Morocco: Dissident receives 100 death threats in a week for defying daytime eating ban for Ramadan

Hmmm, why would that be?  Doesn’t our resident troll Solkar keep telling us that we got it all wrong and that we are ‘radicals & extremists’ while his country is full of tolerance and moderation?


“There is no compulsion in religion,” (Qur’an 2:256) except when there is. And that time comes when the implementation of Sharia is strong enough to impose criminal punishments for the neglect of religious observances: i.e., when the time for the soft sell is over.

“Threats for breaking Morocco fast,” from BBC News, September 18, H/T JW

A Moroccan man campaigning to change the law banning eating in public during the Muslim Ramadan fast says he has received 100 death threats this week.

Radi Omar denied that his group was anti-Islam. “We are in favour of individual freedom,” he told the BBC.

Six of his colleagues are in custody after planning to eat in public last Sunday and he demanded their release.

Mr Omar said they were being well treated but he assumed they were not being fed during the fasting hours.

The group, known as the Alternative Movement for Individual Freedoms (Mali), has more than 1,200 members on its Facebook site.

They planned a public defiance of the law at the train station in Mohammedia near Casablanca last Sunday but were dispersed by the police.

The protesters were prevented from eating and so should not have been detained, Mr Omar said, adding that they have not been charged.

Under Moroccan law, eating in public during the hours of daylight, when Muslims are supposed to observe a fast, can lead to a fine and up to six months in prison.

11 thoughts on “Morocco: Dissident receives 100 death threats in a week for defying daytime eating ban for Ramadan”

  1. “The protesters were prevented from eating and so should not have been detained …”

    But burkas & the like are a “religious requirement” (except when they are cultural & nothing to do with islam), and to ban burkas & veils is a breach of human rights – perhaps, if we must have them,
    we could forbid them during daylight hours, as “allah” & his false prophet forbid eating. So much for “moderate” Morocco, eh Solkhar. Spin hard enough & you might drill down & hit oil (or a sewer main).

  2. First a point, burqa is not a religious requirement but a cultural tribal garb. If you cannot get your facts right, why bother posting there? Banning the burqa is fine, even the veil if it is not appropriate – hijab is a modesty item that if one choses thus has the right.

    As I put in another thread, most major cities in Morocco allow eating in designated cafes and resteraunts and some of those are even with arrangements to sit outside. Mohammedia’s local authorities obviously chose not to – which personally I think is stupid because it has a very large expat French community living there.

    For the rest, the law is clear and MALI are just attempting to abuse the law for its own political establishment and is failing. The leadership has on various times tried to do all sorts of anti-establishment activities and they are simply making personal grudges, that is what happens when most of them do not actually live in Morocco and incorrectly assume that standards they live in equate, work or are wanted here.

  3. ‘Cultural, tribal garb?’


    Undercover Mosque: Sh Jibali: “If she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her…”

    If they are forced to wear it, it doesn’t really matter how they feel about it, now does it? …

    Because women are deficient…

    Aqsa Parvez chose not to wear it. Now she’s dead because of not wearing it…

    Case in point, from Canada, where this murder occurred, features Sheik Alaa El-Sayyed, imam and head of Mississauga’s Islamic Society of North America — that’s the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) that has been declared an unindicted co-conspirator in terrorist financing, a small point left out of every single account of this event.

    Speaking at a press conference, as reported by CTV, El Sayyed said that Islam teaches that women have the right to choose hijab or not. The double-speak came in the next sentence when he said, however, that a child who doesn’t wear it brings shame to the family, and that the parents could be viewed as failures in the community.

    So it comes from the mosque, solkar, does it not?

    You call that culture?

  4. So tell us why you have the Decency Police in Saudi and Iran punishing women for NOT dressing Islamically Sulkher less of the blatant Mohammedan HYPOCRISY please.

  5. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen! See Solkhar the Shapeshifter’s
    Hall of Mirrors!

    “First a point, burqa is not a religious requirement but a cultural tribal garb. If you cannot get your facts right, why bother posting there? Banning the burqa is fine, even the veil if it is not appropriate – hijab is a modesty item that if one choses thus has the right.”

    The sheikdown suit against Abercrombie & Fitch claims that hijab
    is a “religiously mandated head scarf”. Who is telling porkies,
    Solkhar you or CAIR, or both?

    Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a Biblically mandated
    practice, Solkhar, but it is banned in countries where many of
    the sheikdown suits have their origins – ie muslim nations.

    islam demands respect and tolerance for its satanic beliefs and
    practices, but denies respect and tolerance for the things of God.

    Consequences are severe, Solkhar, and go way beyond “hurt feelings”
    and “upset sensibilities”.

    Have you ever been in the carnie business Solkhar?

  6. “religiously mandated head scarf” is not stated in the Qur’an. In fact, like a mentioned on another thread just two days ago, the Qur’an gives the word modesty.

    The burqa is a tribal cultural item as is the viel of which neither are mandated in the Qur’an.

    There is no denying that a lot of countries enforce the Hijab or their families and communities do.

    By the same token, there are many Muslim countries that do not push nor demand it and you have the reverse situation in Turkey were it is illegal to were it in government offices and many schools.

    The reality is that most Muslim countries, in the rural, conservative areas the hijab is normal practice and not to wear it is uncommon and makes that person stand out, but in the cities it is a mix.

    The burqa and the viel is becoming not popular in most Muslim cities except in the ultra-conservative countries and is uncommon in Morocco and the person sticks out who is wearing it. To put on the burqa in Morocco (both rural and in cities) provokes suspicion of radicalism and is in fact fround upon and the government is considering a national ban inside governemnt buildings and schools.

    I should say that the viel, though, is often argued by women as being also a matter of choice, I think that has to do more with historical-cultural habits.

    In the end, the hijab for many women is a morality question and is a matter of choice. Many women chose to not wear a hijab until they are married, or become a mother or have gone on hajj/umrah.

    These are simple facts.

    The comments, blog-owner, that you noted about the person saying choice and then shame in the same breadth is probably (I am not him so I am assuming here) trying to explain the reality of family and community unity which is an important factor in Islam. This happens a great deal in Morocco. A girl choses not to wear the hijab, she may not want to, the government does not force you, her friends do not and thus she choses not to and her family gets upset. They are upset because the other girls and women in the family do, it is tradition, they think it is the correct level of modesty and so it raises the question about how important family and community harmony is.

    Before you jump on the last line about choice and family/community harmony – it would be a big mistake (so often done) to answer that because choice in that framework is different in the west. I do not say it is better or worse in the West but the environment, standards (economic/educative/social services) is simply different. A good example is say the girl is from a poor family, she still choses not to wear the hijab, her parents are angry and there is a schism in the family and perhaps she moves out or simply is now ignored. What happens to her? Does she now live a better life because she made that decision? No. She probably is unable to find a job – because the first question is mostly what is your family like and their values? She will find it difficult to get married and thus she is in real trouble.

    Reality sometimes is a very hard thing.

    1. Solker sez:

      “religiously mandated head scarf” is not stated in the Qur’an.”

      While I would like to agree with you (for once) I would like you to know that I have personally asked more than 20 hijabbed females in Malaysia last December explicitly that very question, and they all stated that its mandated in the Koran. We could argue its not in the Koran and that the koran only talks about “modesty”, but if the wife or daughter doesn’t wear it the good Muslims beat or kill them.

      Now spin this, Solker!

      By the way: I also asked the people whether they think its ‘tribal’ or ‘cultural’, and they simply laughed at me. They clearly understand the shroud is Islamic, they must do it for Islam and the only one spinning it is you, Solker. (We all know that there was no such thing in South East Asia 30 – 40 years ago. The ghastly shrouds came with the oil-money. You might call it Wahabist or Salafist but its bigger than that)

      “Reality sometimes is a very hard thing”- it is indeed, solker.

      I leave you stew in your last paragraph which is very telling: “good example is say the girl is from a poor family, she still choses not to wear the hijab, her parents are angry”– again, “choice” where there is none.

      Poor choice indeed, solker. Its not Islamic, but if she doesn’t get wrapped up she must be killed.

      Circular reasoning, duplicity, double-speak and mental acrobatics.

      Islamic reality, sadly.

  7. * “religiously mandated head scarf” is not stated in the Qur’an

    Tell it to CAIR and the other sheikdown artists, Solkhar. Tell it to
    the US (and other) courts that are hit with these false, non-koran
    based claims. Your religion & its deluded followers are bringing
    perplexity upon the nations, and there are … consequences.


  9. Welcome once more to allah’s Hall of Mirrors:

    One sideshow barker pitches that hijab is not in the koran, while another barker immediately claims that it is. Like a snide two headed
    penny, islam is a mocking counterfeit of truth and reality and substance.

    You can be sure we are not islam people – islam is doomed, along with
    its demented, screaming followers.

  10. I do for once agre with the Sulkher the hijab and the Burkha are not mandated in Islam. However that does NOT stop Mohammedan Imams LYING to their uneducated ignorant peasant followers and telling them it is as can be readily seen by the Malay EXTREMIST who just shouted at us on here. The Burkha of course is pure Arab SUPREMACY and MISOGYNY and shows the insecurity and manhood doubts of the normal Arab male after all he keeps his women covered and chases Pearly Boys. It is being used especially in the West as a POLITICAL statement and as a means of stopping integration.

Comments are closed.