Walled off...

[Mayavi Morpheus]

Got this article from Wall street journal, dont have access to it so copy pasted entire article as it is from another forum.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1121 ... 87,00.html

Please post your comments after reading the entire article. Its a lengthy one but it is a good article and is first part in series.

Walled off...

As Muslims Call Europe Home,
Dangerous Isolation Takes Root

In France, 'Political Islam'
Preaches Intolerance;
Challenge to Secularism

TORCY, France -- Mourad A. slowly warmed up the crowd inside a small mosque on the outskirts of Paris, giving the congregation a pep talk after the Friday evening prayer.

"Just nearby here are Fatimas and Mohammeds who are drinking," said the beefy 26-year-old former rapper, using generic names for Muslim women and men. "Can you believe it? Just around the corner, going to nightclubs. Do you accept it?"

There were murmurs of disapproval as he continued. Life, he said, should center on mosques. Not just for prayer, but for everything from language classes for children to social life. Otherwise, he said, Muslims will become indistinguishable from their French neighbors. "Society has to be based on Islam," he told the gathering."... (truncated)

PS: Please dont post on this thread if your replies are going to be on the lines of "I hate..." etc

[Sharjeel]

It troubles me. Live and let Live...

[CtrlAltDel]

very disturbing. unless they learn to integrate with, or at least tolerate the society they live in, neither wud they live in peace nor let others live in peace.



if they cant accept the new cultures exist, why the f u ck do they have to leave their medivial ghettos and migrate to another alien society.



prime recruiting ground for Al-Qaeda & Co.

[Sharjeel]

very disturbing. unless they learn to integrate with, or at least tolerate the society they live in, neither wud they live in peace nor let others live in peace.

if they cant accept the new cultures exist, why the f u ck do they have to leave their medivial ghettos and migrate to another alien society.

prime recruiting ground for Al-Qaeda & Co.

Excuse me, the 'advanced' counties are not helping them by taking every opportunity to remind them of their 'alienity'. e.g. banning head-scarves, beards, snd so on.



It works both ways, won't you agree? You deny a right and a 'terrorist' is born.

[CtrlAltDel]

Excuse me, the 'advanced' counties are not helping them by taking every opportunity to remind them of their 'alienity'. e.g. banning head-scarves, beards, snd so on.

that happened only in France and that too only in govt schools and still, applies to people of all religions. UK and US, for instance, never banned anything.

It works both ways, won't you agree? You deny a right and a 'terrorist' is born.

denied what rights? they can work, vote, stand for office, wear whatever they want to work, do what ever they want, at anytime they want.



its 100% more than the rights their country of origin gives to minorities.



for instance do minorities take up arms, or even protest, in Saudi Arabia, even when by your logic, they have the perfect excuse to do so?

[Sharjeel]

Excuse me, the 'advanced' counties are not helping them by taking every opportunity to remind them of their 'alienity'. e.g. banning head-scarves, beards, snd so on.

that happened only in France and that too only in govt schools and still, applies to people of all religions. UK and US, for instance, never banned anything.

Why ban something harmless? you may recall the strike in Delhi nursing homes and hospitals when they made salwar-kameez compulsary.

It works both ways, won't you agree? You deny a right and a 'terrorist' is born.

denied what rights? they can work, vote, stand for office, wear whatever they want to work, do what ever they want, at anytime they want. its 100% more than the rights their country of origin gives to minorities.

This sentence is too vague. Please be specific. If you are trying to specifically point in a certain direction, please do so.

What about Cubans, Mexicans, Viets, Chinese, Africans...? Why target the muslims only? and why are only muslims considered violent? Perhaps they are more vocal. Or because of the long history of enmity between christian/jewish people and muslims.

The plain truth is that anyone going into another country will face racism and other problems. Everyone has to compromise. The Govt. can either help, or be indifferent, or can really be a PITA. Due to the inherent incompatibility between the two most vocal religions of the world, the muslims (and other people like cubans, South Americans)who come from poor countries are generally ragged (no one is cribbing about it). Any further explanation would make the post to long and boring.

for instance do minorities take up arms, or even protest, in Saudi Arabia, even when by your logic, they have the perfect excuse to do so?

Why do they do not? If (according to you) everyone knows that the Saudi Govt. persecutes the minorities, then why should they not protest?



Should muslims be called violent if they ask for their rights?

[CtrlAltDel]

Why ban something harmless?

yes...thats their misguided interpretation of secularism....i dont support that, but its no excuse to launch a violent protest.

its 100% more than the rights their country of origin gives to minorities.

This sentence is too vague. Please be specific. If you are trying to specifically point in a certain direction, please do so.

i am specifically talking abt a few Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. what rights do they give minorities n expats? in fact saudi forces hijab on non-muslim women. why is there no clamour for reforms from rest of the world? even their own citizens dont have rights to protest against the royal dictats and demand reforms

What about Cubans, Mexicans, Viets, Chinese, Africans...? Why target the muslims only? and why are only muslims considered violent? Perhaps they are more vocal. Or because of the long history of enmity between christian/jewish people and muslims.

have u heard of mass murders and destruction caused byCubans, Mexicans, Viets, Chinese, Africans etc on the scale committed by Al Qaeda, LeT etc etc...? due to the acts of these _ an entire community gets a bad name. look what hapnd after the London blasts...mosques were targetted in UK n also New Zealand! it is the scale of destruction caused by the terrorists and their claim of doing it all in Allah's name that is bringing bad name to law abiding peaceful muslim citizens in various countries. the world hears no fatwa or condemnation pronounced against these bastards by prominent religious leaders.
things like these bring a bad name to a whole community.

for instance the Catholic IRA or the Hindu LTTE also indulges in violence but no one labels their entire community as "violent" etc coz they dont find support from their religious leaders and even majority of the co-religionists world wide.

another great reason why muslim citizens in the western countries are looked upon with suspicion is that most of those immigrants prefer to live in their own ghettos and dont tire or constantly attacking the country they live in and its liberal culture. they abuse the freedom of expression they get and after a certain point it really gets one's goat.

for instance do minorities take up arms, or even protest, in Saudi Arabia, even when by your logic, they have the perfect excuse to do so?

Why do they do not? If (according to you) everyone knows that the Saudi Govt. persecutes the minorities, then why should they not protest?

:lol: u know what hapns to protesters in Saudi Arabia! and the Americans keep quite coz they need Saudi oil n support.

Should muslims be called violent if they ask for their rights?

i will quote an article from a Pakistani newspaper "Dawn" here. i hope this article will help u in understanding what i am trying to say. i am not postign the link coz it will expire in a week.

Dancing with the Taliban

By Irfan Husain

IF we thought what happened to Mukhtaran Mai was bad, look at what Imrana is going through in India.

In the former case, the state victimized the victim by placing her on the ECL and taking away her passport. In the latter, the poor woman was not only raped by her father-in-law, but has been told by the mufti of the Darul Uloom at Deoband that she cannot now live with her husband, and must marry her rapist.

According to Yawar Baig, an Indian scholar, the fatwa is based on a ruling by Imam Abu Haneefa, the founder of the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence. But nobody can believe that it could have been the eminent jurist’s intention to so cruelly punish the victim. Clearly, the Deoband mufti has ignored the spirit of Islamic law.

Indian human rights activists are understandably furious over this fatwa: not only is the rapist getting away scot free, but is being rewarded. In fact, the whole business of having Muslims being governed under special religious dispensation based on family laws leaves Muslim women specially vulnerable. Time and again, they have been short-changed in divorce proceedings, for instance, and denied child support and alimony.

This whole travesty began with the famous Shahbano case which went all the way to the Supreme Court. Ever since, Indian Muslim women have been denied the protection guaranteed by the Indian constitution. In this controversial case, it was the secular Congress Party under Rajiv Gandhi that took the line of least resistance in order to woo the Muslim vote.

But if Indian politicians do not have the moral fibre to end this anomaly, it is backward Muslim men who take advantage of it to repress their women. By seeking such archaic and clearly misguided interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence, the Indian ulema are demonstrating their refusal to change with the times. Worse, they are making a mockery of the holy texts they are supposed to uphold.

Indeed, in recent years, Muslims have seldom missed a chance to show their faith in the worst possible light. Take the wretched Taliban as an example. After the public mistreatment of their women, they banned music, kite-flying and even chess. In effect, they were saying to the world that Islam forbids its followers to have fun. Then to top it all, they destroyed the priceless giant statues of the Buddha in Bamian, thus not only offending the millions of Buddhists in Asia, but also all those concerned with our cultural heritage. By the time the Americans attacked Afghanistan, the Taliban had forfeited all sympathy and support. Even three years after their country’s occupation, the Taliban resistance is seen as a ragtag band of stone-age rabble who want to drag Afghanistan back to pre-history. They are not perceived as the heroic figures the Mujahideen were while fighting the Soviets.

This inflexible refusal to recognize that the world is changing has placed Muslims on the defensive around the world. In dress, public appearance and customs, the majority of Muslims refuse to integrate into the mainstream wherever they are. They have thus consigned themselves to the periphery of society, viewed with perplexity and fear. In their turn, they generally despise those in whose midst they live and work.

Had this suspicion and resentment been limited to individuals, things wouldn’t have been as bad as they are actually becoming. But the rest of the world is coming to a consensus that Muslims are generally backward people, prone to supporting violence against those of other faiths. This has serious consequences, especially for those who choose to make a life for themselves in non-Muslim societies.

For instance, Muslim women who insist on wearing the hijab in the West are unlikely to be employed as receptionists, or in any job where public dealing is required. Ditto if you have a long, unkempt beard. Businessmen are concerned that customers might be put off by this public display of faith in secular societies. And employers often do not want to hire somebody who demands time off during the working day to go off and pray.

While we may deplore such attitudes, they are a reality. When economic reasons drive people to emigrate, logic demands that they remain open to change in order to better their lives. And yet, survey after survey in the UK have shown that Pakistanis, Arabs and Bangladeshis are doing considerably worse than other migrant groups.

Many Muslims in Pakistan support the application of Muslim family laws to their co-religionists in India. And yet in Pakistan, the minorities seldom have such preferential treatment. We deplore the decline of Urdu in India, and yet are unconcerned about the state of Hindi in our country. These examples of double standards can be multiplied endlessly. In short, we expect and demand far greater respect for our faith and its followers than we are willing to accord this to others.

Why are we our own worst enemies? Part of the answer lies in the past. Until relatively recently, Muslim nations were powerful and thus respected. But with colonization and the long decline of the Ottoman Empire came a sullen apathy and a denial of reality. Now even though Muslim countries are nominally free, they lack the will to change the status quo because this requires introspection and a major change in attitude. Rulers exploit this state of mind to perpetuate their illegitimate grip on power by blaming the West for all our ills.

As Imrana’s case so painfully illustrates, we remain wedded to the most retrogressive interpretation of our faith, and thus ensure that we remain backward. After partition, many Indian Muslims opted out of the educational system because most state schools in North India taught in Hindi. Thus disadvantaged, these Muslims then complained of bias against them when they applied for jobs.

I am sure there is prejudice in India, just as there is in the West. But we can hardly accuse others when there is so much discrimination against non-Muslims in Pakistan. The way to overcome barriers is to assimilate, not stand aloof and complain from the sidelines. I certainly am not suggesting that we give up our cultural identity. Far from it. But we do need to shed some of our rigid attitudes if we are not all to be lumped together with the Taliban.

[Mayavi Morpheus]

Excuse me, the 'advanced' counties are not helping them by taking every opportunity to remind them of their 'alienity'. e.g. banning head-scarves, beards, snd so on.

It works both ways, won't you agree? You deny a right and a 'terrorist' is born.

By James Brandon | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

LONDON – Thursday's coordinated terrorist attacks that killed at least 49 people have underscored competing forces within Britain's Muslim community: a minority that advocates violence against Western targets, and those who want to coexist peacefully with Britain's multifaith, multiethnic society. Since the bombings, the media and Muslims have been at pains to explain that most of the country's 2 million Muslims are peaceful. "The Muslim community in Britain has a long history and is enormously diverse," says Anas al-Tikriti, a member of the Muslim Association of Britain.

But the attacks are turning attention to the increasing numbers of young British Muslims who are rejecting their parents' traditional culture in favor of a radical and expansionist Islam. This strikingly Western version of Islam combines an independence of thought with a contempt for established traditional scholarship and a theme of teenage rebellion. "Getting involved in radical Islam is an emotional thing rather than a rational decision," says Abdul-Rahman al-Helbawi, a Muslim prayer leader. "And it's not a matter of intelligence or education - a lot of these radicals in Britain are very well-educated."

In Dalston market in north-east London on Thursday, "Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist, was in a pugnacious mood. We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" he said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."

Two days later in a prosperous West London cafe, Mr. Helbawi pondered the attacks. "It's not a surprise but I am still shocked," he said. "How can they do this? London is a city for all the world. This is not Islam." Hours after the bombings, Helbawi logged onto an Internet chat room run by British Muslim extremists. "They were all congratulating each other on the attacks," he said. "It was crazy. They were talking about how they had won a great victory over the infidels, as if they had just come back from a battle."

Although so far, there is no evidence that British Muslims were involved in the bombs, there is little doubt that many British Muslims feel that Britain "deserved" the attacks for supporting the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Because Muslims explain the conflicts in Iraq, Kashmir, and Israel through Islam, every Muslim feels involved," said Helbawi. "People watch television and see Palestinian women being hit and pushed around by Israeli soldiers, and get angry and feel that they have to do something."

But beyond anger, a sense of alienation often drives radical Islam. Many second- and third-generation immigrants find themselves cut off not only from their parents' cultures but also from a British one that includes alcohol and looser sexual mores. If you don't drink, it really cuts you off from English society," says Ummul Choudhury, a London-based Middle East analyst for the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies. "The view of the older generation is also that you do not integrate. If you do, you are told you are betraying your culture and religion."

The resulting isolation makes it easier for young Muslims to develop a contempt for British society. There is also a lot of racism toward white British people," says Ms. Choudhury. "It's not really something that people want to talk about, but there are definitely some things that Muslims say between themselves that they would never say in front of white people."

For frustrated and isolated young Muslims, radical Islam is not difficult to find. Girls in particular are often prevented from going out at night and can be easily drawn into online Muslim communities where they come into contact with other disillusioned Muslims from across Europe. One leading analyst of the Islamic diaspora even compares the lure of extremist Islam to 1950s teens listening to Elvis in an attempt to shock their parents. "The son of a Pentecostal preacher in Brixton was recruited by the radical Muslims," says Nadhim Shehadi, acting head of the Middle East program at Chatham House. "This young man initially tried to upset his parents by becoming a rapper," says Shehadi. "But when his parents stopped objecting, he became a jihadi instead." The antiestablishment nature of this new Islam and its apparent status as an alternative to capitalism and secularism is also winning converts among native Britons.

"People come to Islam from all walks of life. It's not just middle-class people but also electricians, judges, and taxi drivers," says Sara Joseph, the editor of "Emel," a lifestyle magazine for Muslim women, who converted to Islam at age 17. "The main catalyst for conversion is often going out with a Muslim, although the primary factor is usually a search for spirituality." While the estimated 1,000 British Christians, atheists, and members of other faiths who convert to Islam every year are often attracted by Islam's clearly defined teachings, this minor trend is overshadowed by Muslims' highbirth and immigration rates, which to many Muslims promises increased political and social influence in the future.

Indeed, taking advantage of Britain's rapidly expanding and increasingly Muslim population are new parties that aim to promote ethnic and religious agendas. One is Respect, a left-wing party founded by former Labour MP George Galloway, that aims to unite Muslims and socialists around opposition to American foreign policy and globalization.

Linked to the desire for increased political power are attempts by some radical Muslims to begin a process of Islamicizing British cities. Last month, Muslim groups in Glasgow petitioned the City Council to ban an Italian restaurant from serving alcohol to diners seated at outside tables. Hospitals in Leicester considered banning Bibles from hospital wards to avoid offending Muslim patients. In Birmingham, a group called Muslims Against Advertising began a campaign of painting over billboards that they deemed offensive to Islam - targeting ads for Levi's jeans, perfume, and lingerie.

But these small campaigns are polarizing public opinion along ethnic and religious lines - and creating support for Britain's far-right groups, who present themselves as defenders of Britain's hard-won freedoms

http://csmonitor.com/2005/0711/p01s04-woeu.html

[akhilis2cool]

Good articles MM and CAD bhai.

[lonewolf]

Good articles MM and CAD bhai.

I second that.

Why ban something harmless? you may recall the strike in Delhi nursing homes and hospitals when they made salwar-kameez compulsary.

Probably they have their reasons to ban then, though honestly I don't find any sense in banning religious symbols unless they pose a physical threat to others.



During the headscarf case trial, some Jedis were eagerly waiting for a positive result in favour of the student so that they could use the outcome to allow them to wear their Jedi stuff in schools.

[Mayavi Morpheus]

Seems all four suicide bombers were britishers of paki origin, now someone please tell me what rights were denied to them that they chose to kill 50 of their fellow country men?

The suicide bomb squad from Leeds
By Michael Evans, Daniel McGrory and Stewart Tendler
FOUR friends from northern England have changed the face of terrorism by carrying out the suicide bombings that brought carnage to London last week.

It emerged last night that, for the first time in Western Europe, suicide bombers have been recruited for attacks. Security forces are coming to terms with the realisation that young Britons are prepared to die for their militant cause.

Three of the men lived in Leeds and the immediate fear is that members of a terrorist cell linked to the city are planning further strikes. The mastermind behind the attacks and the bombmaker are both still thought to be at large.

The man who planted the bomb at Edgware Road was named last night as Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, the married father of an eight-month-old baby, who is believed to have come from the Leeds area.

Two other terrorists were Hasib Hussain, 19, who bombed the bus in Tavistock Square, of Colenso Mount, Leeds, and Shehzad Tanweer, 22, the Aldgate bomber, who lived at Colwyn Road, Leeds.

Police are still trying to identify the fourth, whose remains are believed to be in the bombed Tube train carriage on the Piccadilly Line. It is thought that he comes from Luton.

Armed police raided six addresses in West Yorkshire yesterday, including the homes of three of the men, who they now know travelled to Luton in a hired car last Wednesday to join the fourth man. They boarded the 7.40 Thameslink train to King’s Cross the next day, each armed with a 10lb rucksack bomb.

Police found a bomb factory in Leeds containing a “viable amount of explosives”. Explosives were also recovered from a car left parked near Luton station. The raids came after the discovery of driving licences and credit cards at the scenes of the explosions, and a telephone call from the mother of Hasib Hussain, who asked police to try to trace her son.

A relative of one of the bombers was arrested and taken to London for questioning. Intelligence agencies say that at least two of the men had recently returned from Pakistan. All four were British, but with origins in Pakistan. MI6, MI5 and British diplomats were in touch with the Pakistani authorities last night to try to track down any connections with terrorists there. Security sources confirmed that none of the bombers was on any MI5 file, although one had links to a person investigated by police.

The four were captured on CCTV cameras at King’s Cross Thameslink station, laughing together and carrying rucksacks, minutes before they set off for their targets at 8.30am on July 7.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 94,00.html

[lonewolf]

Seems all four suicide bombers were britishers of paki origin

Anything really new in that?

[DQ]

Hmm an interesting discussion. Let me first comment on the two articles posted by CAD and Mayavi.



Mr Hussain bases his article on a fatwa by the deobandis not on the Indian Legistlative system.

Be it Mukhtar Mai, be it Imrana or be it the parading naked of a Dalit Woman. Womens right have grossly sufferred in our part of the globe. You cannot veil a Sati, a dowry death, a forced arranged marriage, a divorce due to inability to rear a son, a rape of a Dalit, etc etc behind a "fatwa". These inequalities do not carry a relegious banner. Its a social stigma that can only be cleared by education.



Mayavi the scribe of your article is from "the christian science monitor", who incidentally did not comment on "Srebrenica". The same CSM jumps the bandwagon to ridicule any act in the muslim or third world but chose not to comment on the 10th anniversary of the worst global massacre of present times.



To sum it all up, its your individual opinions and the scribes own opinions.



Why do you have to resort to ISLAM bashing



Yes it is appaling that innocent lives are lost, be it "london" or "madrid" or "New York" . What appals me more is the Media publicity and relegious bashing that follows this, and every "Mr Tom" and "Mr _" jumps on ....



Every day there is a bombing in Iraq where 120,000 Civilians Innocent lives have been lost. They go unmentioned and un remembered.



My next statement is gonna be very hard for you to gulp.



The largest injustice of present times have been done to the Muslims. The number of Muslim lives lost / displaced has surpassed all time records.

There have never been more displaced and supressed people in history of any other kind then the Muslims of today.



Just in the Past 20 years.



- Bosnia.

- Afghanistan (Russian Occupation)

- Iran - Iraq

- Palestine

- Riots in India.

- Gujrat riots.

- First Gulf war.

- Afghanistan ( War of the Coalition)

- Iraq

- Countries of Middle and West Africa.



Count the numbers and count the number of refugees. Will drive you insane. If the balance is not bought, sooner or later we are headed for a major catastrophe

[CtrlAltDel]

DQ...nobody is bashing anyone or is anti-anyone here...dont get defensive.



My post (and the rest of the thread) are in response to Mayavi's initial post. the discussion is centered on why muslim citizens are viewed with suspision in the western countries and Mayavi n I have tried to explain it with help of some articles.



Mr. Hussain's article does start of with a writeup on Imrana's case but later he starts talking about the general condition of muslims in the world. he lucidly explains why they are not liked in western countries these days.



Mayavi's later articles also talk about the same thing.



let us take the case of the recent London blasts. its now official that the blasts were by British Citizens of Pakistani origin. they were Muslims who chose to settle in UK for economic prosperity or whatever. They were educated.



Why did they have to do what they did? Why do Muslims face suspicion and racial abuses after any such attack?



They should remember that no one forced them to move to a 'satanic' society. once they got the citizenship, they also got all rights of a white christian citizen. they should change to adapt to their new environs or atleast accept and adjust to it. if they dont like it they can go where they came from. period.



if anyone shows where u r wrong please do not consider it as any kind of racism or bashing. only friends point out flaws. enemies suck up to you like the politicians.

[Mayavi Morpheus]

Mr Hussain bases his article on a fatwa by the deobandis not on the Indian Legistlative system.

Yes, he is talking about fatwas, the fatwa is the center of the controversy now.

These inequalities do not carry a relegious banner. Its a social stigma that can only be cleared by education.

It is true that woman are oppressed in this country, but it is not done under the garb of religion. If not for archaic Islamic law, a 'fatwa' to marry the rapist wouldnt have been passed against Imrana.
Education is of no help as long as people dont reform the justice system and make it independant of religion. You can get all the education in the world u want but as long as you are following a 7th century book to solve modern problems you will get 7th century results.

Mayavi the scribe of your article is from "the christian science monitor", who incidentally did not comment on "Srebrenica". The same CSM jumps the bandwagon to ridicule any act in the muslim or third world but chose not to comment on the 10th anniversary of the worst global massacre of present times.

He did not because that is not the focus of the article. The focus is the alarming radicalization of the secular and open british/european society and how well educated people are turning towards terrorrism.

To sum it all up, its your individual opinions and the scribes own opinions.

Anything not confirming to your utopian view of your religion is biased. sure.

Why do you have to resort to ISLAM bashing

Classic retort from anyone who cant face the reality. If someone points out a problem with the followers of your religion, you call it islam bashing. I heard that people are criticing the media for highlighting Imranas case and equating it to Islam bashing too. hello! its a religious edict!

Yes it is appaling that innocent lives are lost, be it "london" or "madrid" or "New York" . What appals me more is the Media publicity and relegious bashing that follows this, and every "Mr Tom" and "Mr _" jumps on ....

So they should hug and kiss? in case you didnt notice, these cowardly attacts are done in the name of religion on the very people who gave those bastards and their families shelter and you are worried about bad publicity? Infact this is a very matured response from the british public and government and media. Infact BBC edited out the word "terrorrist" from their reports.

Every day there is a bombing in Iraq where 120,000 Civilians Innocent lives have been lost. They go unmentioned and un remembered.

Yes, people are dying in Iraq and that is why the entire world hates america.

The largest injustice of present times have been done to the Muslims. The number of Muslim lives lost / displaced has surpassed all time records.
There have never been more displaced and supressed people in history of any other kind then the Muslims of today.

Just in the Past 20 years.

- Bosnia.
- Afghanistan (Russian Occupation)
- Iran - Iraq
- Palestine
- Riots in India.
- Gujrat riots.
- First Gulf war.
- Afghanistan ( War of the Coalition)
- Iraq
- Countries of Middle and West Africa.

Sigh... the more I read your post the less I feel sympathetic towards muslims. Why do you have to act all victimized as if there is a grand conspiracy going on?

Did russia invade afghanistan because it was Muslim country? NO. Russia would have still invaded Afghanistan if it were a Hindu or christian country. why spin that story? From where I stand, I see it as a communist/capitalist struggle and not as oppression of Islam.

And who waged the first gulf war? was it not for Oil and Iraq invaded kuwait, another muslim country? Seems you would go to any lengths to support any dictator if he happens to be a muslim!

Countries of middle and west africa, so did u forget what the east african nations are doing - the genocide in sudan, the conflict in Nigeria? 2/3rds of africa are Muslim, go figure who is fighting whom.



And all this justifies bombing and killing innocent lives? If a Iraqi civilian is killed by an American bomb, then wat the fukc prompts a british paki bomb london tube? Surely I dont see Indian christians killing Muslims because some christians in london were killed by pakistani muslims.

[HH]

... ***** only friends point out flaws. enemies ''''' suck up to you ...

***** Well Said ...

''''' FIENDS ...

[DQ]

[quote="Mayavi Morpheus]

Yes, people are dying in Iraq and that is why the entire world hates america.

[/quote]



Aha and does what ? Let them die, and now there is talk about outsourcing Indian Forces to American companies so that the numbers of American forces in Iraq can be maintained. HUH !!!



[quote="Mayavi Morpheus]

Sigh... the more I read your post the less I feel sympathetic towards muslims. Why do you have to act all victimized as if there is a grand conspiracy going on?

[/quote]



Just because you don't feel sympathetic and you don't feel there isn't a Grand conspiracy going on, Doesn't mean that there cannot be.



Oh yea, why would you feel sympathetic ?



Gujrat carnage was a mastermind of your ilks right. Anyway who cares as long as the b****ds Mozis are eliminated the worlds getting a better place to live in.



[quote="Mayavi Morpheus]

Did russia invade afghanistan because it was Muslim country? NO. Russia would have still invaded Afghanistan if it were a Hindu or christian country. why spin that story?

[/quote]



It did right?

And to combat that, the so called secular countries funnelled a tought of extremism in Afghanistan.

Exactly why spin the story ? Read on.



[quote="Mayavi Morpheus]

From where I stand, I see it as a communist/capitalist struggle and not as oppression of Islam.

[/quote]

But who were oppressed ?

And did the world do anything to to undo the oppression ?



[quote="Mayavi Morpheus]

And who waged the first gulf war? was it not for Oil and Iraq invaded kuwait, another muslim country? Seems you would go to any lengths to support any dictator if he happens to be a muslim!

[/quote]

And whose friend was he.

The same dictator was the closest friend of the masters of the free world today.

The same world that stands today and blames a religion for causing waht they had been causing in that part of the world all these years.



[quote="Mayavi Morpheus]

Countries of middle and west africa, so did u forget what the east african nations are doing - the genocide in sudan, the conflict in Nigeria? 2/3rds of africa are Muslim, go figure who is fighting whom.

[/quote]

Get your geography right mate. I guess you mean West Africa to. Once you set your geography right go about and read a bit of history to.



[quote="Mayavi Morpheus]

And all this justifies bombing and killing innocent lives? If a Iraqi civilian is killed by an American bomb, then wat the fukc prompts a british paki bomb london tube?

[/quote]

Hmm if a Reportedly a Saudi National flys in the world trade centre what prompts an American Bomb to land on an Iraqi home? This wil go on and on...and thats is whaht I meant when I ended my last post scroll up.

[DQ]

DQ...nobody is bashing anyone or is anti-anyone here...dont get defensive.

My post (and the rest of the thread) are in response to Mayavi's initial post. the discussion is centered on why muslim citizens are viewed with suspision in the western countries and Mayavi n I have tried to explain it with help of some articles.

Hmm the suspicion and accusation my dear friend is that there is an ever increase demand for MUslims to Join the SO called mainstream.



Now what is your definition of mainstream.

Do you not find them working shoulder to shoulder with you.

Do you not find them working diligintely to effect your economies.

Do you not find them contributing in every way they can.



Now do you want to see the accusations levelled against them.

- They should join mainstream by shunning hijaab.

- They should join the mainstream by shunning piety.

- They should join mainstream by visiting the local pub.

- The places they come from people spit on roads etc etc.



I ask did these countries have a clause in while granting visas to these people if they had to join the mainstream by shunning hijaab, by not being an obserbvant muslim etc etc. If that was the case these people had a choice not to.



Why do you blame muslims of trying to spread the relegion. Are there not evangilist. Are ther not hare ramas. Which religion does not.



Sorry dude I am not being defensive, but yes the banter on these days is a YES OFFENSIVE, LETS FACE IT.

[CtrlAltDel]

there is an ever increase demand for MUslims to Join the SO called mainstream.

whats wrong in that? why remain a seperate isolated entity?

Do you not find them working shoulder to shoulder with you.
Do you not find them working diligintely to effect your economies.
Do you not find them contributing in every way they can.

they do and i also find them among my close family friends too.
I hate to see those decent friends get a bad name just coz of acts of some a$$wipes.

- They should join mainstream by shunning hijaab.
- They should join the mainstream by shunning piety.
- They should join mainstream by visiting the local pub.
- The places they come from people spit on roads etc etc.

no one said any of that. where in the free world have they done all that? AFAIK, its only in a secular-Islamic country Turkey that they have BANNED women from wearing hijabs in public.

I ask did these countries have a clause in while granting visas to these people if they had to join the mainstream by shunning hijaab, by not being an obserbvant muslim etc etc.

again, who the f uck is asking them to stop following their religion? when giving Citizenship, any country expects loyalty by default, and that lack of loyalty in the perpetrators and supporters of terrorist acts is what they are pissed about. if u had read my post carefully, i had also written:

should change to adapt to their new environs or atleast accept and adjust to it.

that ^^ is clearly not happening to all of the immigrants.

Why do you blame muslims of trying to spread the relegion. Are there not evangilist. Are ther not hare ramas. Which religion does not.

now...thats a kahani mein twist... conversion and preaching of religion is NOT a topic of this thread



since u have raised this topic lemme ask u this: isnt Islam one of the fastest growing religions in America? did they outlaw it?



more pertinently, how many Muslim countries allow people of other religions to preach n convert?

[Mayavi Morpheus]

Oh yea, why would you feel sympathetic ?

Gujrat carnage was a mastermind of your ilks right.

If I didnt think that muslims were getting a raw deal in India, I wouldnt be here arguing with you, instead I would be enroleld in some RSS camp learning how to effectively kill more muslims in a short duration during riots or bombing Islamic places of worship. There would have been more attacks against muslims in both the americas and europe if not for sympathetic folk.

Anyway who cares as long as the b****ds Mozis are eliminated the worlds getting a better place to live in.

This is precisely the attitude of those people who u accuse of opressing muslims. Who cares how many muslims die... the world is getting a better place to live in. Interesting thought, isnt it? munch on it.

and in case you didnt realise it, you are being a terrorrist supporters and may be a future recruit.



The rest of your post doesnt merit a reply. You cannot comprehend the difference between a geo-political conflicts like first gulf war/Afghan war and a religious conflict like Bosnia/serbia conflict.

[Mayavi Morpheus]

- They should join mainstream by shunning hijaab.
- They should join the mainstream by shunning piety.
- They should join mainstream by visiting the local pub.
- The places they come from people spit on roads etc etc.

no one said any of that. where in the free world have they done all that? AFAIK, its only in a secular-Islamic country Turkey that they have BANNED women from wearing hijabs in public.

Exactly. The european countries didnt impose any ban on display of religious symbols in public or practice of religion. Yet we see europe becoming a hub of terrorrist activity. Why? (Close to 4000 British muslims have been trained for jihad in pakistan and returned to UK to form sleeper cells, the 9-11 attackers were educated in germany, madrid bombers were also spanish citizens IIRC).
If anyone read the bolded parts of the article, far from integrating into the western community, the muslim community is trying to impose its way of life on the western culture! If anyone read the first article, it shows how moderate muslims are being coerced by the fundamentalists to follow strict islamic rules. In the CSM article:

Linked to the desire for increased political power are attempts by some radical Muslims to begin a process of Islamicizing British cities. Last month, Muslim groups in Glasgow petitioned the City Council to ban an Italian restaurant from serving alcohol to diners seated at outside tables. Hospitals in Leicester considered banning Bibles from hospital wards to avoid offending Muslim patients. In Birmingham, a group called Muslims Against Advertising began a campaign of painting over billboards that they deemed offensive to Islam - targeting ads for Levi's jeans, perfume, and lingerie.

I can understand the bible part, thats against secular principles, but alcohol and ads? They are alienating themselves. If they alienate, they dont understand each other and if they dont understand each other then there is no tolerance for each other in times like these.

[lonewolf]

the scribe of your article is from "the christian science monitor", who incidentally did not comment on "Srebrenica". The same CSM jumps the bandwagon to ridicule any act in the muslim or third world but chose not to comment on the 10th anniversary of the worst global massacre of present times.

DQ, you need to get your facts right before you comment on any group like CSM. First of all, CSM is owned and run by the First Church of Christ, Scientists, which is NOT a Christian denomination. They are a totally different religion like Jehovah's Witnesses. Moreover, CSM does quite a bit of relief work for Palestinian children and many of their folks have been to Palestine to protest against the Israeli occupation. I was very surprised when I saw their monthly schedules.



You gave a list of countries in your earlier post, ok here's a small list from me. The Philippines has a major problem - terrorism from a group called Abu Sayyaf, which is affiliated and directly funded by Osama bin Laden. Their sole purpose of existence is to kidnap and behead innocent tourists and Filipinos. What is the reason for that?



The Philippines is officially a Catholic country, but everybody in the Philippines is treated equally, unlike the middle-east countries where even their own women don't have the basic rights.



In the Philippines, there has NEVER been any strife between the Catholic majority, Protestant minority and the Muslims who occupy the south of the Philippines, mostly Mindanao. What is the reason for them to become terrorists and kill their own people?



How about Thailand and the other small Pacific-Asian countries? Nobody has oppressed them.

[Mayavi Morpheus]

But who were oppressed ?
And did the world do anything to to undo the oppression ?

you know, this got me into thinking. Pakistan attacked inida Four times since independance. Pakistan is Islamic country and India is a secular country with predominantly hindu population, so would you consider pakistan attack on India as a scheme to occupy and oppress Hindus?

[DQ]

there is an ever increase demand for MUslims to Join the SO called mainstream.

whats wrong in that? why remain a seperate isolated entity?

And who defines mainstream.
Mainstream is shuunning Hijaab. Mainstream is not celebrating Ramadhan and Bakrid. If this is your definition of mainstream it aint gonna happen. YOu might as well deny Visas and ask the existing Muslims to leave the nation. Simple.

Do you not find them working shoulder to shoulder with you.
Do you not find them working diligintely to effect your economies.
Do you not find them contributing in every way they can.

they do and i also find them among my close family friends too.
I hate to see those decent friends get a bad name just coz of acts of some a$$wipes.

Hmm, so now why is there an ever increasing demand to Join the "SO CALLED" mainstream. What does that mean. Start idolatry, that aint gonna happen.

- They should join mainstream by shunning hijaab.
- They should join the mainstream by shunning piety.
- They should join mainstream by visiting the local pub.
- The places they come from people spit on roads etc etc.

no one said any of that. where in the free world have they done all that? AFAIK, its only in a secular-Islamic country Turkey that they have BANNED women from wearing hijabs in public.

Good that you atleast differentiate Turkey as a "Secular Country."



The only "Secular ISLAMIC COUNTRY". And is this not the role Model country that the west want to see in the Middle east, A secular islamic country that bans people from practising their religion. "Banning of Hijaab"

The Muslims have every right to be sceptical when these calls of freedom and mainstreamisation only target them.

"THE ANSWER IS NOT BOMBING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE" cause this is the first accussation hurled at you when you defend your right (termed a extremist/ terrorsit). FYKI.....the extremist ideology was funded and spread by the same people and their allies who today call for a free world and a have declared a "war against terror". This problem was isolated within the muslims and the muslims were reeling and combating it, the world has just started seeing this face.



Where does the solution lie then.

It lies in Honesty.

Let all of us accept the mistakes we have made and let us give the rightful their right.

Let us stop interfering with other nations internal policies.

Let us stop taunting and classifying and acting in bias against people of creed, race color religion.

Let us accept people and their practices as they are.

Let us free foreign lands that we occupy.

Let us return land to their rightful owners.

Let us stop supporting dictators for our self interest. (When we needed Saddam we supported him, When we dint need him we bombed an entire country. )

Today we continue to respect another monarchy the Saudi Kingdom which has carried out the worst atrocities against Islam and Muslims in Islamic history. (The first kingdom in the World to have Officially Demolished and Bombed Mosques and Mausleums)

Let us be honest with one and another and this facist, extremist image will disappear.

But if we continue being obstinate and roll the drums of war, the scourge of loss of innocent life will continue, and this flame will engulf each one of us.

It is up to the Muslim world to shun the likes of Osama and it is upto the rest to shun the likes of Bush. Both are faces of the same coin the coin of evil (whose only objective is to attain ultimate power). Which ever side you flip "Destruction ONLY will be victorious."

[lonewolf]

DQ, you never answered my question about what prompts terrorism and kidnappings of innocent people in the Philippines by the Abu Sayyaf. Many of those terrorists are trained in Afghanistan. And all of them are ethnic Filipinos who have the same blood flowing through their body as the Catholics and Protestants. Never in that country's history has there been a communal fight, but you have terrorism out of nowhere, and sponsored by the same groups that are screwing India, the US and other parts of the world.