• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Islamism - 4
<b>Islam Is as Islam Does</b> - By Barbara J. Stock
There are people in America who still do not realize that our country is at war. This is astounding considering all of the threats that Islamic terrorists and leaders have been issuing lately. These unenlightened folks consider President Bush the enemy, so Bush is actually fighting a war on two fronts. One is with Islam, the real enemy, and the other is with American leftists who are more concerned about regaining their power than the safety of the country. Sometimes it’s difficult to sort out which is more dangerous.

In the rush to Bush-bash, the liberals in America are unwittingly handing a victory to Islam. Several retired American generals have joined the left and have publicly spoken out against a sitting president during wartime. Islamics instantly picked up on this fact and referred to this action as a “mutiny” within the American military. Apparently, Islamics don’t realize what “retired” means. Sadly, most of this “mutiny” is due to old-time military men who want to keep an old-time military.

The liberal media report that suicides are up within the military, but they fail to report that the suicide rate within the military is less than half that of the general population. When the Islamics parrot the same fact, it was heralded as a great victory for Islam. Their message was that American soldiers would rather kill themselves than face the brave Muslim warriors. The truth is actually the reverse. Brave Muslim warriors would rather dress as women and blow themselves up killing fellow Muslims praying in a mosque than face an American soldier. Of course, that is not described as suicide by Muslims. Instead, it has been given the colorful label of “martyrdom.” It is never explained by Islamic leaders how praying fellow Muslims in a mosque are a threat to Islam.

The American left insists that we must encourage the “moderate” Muslim clerics to speak out against the terrorists. Those “moderate” clerics are quietly being killed by the much stronger and violent Islamic leaders. It should surprise no one that most non-violent mullahs are afraid to speak out against the slaughter.

Last week in Iraq , the sister of the new vice-president was gunned down in the street. Her only crime was being related to a man in the new Iraqi government. Islamics think nothing of killing a helpless woman to send a message. But if pictures of a Muslim are released with a bag on his head, Islamics go crazy with rage. Pages from the Bible are used as toilet paper, but if an infidel accidentally splashes water on a Quran, riots break out.

Then there is Iran .  Iran claims it has never attacked another country. Technically, Iran committed an act of war when the American embassy was overrun and the Americans within that embassy were taken hostage. Every embassy is considered the sovereign soil of the country that occupies it. Therefore, Iran invaded American soil that day and attacked another country.  Iran has funded terrorists the world over. Those terrorist groups have blown up embassies, ships, and commercial planes full of innocent people. Iran ’s largest export is not oil, but state-sponsored terrorism.

The Islamic leaders in Iran feel it is their destiny to start the culture war between Islam and the West. This war will herald the return of the twelfth Imam and his return will signal victory for Islam over the world. Iran has just received missiles from North Korea that can be equipped with nuclear warheads and these missiles can easily reach the capitals of Europe.

Now, like the school-yard bully, Iran is huffing and puffing about revenge if it is attacked. Iran can send armies of suicide bombers and all together those armies could not inflict the damage that American bombers could do to Iran in a week. Iran has thumbed its nose at the United Nations. Perhaps some Iranians have short memories.

In the weeks leading up to the liberation of Kuwait, Iraq was pounded nightly by American bombs. There was a video of an Iranian man standing on the outskirts of his town many miles from the Iran/Iraq border. He was watching the night sky being lit up by the bombs and under his feet he could feel the ground shake. He waved his hands and thanked Allah for not being under those bombs. He said he had never witnessed such power.

Even though our troops are spread around the world, America still possesses this power. Iran may soon be under those bombs and its ground will shake much more than it did when the bombs fell miles away. All of Iran’s clever little weapon systems will not protect it. Designed for show, these weapons will be of little use to it if American might is unleashed. Iran’s cute little boats with high-speed torpedoes will never make it out of the harbor.

Unlike Islamics, America will not target women and children. We will target Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. One does not allow a small child to play with a loaded gun and the world cannot allow the religiously insane Islamic leaders of Iran to have a weapon that is capable of wiping out millions of people.

Yet, even here in America there are those who feel that it is Iran’s right to have such weapons. More than likely, if President Bush agreed that it was Iran’s right, these same people would jump to the other side of the argument and demand that Iran be disarmed. These misguided folks don’t care what Iran does. They seem to feel it doesn’t concern them. After all, that is the Middle East’s problem, not an American problem. Leftists don’t care what Germany does…sorry, what Iran does. They don’t seem to care that Islamics are slaughtering people all over the world. Leftists ignore that Islam proclaims it will rule the world.

Islam is killing people. Islam is killing non-Muslims and Muslims. Islam is killing old and young. Islam is killing Jews and Christians and Hindus. Islam is moving across the world like a dark, evil cloud. When will the free world realize that Islam is as Islam does?
<b>Londonistan in Washington — Khalid Hasan</b>

Ms Phillips said she was not an expert either on Islam, or on terrorism or on Islamic groups, but she spoke on all three with an authority that only ignorance and prejudice can foster. What had happened, she said, was that British culture and values had come under threat because of the disastrous policy of multiculturalism

The Heritage Foundation is the flagship of conservative think tanks in Washington. That it was chosen first by Foreign Minister KM “Blameworthy” and, more recently, by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz should perhaps not have surprised anyone since neither can be accused of revolutionary tendencies. God forbid.

Washington is a city full of lobbyists and think tanks. Tanks of course don’t think: they merely pulverise whatever stands in their way. Then there are tanks of the other kind, such as those in which you keeps fish. And if you are Dr No, you keep piranha, which you hope will one day dine on James Bond 007.

I go to Heritage Foundation whenever I want to know what the twice born are thinking about the rest of the world, especially the dangerous lunatic fringe on the Left and, currently, the “Islamists”, a word of recent coinage, for which we need to send a note of thanks to OB Laden, which is what he should be called because his full name is too long for a headline. Shafiq ur Rehman called Muhammad Shah Rangeela, MS Rangeela, so why not OB Laden?

I was at the Heritage Foundation this week to hear someone I had always associated with the Guardian because that was the paper she used to write for when I was living in London. Of course, I had not realised that she had left the Guardian years ago and fallen head over heels in love with everything right-wing. For the last five years she has written a column for the London tabloid Daily Mail, which is to the Guardian what Al Qaeda is to the FBI.

Melanie Phillips was here to launch her book Londonistan, which, according to her, is what England has become since those bad jihadi Muslims made it their home. And why did they make it their home? Because of a spineless, pusillanimous, appeasing British Labour government, which has turned its back on European civilisation and way of life.

She said she was not an expert either on Islam, or on terrorism or on Islamic groups, but she spoke on all three with an authority that only ignorance and prejudice can foster. What had happened, she said, was that British culture and values had come under threat because of the disastrous policy of multiculturalism and the refusal of the British judicial system to deal with terrorism as it should be dealt with.

She warned her American hosts that while Tony Blair was a staunch ally — some say poodle — of George Bush, there was no guarantee that his successor would be the same. She stopped short of suggesting that Bush should take steps to make Blair prime minister for life. She called Great Britain the “weakest link” in the war against Islamic terrorism. She said Britain had been enfeebled because of its continued adherence to the rule of law and human rights when it came to Islamist terrorists. She said there had been an erosion of British identity.

Ms Phillips lamented that after the 7/7 attacks, the explanations given by the British establishment and media were entirely wrong. It was said that the fault lay with “us” because we had failed to integrate Muslims in British society and we also suffered from Islamophobia. She said the real reason was that Britain had been too hospitable to those who poured into the country in the 1990s from the Middle East and North Africa after the end of the Afghan war.

Then there were the Pakistanis, whose country had been “colonised” by Saudi Wahabism. She said concepts like freedom of speech and human rights should not be applicable to such elements whose sole mission was the destruction of the Infidel West.

<b>I asked her after she was done what she proposed should be done to deal with the situation. Should all British Muslims be thrown out and a ban placed on further immigration of Muslims to Britain? While there was little doubt that this is what she would wish, she said it should be made quite clear that minorities could not dictate to the majority. While everyone was free to practise his religion, including Islam, no one could be permitted to sabotage the essential Western values of British society.

She said Britain had lost self-confidence and come to believe in supranational ideas — such as the UN and the International Criminal Court — rather than in its nationalist ideology. Minorities were seen as victims. She said the younger generation of British Muslims was torn between the beliefs of their elders and what it saw as the depravity and temptations of the West. <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>She added the standard disclaimer that it was not her intent to “demonise all Muslims” although at one point she suggested that there was something intrinsically the matter with Islam when it came to violence.</span></b>

I have since found that among the admirers of Ms Phillips’ book are the likes of Islam-baiter Daniel Pipes, unabashed Zionist Natan Sharansky (whom President George Bush admires) and Iranian imperialist Amir Taheri. Wrote Sharansky, “This book is powerful and frightening, but also courageous. In dictatorships, you need courage to fight evil; in the free world, you need courage to see the evil.”

Pipes piped in with, “In contrast to the overwhelming majority of her British compatriots, who prefer to avert their eyes from the radical Islamic horror growing in their midst, Melanie Phillips has compiled a unique record that fearlessly, brilliantly and wittily exposes this problem.”

And according to Taheri, “Melanie Phillips pieces together the story of how Londonistan developed as a result of the collapse of British self-confidence and national identity and its resulting paralysis by multiculturalism and appeasement. The result is an ugly climate in Britain of irrationality and defeatism, which now threatens to undermine the alliance with America and imperil the defence of the free world.”

All I would suggest is that the Orwell Prize for Journalism that Ms Phillips received in 1996, she should surrender because the association of her name with that of Orwell is an insult to that great man and his memory.

<i>Khalid Hasan is Daily Times’ US-based correspondent. His e-mail is khasan2@cox.net</i>

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Mr Hasan's distortion</span></b>

Last Wednesday, I spoke on the themes of my book <b>Londonistan</b> to a meeting of the Heritage Foundation think-tank in Washington. After my presentation finished, I was asked a question by a Pakistani journalist. What was I suggesting, he asked sarcastically: that all British Muslims should be deported? This was the gist of my reply to him (you can hear what was actually said in the video recording on the <b>Heritage website</b>).

I said I was certainly not suggesting anything of the sort, and that the question illustrated precisely the kind of mischievous misrepresentation to which arguments like my own were repeatedly subjected. I said that I had repeatedly emphasised in my book that British Muslims should not all be tarred with the brush of extremism, that across the world Muslims were the most numerous victims of Islamist terrorism, and that it was very important to give truly moderate, reformist Muslims our support and protection. I believed that Britain should be delivering the message that Muslims were welcome in Britain to practise their faith, which should be respected, but at the same time Islamism – whereby the religion was being used to inspire hatred and violence against the British state or against America, Israel and the Jews – would not be tolerated. Britain’s current failure to draw this important distinction, I suggested, was not only endangering British society but undermining truly reformist British Muslims, since Britain’s appeasement of Islamist extremists was cutting the ground from under the moderates' feet in their own attempt to defeat them.

The following, however, is what this journalist, Khalid Hasan, has written in his newspaper the <b>Daily Times</b> of Pakistan:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I asked her after she was done what she proposed should be done to deal with the situation. Should all British Muslims be thrown out and a ban placed on further immigration of Muslims to Britain? <i>While there was little doubt that this is what she would wish</i>, [my emphasis] she said it should be made quite clear that minorities could not dictate to the majority. While everyone was free to practise his religion, including Islam, no one could be permitted to sabotage the essential Western values of British society..

She added the standard disclaimer that it was not her intent to ‘demonise all <i>Muslims’ although at one point she suggested that there was something intrinsically the matter with Islam when it came to violence</i> [my emphasis].<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This grossly misrepresents what I said in my remarks and in my reply to Mr Hasan. He has ignored what I said in my reply to him and provided instead an untrue and defamatory gloss, imputing to me a view which I do not possess. I also did not make any reference in my remarks – indeed, I specifically say in the book that this is a matter on which I do not express a view at all – to any ‘intrinsic’ characteristic of Islam.

<b>Mr Hasan is of course entitled to his opinions about my views, and he is also free to make the kind of unpleasant remarks about ‘Zionists’ which he includes in his article. However, he is not entitled to distort a public presentation liked this, and the Daily Times of Pakistan might like to note that he has badly misrepresented what I said.</b>

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Muslim hardship under spotlight</b> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<b>Many Muslims in England face bleak employment prospects and endure poor standards of housing, a government-backed study has found.

The report revealed Muslims were more likely than any other faith group to be jobless and living in poor conditions.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>It said half of Muslims aged over 25 were unemployed, and one in three lived in the most deprived areas of England.

University researchers in Birmingham, Derby, Oxford, and Warwick also found they had poorer levels of education.

The study, commissioned to review the prospects of faith communities in England, also said Muslims were more vulnerable to long-term illness.</span></b>

<b>'Multiple deprivation'</b>

"Taking the Muslim population as a whole, they face some of the most acute conditions of multiple deprivation," the report said.

John Prescott's former department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), commissioned the academics to review data on the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim communities.

As well as highlighting the disadvantages suffered, the report found members of these communities were likely to remain concentrated in the same areas.

This was because families wanted to stay close together and many prefer to live near to their places of worship.

Researchers reviewed a variety of data, including information from the 2001 national census.

The government will use the study in its work to encourage equal opportunities for members of all religious communities, a spokeswoman said.

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tweede-Kamerfractie / Persverklaring Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Engels)
door Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I came to Holland in the summer of 1992 because I wanted to be able to determine my own future. I didn’t want to be forced into a destiny that other people had chosen for me, so I opted for the protection of the rule of law. Here in Holland, I found freedom and opportunities, and I took those opportunities to speak out against religious terror.

In January 2003, at the invitation of the VVD party, I became a member of parliament. I accepted the VVD’s invitation on the condition that I would be the party’s spokesman for the emancipation of women and the integration of immigrants.

What exactly did I want to achieve?

First of all I wanted to put the oppression of immigrant women -- especially Muslim women – squarely on the Dutch political agenda. Second, I wanted Holland to pay attention to the specific cultural and religious issues that were holding back many ethnic minorities, instead of always taking a one-sided approach that focused only on their socio-economic circumstances. Lastly, I wanted politicians to grasp the fact that major aspects of Islamic doctrine and tradition, as practiced today, are incompatible with the open society.

Now I have to ask myself, have I accomplished that task?

I have stumbled often in my political career. It has sometimes been frustrating and slow. However, I am completely certain that I have, in my own way, succeeded in contributing to the debate. Issues related to Islam – such as impediments to free speech; refusal of the separation of Church and State; widespread domestic violence; honor killings; the repudiation of wives; and Islam’s failure to condemn genital mutilation -- these subjects can no longer be swept under the carpet in our country’s capital. Some of the measures that this government has begun taking give me satisfaction. Many illusions of how easy it will be to establish a multicultural society have disappeared forever. We are now more realistic and more open in this debate, and I am proud to have contributed to that process.

Meanwhile, the ideas which I espouse have begun spreading to other countries. In recent years I have given speeches and attended debates in many European countries and in the United States. For months now, I have felt that I needed to make a decision: should I go on in Dutch politics, or should I now transfer my ideas to an international forum?

In the fall of 2005 I told Gerrit Zalm and Jozias van Aartsen, the leaders of the VVD, that I would not be a candidate for the parliamentary elections in 2007. I had decided to opt for a more international platform, because I wanted to contribute to the international debate on the emancipation of Muslim women and the complex relationship between Islam and the West.

Now that I am announcing that I will resign from Dutch politics, I would like to thank the members of the VVD for my years in parliament – to thank them for inviting me to stand for parliament, and -- perhaps more importantly -- for putting up with me while I was there, for this has been in many ways a rough ride for us all. I want to thank my other colleagues here in parliament for their help, although some of our debates have been sharp. (Femke Halsema, thank you especially for that!). I would also like to thank the 30,758 people who in January 2003 trusted their preference vote to a newcomer.

But why am I not remaining in parliament for my full term, until next year’s election? Why, after only three and a half years, have I decided to resign from the Lower Chamber?

It is common knowledge that threats against my life began building up ever since I first talked about Islam publicly, in the spring of 2002. Months before I even entered politics, my freedom of movement was greatly curtailed, and that became worse after Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004. I have been obliged to move house so many times I have lost count. The direct cause for the ending of my membership in parliament is that on April 27 of this year, a Dutch court ruled that I must once again leave my home, because my neighbors filed a complaint that they could not feel safe living next to me. The Dutch government will appeal this verdict and I grateful for that, because how on earth will other people whose lives are threatened manage to find a place to stay if this verdict is allowed to rest? However, this appeal does not alter my situation: I have to leave my apartment by the end of August.

Another reason for my departure is the discussion that has arisen from a TV program, The Holy Ayaan, which was aired on May 11. This program centered on two issues: the story that I told when I was applying for asylum here in Holland, and questions about my forced marriage.

I have been very open about the fact that when I applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, I did so under a false name and with a fabricated story. In 2002, I spoke on national television about the conditions of my arrival, and I said then that I fabricated a story in order to be able to receive asylum here. Since that TV program I have repeated this dozens of times, in Dutch and international media. Many times I have truthfully named my father and given my correct date of birth. (You will find a selection of these articles in the press folder). I also informed the VVD leadership and members of this fact when I was invited to stand for parliament.

I have said many times that I am not proud that I lied when I sought asylum in the Netherlands. It was wrong to do so. I did it because I felt I had no choice. I was frightened that if I simply said I was fleeing a forced marriage, I would be sent back to my family. And I was frightened that if I gave my real name, my clan would hunt me down and find me. So I chose a name that I thought I could disappear with – the real name of my grandfather, who was given the birth-name Ali. I claimed that my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although I should have said it was Ayaan Hirsi Magan.

You probably are wondering, what is my real name?

I am Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, who is the son of a man who took the name of Magan. Magan was the son of Isse, who was the son of Guleid, who was the son of Ali. He was the son of Wai’ays, who was the son of Muhammad. He was the son of Ali, who was the son of Umar. Umar was the son of Osman, who was the son of Mahamud. This is my clan, and therefore, in Somalia, this is my name: Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Wai’ays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud.

Following the May 11 television broadcast, legal questions have been raised about my naturalization as a Dutch citizen. Minister Verdonk has written to me saying that my passport will be annulled, because it was issued to a person who does not hold my real name. I am not at liberty to discuss the legal issues in this case.

Now for the questions about my forced marriage. Last week’s TV program cast doubt on my credibility in that respect, and the final conclusion of the documentary is that all this is terribly complicated. Let me tell you, it’s not so complex. The allegations that I willingly married my distant cousin, and was present at the wedding ceremony, are simply untrue. This man arrived in Nairobi from Canada, asked my father for one of his five daughters, and my father gave him me. I can assure you my father is not a man who takes no for an answer. Still, I refused to attend the formal ceremony, and I was married regardless. Then, on my way to Canada -- during a stopover in Germany -- I traveled to the Netherlands and asked for asylum here. In all simplicity this is what happened, nothing more and nothing less. For those who are interested in the intimate details of my transition from a pre-modern society to a modern one, and how I came to love what the West stands for, please read my memoir, which is due to be published this fall.

To return to the present day, may I say that it is difficult to live with so many threats on your life and such a level of police protection. It is difficult to work as a parliamentarian if you have nowhere to live. All that is difficult, but not impossible. It has become impossible since last night, when Minister Verdonk informed me that she would strip me of my Dutch citizenship.

I am therefore preparing to leave Holland. But the questions for our society remain. The future of Islam in our country; the subjugation of women in Islamic culture; the integration of the many Muslims in the West: it is self-deceit to imagine that these issues will disappear.

I will continue to ask uncomfortable questions, despite the obvious resistance that they elicit. I feel that I should help other people to live in freedom, as many people have helped me. I personally have gone through a long and sometimes painful process of personal growth in this country. It began with learning to tell the truth to myself, and then the truth about myself: I strive now to also tell the truth about society as I see it.

That transition from becoming a member of a clan to becoming a citizen in an open society is what public service has come to mean for me. Only clear thinking and strong action can lead to real change, and free many people within our society from the mental cage of submission. The idea that I can contribute to their freedom, whether in the Netherlands or in another country, gives me deep satisfaction.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, I resign from Parliament. I regret that I will be leaving the Netherlands, the country which has given me so many opportunities and enriched my life, but I am glad that I will be able to continue my work. I will go on.

Voor meer informatie: vvdvoorlichting@tweedekamer.nl

Wjile not directly related to Islamism, please see reader comments in the following link.

Even the <b>B</b>olshevik <b>B</b>roadcasting <b>C</b>orporation cannot censor all the people all the time.


Or is it just good old-fashioned racism making a comeback?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SPIRES AND MINARETS
- The reinvention of Oxford as the centre of Islamic piety 

Sunanda K. Datta-Ray

Tony Brett’s defeat in Oxford’s council election was one of many small details that passed unnoticed in the excitement over the gains that the white supremacist British Nationalist Party made in a London suburb. But it could mark a turning point in the reinvention of the town of dreaming spires as a centre of Islamic piety.

The contrast between victor and vanquished is revealing of Cool Britannia’s transformation. Tony — Antony Edwin St John Brett — a Liberal Democratic councillor for the last six years, is a young graduate of Corpus Christi College, founded in 1517 “to the honour of the most precious Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, of His most spotless Mother and of the Saints Patrons of the Cathedral Churches of Winchester, Durham, Bath and Wells and Exeter”. He is a churchwarden, sings in the choir, and is also a wizard with computers, which is how I first met him.

Mohammed Niaz Abbasi, the Labour candidate who unseated him, is a virtually unlettered bearded middle-aged taxi-driver from Pakistan whose rudimentary English is heavily accented. But he is a mosque leader and has the entrée into the homes of Muslims who comprise 20 per cent of voters in their Cowley Marsh ward. The women don’t speak English at all. Three other ethnic Pakistanis (another taxi-driver and a postman among them) were also elected to the city council.

There were no Pakistanis in the Seventies when Ann Spokes Symonds was Lord Mayor of Oxford. Her witty and erudite husband, Richard Symonds, historian of Oxford and the Empire, enjoys startling bemused Pakistani taxi-drivers with delightful tales of his stint with refugees in Pakistan at the time of partition and experiences with the United Nations observers in Kashmir.

These simple folk are part of the national community of well over a million Muslims which overlaps with the wider Asian population. Leaving aside a handful of achievers like Sir Iqbal Sacramie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, or Lord Nazir Ahmed, they are the poor relations of the Britasian world with its billionaire tycoons, globally acclaimed authors and distinguished personalities in all walks of life. Asian-run businesses in London alone have an annual turnover of £60 billion.

Muslims have been the cause of concern ever since the July 7 explosions. Why do Hindus prosper while Muslims languish, people ask. Why are there no Hindu rebels? Concern and comparison help to explain the British government’s new solicitousness towards Pakistan and determination not to be seen as supporting India over Kashmir. Two of the four young Muslim suicide-bombers spent time in Pakistan: whether or not they established contact there with al Qaida operatives, Pakistan’s potential to influence British Muslims creates nervousness. “The process of indoctrinating these men appears principally to have been through personal contact and group bonding” according to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee report, which stresses Pakistan’s vital role in the process. It’s a country that Tony Blair dare not offend.

One of his ministerial colleagues reiterated this week that Muslims must be given special instruction in “core British values” like democracy, freedom of speech, fairness and responsibility. “Taking the Muslim population as a whole, they face some of the most acute conditions of multiple deprivation,” says an official study. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>It found that 6 per cent of Muslims (nearly 100,000 people) approved of the bombings that killed 52 innocent people.</span>

Some of that rage must also simmer below the surface in a town where the beard and burqa are becoming as relevant as cap and gown. There are many signs of this awakening consciousness. Kitty Datta, Amlan Datta’s scholarly wife, was outraged to pick up a pamphlet called “How to go to Heaven” (through conversion to Islam) in the Cornmarket. Conversion is an important part of the agenda. One of the July 7 bombers, 19-year-old Germaine Lindsay, was a black Jamaican convert. Surfing the Net, I came upon Oxfordislam which calls itself “a site for non-Muslims in Oxford and around to learn about Islam and hopefully convert to their beliefs and way of life for man”. If there isn’t a queue yet to seek salvation, it is not for want of trying.

Muslim organizations zealously promote causes that strike a sympathetic chord in others. Calcutta radicals may pretend to support Palestinians but it was in Oxford that 500 candles were lit last Sunday to recall the 58th anniversary of the Nakba — catastrophe — which is how Arabs describe the Zionist triumph of 1948. The Out of Beirut exhibition in the Museum of Modern Art recreates that city’s trauma. The public library’s newspaper section stocks the Daily Jang and Al Hayat. Its lending shelves display more books in Urdu than any other Asian language. Apart from the usual “Indian” restaurants, any number of shops and eating places cater to tastes from Morocco and Turkey. Telling symbol of the new assertiveness, the young daughter of Farhan Ahmad Nizami, Indian-born director of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, has taken to wearing the hijab that her mother doesn’t.

Still swathed in scaffolding and builders’ fencing, the centre’s new building by Magdalen’s playing fields is the most magnificent manifestation of this additional dimension to Oxford’s mellow personality. Its dome and minaret (picture) fully live up to the grandeur of the model I saw some years ago in Nizami’s old centre in George Street, which is a focus of Islamic intellectual life. Tariq Ramadhan, author of Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, was a recent speaker. Impressed by Nizami’s work, Prince Charles announced that the centre has “the potential to be an important and exciting vehicle for promoting and improving understanding of the Islamic world”.

It is not alone in that endeavour. The new redbrick Victorian Saracenic Central Oxford Mosque and Islamic Centre commands Manzil Way only a few minutes walk away. Nearby are the Ahmadiya Muslim Association’s premises, the Madina Mosque and Muslim Welfare House and the Bangladesh Islamic Education Centre and Mosque. They are a mixed bag. If one of the imams strikes an austere note with his beard, cap and long black robe, another, the young Imam Mohammed Ata Ullah, is known to have fled Pakistan, leaving behind his wife and children, after fanatics killed his reformist father.

The university’s active interest in Islam probably began with Albert Hourani, the ethnic Lebanese Manchester-born academic, who pioneered Middle East studies at St Anthony’s. Wafic Said — the Syrian magnate whose name will forever be linked to Margaret Thatcher’s $20 billion Al-Yamanah arms deal with Saudi Arabia, reportedly the biggest ever — took up the torch. His £40 million Said Business School (the benefactor provided half the money and Sainsbury the other half), a high airy structure with an abundance of glass, commands the landscape by Oxford railway station.

Even — and paradoxically — the Khalili Research Centre for the Arts and Material Culture of the Middle East should be included in that list. When I met the art collector, Nasser David Khalili, as Sir Tim Lankester’s guest at Corpus some years ago, and talked about the Iranian-origin Khalilis in Calcutta and Madras, I assumed he was a Muslim. Now, I discover he is a Jew. But as the Sultan of Brunei’s representative, he was instrumental in setting up the Brunei Gallery opposite the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. Last year, he donated £2.35 million from the family trust for Middle East studies in Oxford.

They are the august generals who inspire foot-soldiers like Abbasi on Oxford City Council. How far they will advance is the moot question. But, already, they have overcome one barrier. Gautam Malkani argues in his new novel, Londonstani, that “Paki” can be a neutral or even affectionate word — but never when used by goras. With four city-council seats, Oxford Pakistanis know they are not mere “Pakis” any longer. They could even be the future.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation cannot censor all the people all the time.


Or is it just good old-fashioned racism making a comeback? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Racism is part of British culture, no surprise. They do it openly. But now Islam is new East India company in Britian.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Do not marry repeatedly: Malaysian cleric</b>?
KUALA LUMPUR: A prominent Malaysian cleric has warned Muslims against repeatedly marrying and divorcing for fun after reports of a man who married 30 times and has scores of children and grand-children.

Harussani Zakaria, a religious leader in northern Perak state, said in a report over the weekend it was sinful to marry multiple times for the sake of "breaking records or for pleasure."

"When you have so many wives, keep divorcing them and you can't even remember their names or your children from these marriages, and worse still, your children do not even know each other, that is morally not right and forbidden in Islam," he was quoted as saying in the New Straits Times .

Malaysian Muslim men are allowed four wives under Islamic law, but retiree Mohamad Zin Hassan, 78, from northern Terengganu state has outpaced most of his counterparts.

The report said the former driver had been married 30 times and that one wife lasted a day after unspecified wedding night problems.

<b>He has also been divorced 27 times, is twice-widowed, and has 16 children, 70 grand-children and 15 great grand-children, said the newspaper, which published an interview with him during the week.</b>

It said the septuagenarian could only remember his eldest son's name, and relied on his present wife, Asma Hadi Ismail, 51, to jog his memory.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)