge says Afghan prisoners in Afghanistan can challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts

If this stands, it will make it impossible for the U.S. to wage war. Soldiers will be afraid to take prisoners for fear of being tied up in lawsuits -- and given the experience with Litigation Jihad that American Muslim advocacy groups have been honing for years, we can expect to see a great deal of this.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled on Thursday that terrorist suspects can use U.S. civilian courts to challenge their detention at a military air base in Afghanistan.

U.S. District Judge John Bates turned down the United States' motion to deny the right to three foreign detainees at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in court. But the government had argued that it did not apply to those in Afghanistan.

Bates said the cases were essentially the same and he quoted the Supreme Court ruling repeatedly in his judgment and applied the test created by it to each detainee. It is the first time a federal judge has applied the ruling to detainees in Afghanistan....

So what is the problem? Don't take anymore prisoners. Kill them on the battle field.

CAIR demands reprimand of radio hosts who told the truth

In Islamic law, the definition of slander doesn’t involve falsehood. The Shafi’i manual of Islamic law ‘Umdat al-Salik, which is certified by Al-Azhar in Cairo as a reliable guide to Sunni Muslim orthodoxy, defines “slander” as “to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike.” Nothing is said about whether or not what is said is true -- only that the person would dislike it. And this is based on a statement of Muhammad to the same effect.

The nation's leading Islamic civil rights group today issued a call for San Francisco-based KSFO 560 AM to reprimand two local talk show hosts -- and has asked the station's listeners to contact advertisers -- following a segment that it says "mocked Islam, misstated Muslim beliefs and cast suspicion on political participation by American Muslims.''

The Council on American-Islamic Relations -- known as CAIR -- sent out the letter Thursday after the Chronicle Spin Cycle Political blog this week reported on a morning comedy segment by KSFO 560-AM hosts Brian Sussman and his radio sidekick "Officer Vic."

The pair, during the Monday program, did a comedic segment about Islam and its tenets, and joked that "Islamic finance is about living within your means and helping the needy - unless they're Jews," the blog reported. Additionally, they observed that "the great honorable qualities of that good old time religion: honor killings, female circumcision, not allowing women to drive...Jews are monkeys, pigs.''

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, told the Chronicle the Washington D.C.-based advocacy organization is asking American Muslims and consumers to contact KSFO officials and advertisers to express their concerns about what he called the "smears" on the Muslim religion.

"We're firm believers in the First Amendment,'' Hooper told the Chronicle. "We're not saying people don't have the right to say what they want...but people who listen to the radio station have no obligation to take their hard-earned dollars and buy the goods and services of advertisers who place their messages on these programs. That's a freedom -- just as free speech is a freedom.''

"We have to challenge these kinds of smears against our faith,'' Hooper said. "It's this kind of rhetoric that can lead to dismination [sic] and violence against ordinary Muslims.''

Hooper also said that the hosts' characterizations of the tenents of Islam were incorrect and offensive. "So-called 'honor killings,' female genital mutilation and not allowing women to drive are not part of Islam,'' he said. "Muslims respect Jews and Christians as 'people of the book' who received earlier revelations from God.''

Honest Ibe is in top form here, but he seems to be a bit forgetful:

Giving charity -- zakat -- to Jews: "It is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim." ('Umdat al-Salik h8.24)

Honor killing: "Retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2.) In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

Female genital mutilation: "Circumcision is obligatory...for both men and women." ('Umdat al-Salik e4.3)

Women driving: "A woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin...accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her to." ('Umdat al-Salik m10.3)

Jews as "monkeys and pigs": "Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth....But the transgressors among them changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly transgressed....When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." (Qur'an 7:159, 162, 166 -- see also Qur'an 2:62-65 and 5:59-60).

Apparently Hooper missed these verses in the koran, the terrorist training manual.

Saudi religious police arrest famous actors because men and women were performing together

And remember, there's no reason why we can't bring elements of the Sharia to the States! Sharia Alert from the Kingdom of the Two Holy Places: "Religious police arrest famous actors, because men and women were performing together," from AsiaNews, April 2 (thanks to Carlo):

Riyadh (AsiaNews/Agencies) - A blitz by the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (the religious police, or muttawa), who early in the morning of March 30 raided a famous hotel in Riyadh and took away the actors and production staff for a television series.

Three actors and one actress were taken to the local police station, and later released on bail. According to a local newspaper, they are the famous Omani actor Ebrahim Al Zidjali, the actors Ali Saad and Fawaz Al Jaser, and the actress Sahar.

Local sources explain that the religious police intervened because scenes were filmed at the hotel in which male and female actors were on the set together. For this reason, Sahar was also taken to a center of the Commission where female officers explained to her the consequences and dangers of being with men in public places....

It is oh so dangerous for he to be with men on stage. Hell, they are probably gay anyway. Oh wait, that is illegal too.