Canada’s First Muslim Woman Member of Parliament: Why did the Media Miss the Story?

dost-mittar,

Pardon the delayed response:

Farid Zakariah? Dude, Cat Stevens would have no problems getting elected in any Muslim country either, if you catch my drift.

Hum Mustafavi haiN

Recorded in 1974: Music Sohail Rana: Voice Mehdi Zaheer

story behind the event:

The Second Islamic conference was scheduled. Time was short. JamilUDDIn wrote the song and as you will notice that it is in ``rajaz`` meter. It was decided that either Umm-Kulsoom or subhaan [ the great singers from egypt] would be retained. Sohail Rana suggested that we should use our own talent. Mehdi Zaheer, of Radio pakistaN- A legend in his own lifetime both as a scholar and as an artist. His recorded songs in Arabic were already popular in the Middle East but he was himself pretty shy and evasive of publicity & commercialism.

The galloping and advancing of horses, after the introductrey [rajaz] which was a part of battle protocol and strict rule among arabs, is a masterpiece in music composition by a genius as well as singing by another genius.

Enjoy!

Pakistan ko Salgirah Mubarak ho.
PakistaaniON ko salgiraaH mubarak ho.
CHOWK ko salgirah mubarak ho.

Shariat courts are working in U.K for years. Thank you very much.
From a poster in London, England.

Comparison of Punishment under Shariah and Modern Law

1. Mugging: You have probably suffered this at least once in your life, or know someone who has suffered it.

British Legal System : The sentence is discretionary, depending on the crime, but is commonly punished by community service.

Islamic Judicial System: Once guilt is ascertained, the judge will consider the severity of the crime and perform ijtihad (i.e. extracting the rule from the Qur’an and the Sunnah). This may range from public humiliation to death, if the mugging led to death.

2. Burglary: Burglary is extremely common in Britain. No doubt, you are afraid that your house may have been burgled if you are away for any period of time.

British Legal System: The sentence is discretionary, depending on the crime, but is commonly punished with imprisonment.

Islamic Judicial System: Burglars will have their hand cut off, provided they fulfil the seven conditions for this punishment. They are not permitted to have it surgically replaced.

3. Rape: There is a rape in Britain on average every 2.5 hours. Many more go unreported, and in most cases the perpetrator is known to the victim.

British Legal System: The sentence is discretionary, but the punishment ranges from a fine to life imprisonment. Commonly, the period of imprisonment is below 10 years.

Islamic Judicial System: The punishment can be death, depending on the circumstances.

4. Drug Abuse: This is extremely common amongst all ages, particularly the youth. It is often seen as a harmless habit. Perhaps you are worried about a child or relative. If not, you probably should be.

British Legal System: The punishment depends on the nature of the drug, and the quantity possessed. Alcohol is legal. For ‘soft’ drugs like marijuana, offenders are usually just cautioned, but ‘hard’ drug abusers (like cocaine, heroin) may be imprisoned.

Islamic Judicial System: Offenders are publicly flogged 80 lashes.

5. Fornication & Adultery: With the emphasis in our society placed on relationships and sexual freedom, you would be justified in fearing for the conduct of young or indeed older Muslims who are subject to its influence.

British legal System: Both of these are legal, whether done between members of the opposite sex or the same sex (i.e. homosexuality). In fact, if you were to criticise these you would be blamed for intolerance and discrimination.

Islamic Judicial System: Fornication is punished by flogging 100 lashes. Adultery and homosexual fornication are both punished by public execution.

The objective behind the administration of justice in Islam is to act as a deterrent, to reform offenders and to secure society. As you can see, the nature of sentences in the Islamic Judicial System ensure that these objectives are achieved. History bears witness to this - only about 200 hands are recorded to have been cut in the entire history of the Islamic State!

In the West, however, up to 70% of convicted prisoners re-offend once they are released, and the rates of crime are hardly indicative of a successful deterrent.

One of the fundamental problems in the West is the complete contradiction of the ideology that is pushed upon the people. On the one hand, they are told that freedom is the basic right of the individual. This, however, is an open license to commit crime. When this is combined with the concept of democracy, the contradiction becomes apparent. For democracy is a system of making laws - devices to restrict freedom. The result of this conceptual mish-mash is chaos!

The justice which the Islamic State’s Judicial System proffers will offer you peace of mind, security and confidence that your rights will not be abused. After the checks and balances of personal taqwa and the effect of public opinion, the last level of regulation - the Islamic Judicial System guarantees that the world will be free from the exploitation and corruption of man-made law, and the rising tide of crime that complements it.

---

The slaves who have seen nothing but slavery always adopt whatever is the creed of their Masters. Everything seems `normal` and `natural` to them if somebody promises to throw them a bone and pat their backs sometimes.

First it was communism (with all its shades and sects) now it is Liberalism (with all its sects).
These Nine to fivers naukar ( euphemistically label themselves ``professionals``) types mortgage their minds to whoever is their Master. To be enslaved IS the destiny of them & their generations to come.
Their new masters are on their way.

Romair:

[A very fascinating inisight. Unitarian church holds the same opinion, but by coining a beautiful phrase [The coming (?) struggle between] : ``high-tech and high-touch``

17:20 2002-08-13
Muslim leaders pledge to `transform West`

News story from the WorldNetDaily site.

The given article is published within the framework of the agreement on cooperation between PRAVDA.Ru and WorldNetDaily

`If Islamic state rises, we will be its army`


The West will never ``reach the level of Islam,`` and Western society will be ``transformed`` through an ``external or cultural invasion`` by Islam, according to two Islamic leaders in Great Britain.

In recent interviews with the London-based daily Al-Hayat, Egyptian-born Sheik Abu Hamza, imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque and head of the Ansar Al-Shari`ah organization; and Syrian-born Sheik Omar Bakri, founder and leader of the Islamic Religious Court in London and head of the Al-Muhajiroun Islamist Organization, predicted Western civilization and law would eventually succumb to Islam.

The interviews, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, provide insights into how Islamic leaders attempt to use Western-style freedoms and laws to accomplish their goal of spreading the Islamic faith.

For example, Hamza, in his interview, said that although he lives in Britain, he does not consider himself a British citizen except ``to the extent that I use my British documents to move around.``

``I live here and I hold a passport,`` he said. ``It is a superficial identity; real identity is in the heart and in the mind, and this is the [identity] that drives a man. This [identity] is Islam …"

Hamza also hinted that Islamic law would never tolerate certain types of behavior that are tolerated in the U.S. and elsewhere throughout the West.

``Every man can choose whether to be a human being or an ape,`` he said. ``For example, if a man wears clothes he is respected; but if he takes them off, he should not be respected.``

He also said, ``an adulterer should not be respected,`` nor should ``anyone who attacks little children`` or ``anyone who tries to turn himself into a half-man, half-woman …"

When asked how responsive the Islamic community in Britain is to a call to integrate into British society, Hamza said that could occur only in certain areas of life.

``If you mean that the Muslim integrates with the non-Muslim in matters that Islam does not prohibit, such as protecting the environment, defending human rights, and fighting corruption, usury and adultery, then yes, there can be such integration,`` he told the paper. ``But if we take integration en masse, and we all integrate, the Muslim`s daughter will come to him pregnant and he will say, `Never mind, I`m integrated.` His wife will throw him out of the house and he`ll sleep in his car, and she`ll bring her lover home …"

For his part, Bakri said ``in my method of education`` he was flatly ``opposed to the idea of integration.``

``We do not believe that it is permitted to integrate into the societies in which we live,`` he said. ``I am not a supporter of seclusion from society, and I am not a supporter of integration into it.``

Bakri said he supported ``interaction with society by means of my religion and my belief, in order to change the environment, not be changed by it …"

Converting to Islam would solve Britain`s concerns over more stringent immigration, said Hamza, who also insisted his religion is devoid of hate.

``You cannot fight deeply rooted racism. It would be idiocy to think that these countries [in the West] will ever reach the level of Islam,`` he said. ``They need much more time to even understand Islam. The only solution for stopping their racism is to call on them to join Islam, so they will realize what a civilization they are missing.``

Hamza said he had ``prepared`` himself to go to Afghanistan but did not because ``Allah decreed otherwise – primarily in light of the fact that my passport was confiscated by the authorities and now I am under house arrest.`` But if he had a passport, ``I would go,`` he said.

Before Sept. 11, he said, ``we all had intended to emigrate to Afghanistan – even after the events of Sept. 11. Many wanted to.``

``In the beginning, al-Qaida denied any connection`` to the attacks, he claimed, adding: ``It turns out that al-Qaida was not connected to the events.``

As a licensed British engineer, said Hamza, he could ``prove that these [World Trade Center] buildings did not fall just like that because of a fire …"

``Anyone who knows the properties of these buildings knows that al-Qaida didn`t do it. These buildings were blown up from within,`` he said – despite video footage broadcast worldwide of U.S. airliners being flown into both WTC towers the morning of the attacks.

Bakri said the West was guilty of imposing ``man-made law`` on Muslims, but that a ``[future] Islamic regime will impose Islamic religious rulings on them.``

``Either we preach to them [the West] and they will accept [Islam], or we will live among them and they will be influenced by our lives and will accept Islam as a political solution to their problems, not as an ideological solution,`` he said.

The Syrian-born Bakri also said, ``Islam defended the religion of the Christians, the Jews, and others, and stated that `there is no coercion in religion.` But the coercion is in the laws. Laws can be Islamic-religious and they can be man-made.``

``Allah willing, we will transform the West into Dar Al-Islam [that is, a region under Islamic rule] by means of invasion without,`` said Bakri. ``If an Islamic state arises and invades [the West] we will be its army and its soldiers from within. If not, [we will change the West] through ideological invasion … without war and killing.``

Bakri said Islam sought to use Western-style liberties to accomplish its goal of subverting the West to Islamic rule.

``As long as my words do not become actions,`` he said, ``they do no harm. Here, the law does not punish you for words, as long as there is no proof you have carried out actions.

``In such a case you are still on the margins of the law, and they cannot punish you,`` he continued. ``If they want to punish you, they must present evidence against you, otherwise their laws will be in a state of internal contradiction.``

By contrast, countries dominated by Islamic regimes are often dictatorial and curb the right to speak out freely, without fear of reprisal or harsh treatment by the government.

According to the Qur`an, or Koran: ``Islam advocates a qualified right to freedom of speech … provided that the criticism is not propagandistic,`` says one website dedicated to explaining the religion.

Bakri said any contradiction in Western law serves Islam ``because we will be able to claim that the capitalist camp has failed in the face of the Islamic camp in actualizing the things in which it believes, like freedom of expression.``

He said he stays ``on the margins`` of Western law by neither obeying them nor betraying them.

Asked if he was ``testing`` Western regimes, Bakri said yes. ``We must prove that man-made law is a fragile law,`` he said.

``There is a pact between me and them, and I am not breaking it,`` he added. ``I do not preach to kill even one Briton. But they have betrayed the pact [between us] by killing my brothers in Afghanistan,`` Syria and Iraq.

``Allah said: `Do not obey the infidels and the hypocrites.```

By Jon Dougherty
WorldNetDaily

Romair#97:
``But in the USA, a Muslim has no chance in hell of ever getting elected at the Federal level.``

Dilip Singh Saundh, a sikh, became a US congressman from California during Eisenhower`s time. A muslim may have a somewhat harder time getting elected at this particular time because of the ``guilt-through-association`` which views all muslims with suspicion. But people like Farid Zakaria might get elected even now.

dost-mittar #96: ``As always, it was nice discussing with you.``

As always, nice discussing with you also......

``And yes, I can give you directions in Ottawa for both bus and car:-). ``

Ottowa is the first city I landed in, when I decided to move to Canada. I am actually there, quite often. About once every two months or so. Nice place (kind of).....Location is quite nice, but somewhat boring.....401, then 416, if remember correctly....

``If your definition is to be accepted, they are still moving towards it and will remain in transition until everybody stop believing in religion in both personal and political lives. It is obvious that we have different definitions of the same concept.``

Woh tou kuch aur hi bantay gayey anjaan Adm.......
Hum to sumjhay thay keh pahchan huwi jaati hay

Actually, we don`t disagree that much. I agree that the West is secular. I am just saying that it is not 100% secular. Once things like gay marriage etc. get approved, it will move even closer to 100% secularism. As for not being 100% secular, until the society becomes athiest at a personal level: Perhaps I am exxagerting, a bit. But something close to that is what will be needed to ensure that the legislative and executive are not influenced by religion. Perhaps a combination of all religious thoughts, or religious tolerance of exceptionally high levels.

I think you may have a bit of difficulty accepting this, because you have seen Canadian politics, but not American politics. In Canada, I agree, my religion may not be a big obstacle to becoming a part of the legislature. But in the USA, a Muslim has no chance in hell of ever getting elected at the Federal level. And the law-making at the Federal level is heavily (though indirectly) influenced by the Christian Right lobbyists. Both Canada and USA have a secular system.......Yet it is different.......

Romair:
The way I see it, atheism is perhaps a sufficient but not a necessary condition for secularism. Most western societies are already secular, by most definitions. If your definition is to be accepted, they are still moving towards it and will remain in transition until everybody stop believing in religion in both personal and political lives. It is obvious that we have different definitions of the same concept.
As always, it was nice discussing with you. And yes, I can give you directions in Ottawa for both bus and car:-).

echoboom #91: ``For the last 10000 years or more this is what it the ``Earthies`` (Materialists--dehryaas) have been doing. Never ever lasted. Religion DID.``

It is true that religion has clearly outlasted all sorts of, ``isms.`` But will it outlast secularism? I don`t think so. Not in the Western societies, at least. Religion will be morphed, and eventually there will be concept of God, with all man-made laws at the public level, and with mostly man-made laws at the personal level. There will be pockets of religionists at the personal level, but they will be the minority.

In fact, this is already happening.

Karen Armstrong is someone I enjoy reading. She wrote a best-seller on Islam. However, she, according to her admission is now religion-less. She used to be a nun. Now she does not follow any religion. Though, I believe, she does still believe in God.

The removal of Church (I don`t call it separation) from State was a major event in mankind`s history. It seems to be commonly accepted, nowdays. However, when it happened (or slowly happened), it must have been as major a change as removing God from one`s personal life. It took extreme power centralized amongst the Christian religious heirarchy and the damage they caused, to finally convince the Christian Western societies to drop religion from public life.

A natural consequence should have been to drop it from personal life, also. But that hasn`t happened completely. Probably, because at a personal level, one is not affecting too many other poeple. And because people need an answer to the question of, ``What will happen after death, and who created all of us.`` However, it was, and is, inevitable that as people see less and less religion in public life, they will also challenge its teachings more and more at the personal level. One cannot follow half of a religion (personal) and not follow the other half (public). People will ask if half of it is wrong, then how can the other half be completely right.

In the Western socieities, other than the USA, religion is now becoming less and less significant, amongst the Christian majorities. And even in the USA, there is one a set of strong religious followers, which have not allowed the society to be more free of religion. It is not the whole soceity. The US soceity, theoretically, is secular. However, practically, it mixes religion with state quite a bit. The only branch that is secular in the USA is the judiciary. The legislature is heavily influenced by religion, and regularly legislates based on it, since the Southern states will never vote for an openly secular person. And the executive always has to wear and show his religion on his sleeve, while simultaneously stating that he believes in Secularism.

The only way the legislature can bring religion back into the state is through constitutional amendments, thereby, locking the judiciary out (which will always vote in favor of State, and not in favor of religion). Organizations like the Christian Coalition (and the Christian Right in general), are heavily influential in US politics.

So even the USA is going to be slowly going towards full secularism.

The group that is being affected by reduction of religious influence the most, are the Jews in the USA. According to Alan Dershowitz in, ``The Vanishing American Jew,`` the number of Jews in the USA in a few generations will be microscopic to their current numbers. Because Jews are heavily inter-marrying with Christians (and low birth rate). Eventually, I think, the Jewish faith in the USA, will be intermixed with the Christian faith, and will disappear as we know it today, in the USA.

Religion in Western Europe, and in Canada, has far less influence in personal lives, than it did at one time. And it is getting less and less. There are pockets of influence. But pure Christianity, at a personal level, is become more and more watered down. This is not to say that people don`t recognize the existence of God. It just says that, even at a personal level, they have questioned His teachings, and are picking and chosing, changing and morphing, and in many cases, dropping all together, what was in their religion.

Sooner or later, this imbalance of considering religions` public teachings inefficient for the public sphere, while considering them good for the personal sphere, was going to give way to a more cohesive approach. Either people were going to go back to try to bring religion into the public sphere (slowly end secularism through constitutional amendments), or they were going to change their religious personal lifestyles, to make it more insync with the atheistic public rules.

Considering the fact, that even the most die-hard religionists of the US Republican party were unable to pass even an amendment on gay marriage, you should be able to tell which direction the society is heading. And, within a generation or two, the number of Brits who think David Beckham has more influence in their lives than God, will move from 35% to 65% or more.

I don`t know whether this is right or wrong. But it is clear that it is being done volutarily by the individuals of these socieites, and is the general trend.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dost-mittar #89: ``If you feel better calling secularism public atheism, it makes no difference.``

If I didn`t know you better, I would think that you perceive my discussions about secularism, as an attack on secularism. And you feel the need to defend it against such an attack. I am not attacking. Just discussing. I don`t think one should consider any subject beyond debate and criticism and discussion. However, many people tend to get overly defensive when secularism or religion is being discussed.

I am not calling it public atheism. That is what it is, by its own definition. The politically correct definition of, ``Separting Church from State,`` is just that, i.e. politically correct, but not accurate. Secularism does not separate Church from State. It does a lot more.

A divorce is a good example of separation. Two entitites going their own separate ways, or moving away from each other, and no longer depending on each other. However, in a divorce, neither the husband, nor the wife, gets superiority over the other. The husband`s word cannot overrule the wife`s, nor vice-versa.

In Secularism, man-made laws, at the public level, always overrule religious public laws. They are not considered equal. In fact, religion is not even supposed to be considered a legitimate basis to argue or form public laws, under Secularism.

Hence Secularism does not just separate Religion and State. Secularism removes religion from the State, all together. It denies the legitimacy of God-made (however God maybe interpreted by the majority local population) laws in the public sphere. By definition, it demands from individuals to declare (their) God`s public laws to be inappropriate, incomplete and impractical, to get the job done. It only recognizes the legitimacy of those laws, at the personal level. Hence it is atheism at the public level combined with religion at the personal level.

It`s good to see that both of us agree on this......

``I might add that the problem is serious only for the followers of abrahmic faiths since their God sent law-bearing messengers like Moses and Mohammad. As far as I know, the Indic or Far Eastern God does not pose any such problem; manuals written by men like Manu are not considered the word of God. ``

My knowledge of non-Abrahamic faiths is not very good. If they, by definition, do not require allegiance to scripture, then, you are correct, it would be easier to introduce secularism in such societies.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Communism is DEAD. It is licking its wounds by trojan-ing itself as secularism, liberalism, pluralism kind of claptrap. For the last 10000 years or more this is what it the ``Earthies`` (Materialists--dehryaas) have been doing. Never ever lasted. Religion DID.

Today they want to charm us by fancy lullabies like ``pluralities`` and ``inclusiveness``. They want their bars, gay-gaandoos, and strip-joints to be considered equal in stature to a masjid, mandir, girja, and kanishtaa.

They want to feel accepted by society at large and treated with respect. The only way they can expect respect is if they keep their ugliness under wraps and do not debauch & corrupt with impunity and seena-zoree.

Has never ever happened. Never will.

Chursee, bhangee, sharaabee, juaree, haraamkaar & haraam-khores and zaanees will never ever be accepted as inclusive, and pluralistic behaviour. Society should rather be encouraged to despise and malign them even more. Zaleel them in open. It must be a part of interviewing process as well. [ ``but I didn`t inhale`` kind of fippant talk would soon be no joke``]

Aug. 6, 2004. 06:55 AM
Rallying cry for Muslims in Canada
North Americans offer key lessons, conference told
Author on religion opens 73rd event in Couchiching

LESLIE SCRIVENER
FAITH AND ETHICS REPORTER

ORILLIA—One of the greatest dangers facing the West is increased alienation among North American Muslims, says British historian and best-selling author Karen Armstrong.

``Increasingly since 9/11, there`s a lot of hostility and some are saying they don`t have a place in the West. This is a huge opportunity lost.``

North American Muslims have the potential to be one of the most effective weapons in the war on terror, said Armstrong, a leading commentator on religion, who opened the annual conference organized by the Couchiching Institute on Public Affairs last night.

``One of the great things Muslims in Canada can do is to show Muslims in the old country it`s possible to have a vibrant Muslim life in the heart of the Western world and act as a bridge between the old and the new,`` she said.

Canada`s openness toward religious minorities and willingness to accommodate religious expressions is the way to go, Armstrong said in an interview. ``This is exciting.``

In contrast, France, where the government plans to ban religious symbols in public schools in September, is making trouble for itself, she said. ``Any attempt to suppress or denigrate makes it more important and people hold on to it as a symbol.``

Armstrong said she`s been asked if Muslim fundamentalists are worse than those from other backgrounds. ``No, but if we go on the way we are, they`re likely to be.``

The theme of this year`s Couchiching conference, which runs until Sunday, is ``God`s Back — with a Vengeance.`` It`s the first time religion has been addressed in its 73-year history, though Armstrong says religion has never really gone away.

``We have always thought that God and religion were on the way out; it`s a delusion,`` she said. ``We`ve taken for granted since the middle of the last century that religion will never play a major role in world events.``

And that`s been proven wrong.

``The Moral Majority (in the U.S.) was simply regrouping and was thrust upon us in the 1970s. Religion is here to stay and with the growth of fundamentalism, many people want to see religion reflected more clearly in the public life.``

Armstrong, a former Roman Catholic nun whose books include The Battle for God, a look at fundamentalist movements in Islam, Christianity and Judaism, said every fundamentalist movement she`s studied is rooted in ``fear of annihilation`` — the belief that modern, secular liberal society wants to wipe them out.

``This is not necessarily paranoia,`` she said.

Yasser,
Just because I ``withdraw` doesn`t mean you get to have the last word. You`re obvioulsy confusing me with some other poster. I haven`t made any false claims, neither am I interested in urinating in competition with you.
Take a few deep breaths, go for a long walk with the missus, really! things aren`t as bad as you think they are. Life is still worth living.
and no, I`m not being sarcastis (for once!)

echoboom#83:
I was surprised by your post.
-the Indian constitution was written by the constituent assembly, an elected body, though not with universal franchise;
-the constitution, esp. its secular character enjoys overwhelming support. The only significant demand is for a uniform civil code, which would in theory make it more secular;
-there are specific provisions for the amenment of the constitution and it has indeed been amended several times.

Romair:
If you feel better calling secularism public atheism, it makes no difference.
I might add that the problem is serious only for the followers of abrahmic faiths since their God sent law-bearing messengers like Moses and Mohammad. As far as I know, the Indic or Far Eastern God does not pose any such problem; manuals written by men like Manu are not considered the word of God.

So basically your ego doesn`t permit you to admit that indeed you were wrong about the post that you put up ... or the way you tried to argue it out... ... withdraw by all means... I am not interested engage someone in conversation who wants to every thing from a pakistan-india pissing contest lens...

This article is about a non-entity Canadian MP with a Parsi sounding name whom the author is p1ssed doesn`t get credit for being the country`s ``first Muslim MP``. It`s boring enough without trying to argue with you, Yasser. So let me withdraw now. Bye.