re. #230
[[echooboom...Your rationale and logic defies normal humans!]]

abay echo bhai ko iss se baRi taareef nahiN dey sakta, tu :)

echoboom you are way too convoluted. Your rationale and logic defies normal humans!
Go in peace, be you staright in your talk, and not forked and devious friend!

re. #228
echo: double aadaab! (sharmindagee se)

vaisey, I was about to post an addendum, one I think is quite crucial to your thesis: the irony, if you look at British society in the twentyfirst century -- and Naqshbandi would attest to this-- is that the cantonments there are fast disappearing there (and, if it pleases you, society is getting more Islamic/Christian there.)

Of course, you`re still looking for payback, aren`t ya? :)

PM:227
and a very good tasleemaat to you too my Saheeh Maseeh Bhai.

``Kuchh jo samjhhaa miray shikvay ko toa PM samjhha
`` Mujhh ko doazakh say nikal aanay kaa GM samjhha``..........Iqbal (parodied)

Only PM was who somewhat figured out my wail:`all`s not well``!
He thought that I was the GM, who knew his way out o` this hell

echo: Well said in #204! Adaab!!

How beautiful to see the Britoo-Baboons expressing fear about the up-coming Islamic Cantonments in London.

Now why Islamic Cantonments are bad in London, when our Bhooraa-Kalaa slaves still want to get petted & patted by their goraa Owner [`` He feeds me , hence I am``.] in Colonies & Cantonments in the Islamic Republic really confounds me!

Muslims come in color & sizes. There is a surge of blue-blood gora-muslims as well. There
are many many friends of the 2nd 3rd and even fourth generation muslims who can easily qualify to enslave Q2 and Q32`s children ( ``but they are laready learning to be slaves``..OH sorry)

---

When the British ruled India they set up well-policed areas in major cities known as Cantonments. Originally temporary encampments, by the beginning of the 20th century they had become permanent garrison bases.

In the London Spectator British journalist Charles Moore remarked recently: ``It would be a grim revenge for the Raj if an Islamic cantonment were permitted to set up in our capital.``

The Islamic movement Tablighi Jamaat (proselytizing group) wants to build a mosque in East London for up to 10,000 people as part of an ``Islamic Village`` in time for the London Olympics of 2012, near the official Olympic stadium at West Ham. Tablighi Jamaat is secretive and publishes little about itself, but it is on the fundamentalist side of the Islamic spectrum and has links with Wahabism. It is based in Pakistan, where for a Muslim to convert to Christianity is a capital offense.

It is planned the Mosque and surrounding buildings will ultimately accommodate 70,000 visitors. What happens after the Olympics is another matter, but what seems on the cards is a permanent Muslim city in the heart of London -- which already has large Muslim areas and a complex of mosques in the Finsbury Park area.

Britain as a whole is already well-supplied with mosques. There were a few in the 19th and early 20th centuries. By the 1980s there were about 150 and by 1996 there were 613. Now there are well over a thousand, many of them converted Anglican churches. The Muslim website ``British Muslim Heritage`` says: ``London probably has more mosques than any other city in the Western World, save Turkey ... the modern Muslim Londoner is spoilt for choice with regard to mosques.`` There are dozens in contiguous areas like Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney.

Tablight Jamaat`s spokesmen have claimed it is a moderate organization. However, it has been accused by the FBI of being a recruiting ground for al Qaeda, and two of the London tube bombers, including the leader, Mohammed Sidque Khan, are believed to have attended mosques run by it. French intelligence is reported by Le Monde to have described it as an ``antechamber of fundamentalism.``


LONDON`S FAR-LEFT MAYOR KEN LIVINGSTONE says he is ``very much in favor`` of the scheme. It is fair to say that Livingstone`s entire career has been concerned with culture-war against British institutions and identity. Even Tony Blair, whose record on these matters is pretty bad, was desperately against Livingstone gaining political power in London.

Livingstone`s background is relevant here for other reasons as well. He has called Ariel Sharon a war criminal, told a BBC interviewer that it was ``wrong to brand a British Muslim boy a terrorist if he got involved in Palestinian violence against Israel`` and claimed that the ``Jewish boys in Britain`` had contributed to the ``slaughter`` of Palestinians. He was temporarily suspended from office for having taunted a Jewish journalist about Nazism.

When asked if there was a possibility he himself had Jewish blood, Livingstone replied: ``I could be a self-hater, couldn`t I?`` -- which looks like a boast that he hates Jews. Where Rome`s mayor Walter Veltroni (who began as a communist) led 10,000 Italians in a torchlight protest outside the Iranian Embassy in Rome after Iranian President Ahmadinejad called for the annihilation of Israel, Livingstone did nothing.

When Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yousuf Al-Qaradawi -- who has vilified Jews, claimed there are no civilians in Israel and reportedly said of the London tube bombings: ``I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God`s justice`` -- visited London, Livingstone (against the advice of moderate Muslim leaders) received him as a personal guest, stating: ``Here is the force that we need to engage with if we are to actually get a dialogue.`` When the black chairman of the British Commission for racial equality, Trevor Phillips, said he was concerned about the failures of multiculturalism, Livingstone jeered that he expected Phillips soon to join the racist British National Party.

To round out one`s picture of the man and what he wants for the future of Britain and its identity and culture, Livingstone has called for the removal of two statues of 19th century military heroes, Sir Henry Havelock and Sir Charles Napier, from Trafalgar Square, allegedly because no one knows who they are. (Napier should be known to feminists at least. In India he put an end to suttee. Told that burning widows was a ``traditional custom,`` Napier responded: ``We also have a custom: when men burn women alive, we hang them.``) Livingstone has told schoolchildren that President George Bush is ``everything repellent in politics...venal...corrupt`` and expressed sympathy for the IRA.

Hence, Livingstone`s support for the mosque-complex project may be seen as a significant to the culture-war against the fabric and structure of Britain`s and the Anglosphere`s traditions, values and history.


THE MOSQUE IS INTENDED TO BE A NEW ``Islamic Landmark`` in Britain. Comparable in size to Saint Paul`s Cathedral, it will dominate a great area of the London skyline and be massively illuminated at night. One way of putting this in perspective is to ask what the chances are of establishing a cathedral or synagogue with accommodation around for 70,000 Christians or Jews in Saudi Arabia. The first major London mosque was built in 1944 with a grant from the British Government in return for an Anglican cathedral being built in Cairo, where there was then a British Army. Would that happen in any Muslim country now?

It matters much in one sense whether the builders of this new ``cantonment`` have extremist associations or not, though one need not be too paranoid to imagine that it could create a vast haven and training area for extremists and no-go areas for everyone else including police (plans to give police powers to close mosques used by extremists were quietly dropped by the impotent Home Office last December). More importantly it would be a huge step further in incorporating part of the historic heart of Britain into the House of Islam, a process which according to Muslim teaching is irreversible.

According to the Daily Mail of August 7, almost a quarter of British Muslims -- 370,000 of 1.6 million -- believe the 7/7 the London bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror. This is almost double a previous figure of 13%. A third of Muslims said they disapproved of the freedoms allowed in Britain and would rather live under Sharia Law, and 45% believed the Jews were behind 9/11.

Following Pope Benedict`s controversial lecture the website Little Green Footballs published pictures of Muslims outside Westminster Cathedral (London`s Catholic cathedral) waving placards including ``Islam Will Conquer Rome,`` and ``May Allah Curse the Pope`` and chanting: ``Pope Benedict you will pay, the Mujahadeen are coming your way.``

On the fifth anniversary of 9/11 the general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain -- which the government recognizes as the leading voice of British Muslims -- Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari, claimed that if ``demonization`` of Muslims continued, ``then Britain will have to deal with two million [sic] Muslim terrorists, 700,000 of them in London.``
....................................................................................................................................

Hal G. P. Colebatch, a lawyer and author, has lectured in International Law and International Relations at Notre Dame University and Edith Cowan University in Western Australia and worked on the staff of two Australian Federal Ministers.

aslam #213 I wish what you wrote was true. Unfortunately, in order to gain knowledge and wisdom, one needs to be open to the rest of the world. Otherwise, like the proverbial frog in the well, one develops a very narrow mind. Because visas to developed countries are now harder to get for immigrants from Pakistan as well as other muslim countries in north africa and the middle east - thanks to the mischief created by these paindoos who feel secure in their visas - youth from these countries will have fewer opportunities to come to the west than they had before. Indians on the other hand are getting more and more positions of leadership (e.g. a leading US firm, Pepsi-Cola, appointed an Indian woman as CEO recently; Mittal is the captain of the steel industry world-wide; and so on), as well as millions of other key positions in journalism, medicine, science.

And this has a reverse brain gain affect on India as these people use their skills and sophistication and capital acquired in the west within India. Pakistan will have no brains to be drained or gained - only half-brained madrassah graduates who will in ten or twenty years have forgotten about the big talk of the likes of echoboom. Even the well educated Pakistanis able to come to the west will (and already are) suffer in a thousand small ways as they find it harder to prosper, thanks to this stigma of being troublemakers attached to them.

This is the bitter fact that one day will dawn upon more and more Pakistanis as they seek to get second-tier jobs from....Indian bosses. Even now, Indians are investing in property and industry in Pakistan. Paindoos will one day forget their big talk about jihad and forget their arab-worshipping - but by then, the damage would be done.

GT:

You are saying in very polite and refined manner what I usually say in by own boisterous, rollicking, and insulting way ( a great way indeed!....given the ardor for me of bevies who adore me)*

*there I put another carbuncle--in all shades of meanings-- on the sphincter of iron-mask``

It seems the knuckle-heads who are deluded into believing that they have come a long way to be mistaken as a goraa & not be mistaken as someone as highly learned as one from madresaa need to be reminded, now in capitals & undescores:

So why not seek, as Iqbal suggests, the women`s view?--even non-muslim!; even British!

........But a woman`s viewpoint, which is blatantly absent here, so that the backward westoxicated Kalloo baighairats learn a thing or two


What do the Cantonement and Colony toataa-mainaas know about dissent & rebellion. They have been programmed to be docile & servile ever since their Master dived into their gene-pool and made a nest in the toataa-mainaa family-tree.

---

Criticism of the veil is not about

liberating women

by Lindsey German


One of the more distasteful features of the wave of attacks on Muslims has been the sight of feminists lining up to support Jack Straw’s comments against the veil.


Women who claim they believe in liberation should know better. The women’s movement of the 1960s was anti-racist, coming out of the civil rights and anti-war movements in the US.


Those who espouse their ideas today are attacking some of the most oppressed women in the name of liberating them. Their assumption is that any Muslim woman who wears the veil or the hijab does so because of pressure.


This is false - some women may fit into this category, but many Muslim women choose to wear the niqab or the hijab for their identity, or for political or other reasons. They are making a statement which they have every right to make.


You would think from the attacks that it was only among Muslims that women’s oppression still exists. In fact, women in the West do not have even the most basic equality, despite nominal lip service to the term.


Women suffer worse wages, have to do most housework and childcare and are subject to sexual double standards.


Feminists often say superior ideas on women’s liberation in the West go back 200 years, which makes the West more advanced than the Middle East or South Asia. But women’s liberation has long been a minority view.


It took until well into the 20th century before women won the vote after a long struggle. It took another struggle to put issues like abortion, equal pay and gay liberation on the agenda in the 1960s and 1970s.


These struggles are still to be won. Only a small minority of women have benefited from changes in society - they pay other, often immigrant, women, to do domestic work.

They have turned their backs on any struggle to change the world and supported a series of bloody wars aimed at countries with Muslim populations.


They now presume to tell Muslim women they can’t be liberated unless they dress and behave like them.

Zee,

It`s cherry-picking. That was not the essence of his speech of AMIL 1930 but 1) explanation of how Muslim politics cant be separated from Islam and 2) the course of Indian Muslims within Indian confederation etc....... (I need to read that again to give an accurate summary of his speech) BUT this is what I can say off-hand abt his speech.

His tone and tenor of speech is different from that of say, Jinnah or Liaquat. I need not tell u abt Iqbal since u know a lot abt him, his life and most importantly his poetry.

As for ur point, the concernns of Muslims may be the same but they are not living as one social or political unit nor they are going to be one unit in future. You have to grapple with the modern truths of nation-states, multi-religious and multi-cultural societies.

On the presetn topic, I cant convince u on this rigidity of veil.......people change with times and we need to factor the new changes as we move from age to age.

Re: # 219 It`s easy: Keep your religion in your pants.

Re: # 217 the next time you are in my part of the town, give me a tinkle and the whisky`s on me? (T)

The issue raised by Mr. Naqshbandi is not so much the niqab, but:

``Muslims should be willing to adapt to the host culture as much as possible......``

I hope the author will inform us more about the ``...as much as possible.....`` bit, through other specific cases as well. It would also be nice to know as to who should decide on the ``limits`` of acceptance and through what mechanism. After all, we see contradictory opinions amongst people who consider themselves ``devout Muslims``.

Regards

Re: # 217

shows just how westoxicated the elite were even in your grandma`s time. The gene-pool has not got diluted you are still a whiskey drinking westoxicated scum of the earth

BTW have ever gone drinking with Echoboom? and did you see........

... my mother`s burqa

...... my mother`s burqa was a pretty satiny grey thing - it was the fashni type with belts and bows and always smelled of chanel no-5......... like my father`s jinnah cap, which appeared mysteriously twice a year, this burqa was only deployed when she turned onto gurdat singh road in quetta or about half a mile from sarki darwaza in peshawar .........in quetta, where she could drive all the way to her father`s front door, she usually got by with just putting on the top and fooling prying eyes into thinking that she had the whole thing on ............ this way she managed to protect the honor of the popalzai clan as she drove past uncle lal mohammad`s ghee store and cousin nasrullah`s restaurant ..........

........ sarki darwaza in peshawar had a larger burqa zone because she actually had to walk through mohammad zai territory to get to her uncle`s house ...... now, every one knows that the mohammad zais are scoundrels who would start wagging their tongues if they saw sardar sahib`s niece without the burqa - but she survived

....... a few miles away, in saddar or kissa khwani bazaar, she never had to wear the burqa because she didn`t know anyone there .... in quetta cantt she would even drop her dopatta and put on one of those belly-exposing saris ........as long as there weren`t any durranis around, she felt she didn`t need to cover up .........

......... grandma was another story - married at eleven to a man thirty years older than her, she made up her own rules...... sure she had a white gobi burqa which hung next to khan baba`s holstered revolver and she would throw it on her head as she headed out to see the matinee show (she went to the movies at least once a week) - but she never put down the veil .... the burqa just sat there setting off her brilliant green eyes ......now, that is a fashion statement - that and grandpa`s big bad revolver ........... he never took it out of the holster but never left the house without it, and she never put the hood down but always wore the burqa ......

.... since we are talking about grandmas - my other grandma was a hoot .... she would sit on the charpoy showing a lot of leg through the dhoti and smoke the hookah (or my father`s gold flake cigarettes) ........ she probably didn`t even know what a burqa was - it was a sophisticated city thing and she didn`t have time for all that nonsene .....

Re: # 213
further
btw by some measure arabs are integrated in france, some 25% are married to french, us has not been able to achieve that with the blacks.