Muslims ‘Unveiled’

``2. integration, by which they keep their distinct identity but become part of the `host` community;``

somebody who know these mullahs well would say that the biggest opposition to this would come from the Islamist mullahs who want to force themselves as the sole representatives of muslim britons by making the noises before the christian whites. This would mek them as some sort of muslim leaders and then they would try to force their jehadist agendas on the rest of the moderates.
It is time NOT to let these Islamists occupy any political space in the name of british muslim and we should force them back into their madarassas . We must expose them and get them behind the bars for spreading inciting and hateful speeches like it was done to Abu Hamza on issues of common good as a member of a civil society.
Let us stop the costume drama getting publicized as an issue of importance to a modern muslim.
Tomorrow the tribals would insist on wearing their war paints to the class rooms, the hindoos would insist upon coming naked in their dhotis , the sikhs would want 2 feet long swords and 2 feet wide dhaals , the hare ramas would wear their ochres.................we do not want a costume drama in a modern civil society become an issue for the mullahs to occupy political space.............

What never ceases to amaze me is that when the Bush/Blair administrations had suddenly become feminist and shouting hoarse about Taliban placing women under Burqas, now we have demonstrations on the streets in their very own countries by burqa-clad women protesting for their rights to wear the very same `oppressive` and `mysoginistic` gear.

Asif: Great article!

zeemax: why is the word `statement` so hard for you to understand?

If a woman in her private life wants to wear a niqab or burqah, for whatever reason (and discussing the reasons can be pretty instructive an exercise itself), that`s her prerogative. However, once she steps into the public sphere, say, as a teacher, or as a petitioner to someone holding public office, she needs to consider what the veil means and represents.

Here are a few things that wearing the niqab or burqah means, IMHO:

* I wish to assert my identity as Muslim, and if that irks you, I`ll stick it even more in your face (Witness the increase in veil-wearing post 7/7)

* I wish to attest to the liberating power of Islam, which, unlike popular Western culture, does not objectify women. The niqab/burqah protects me from such objectification, though I`d be hard put to say why a simple hijab or headscarf won`t do the job as-- if not more-- effectively

* I wish to go beyond making a statement about liberation or modesty and actually wish to keep ogling eyes off me. (Of course, I`m psychologically challenged and so haven`t yet figured that, in the U.K. the niqaab has approximately the opposite effect. Or maybe I know this but take a perverse pleasure in knowing that even as ``they`` look, they will only be repulsed)


Now, if I were setting public policy, I`d not want teachers in the UK to be wearing veils while teaching for the same reason that I would be against their wearing tank tops-- they attract unneeded attention. In the one case, it`s what`s revealed that has the potential to cause excitement; in the other, it`s what`s not

Another reason I`d vote against it would be for the kind of statement it makes. Do I really want my daughters to be taught the lesson that to be `safe` from prying male gazes, they need to cloister themselves to the point that they cover the most expressive parts of their being (other than the eyes)? This is a slavish approach to the problem-- real or peceived -- of annoying male gazes-- assuming one finds them annoying.

Yet another reason I`d object to its use in the public sphere is that I think human beings are naturally given to discomfort and distrust when communicating with another whose facial features are deliberately kept hidden. In some very conservative societies, such distrust is a given, and accepted. In most modern Western cultures it is not, and one can understand why the veil is thus a source of discord.

Not everyone, after all, likes to be told, in effect, that they cannot be trusted not to look with lecherous eyes on a woman.

#3 by PM

And what is the `statement`?

``The niqab is not mandatory according to traditional Islamic scholarship and by insisting on it, a minority of Muslims are doing themselves and Islam in Britain a disservice. ``

Precisely!

Well said!

PM,

To make your task easy, I`ll tell you exactly what that statement is:

Zee: apologies. I was thinking of the niqab-wearing protesters in the U.K-- my eye catching ``Bush/Blair``

Well, we all know the motives behing the invasions. But the cannard of women`s liberation was not completely invalid. Women might want to keep the veil/burqah on... even NEED to, in those societies-- but that doesn`t mean they also want to be deprived of education and of venturing out of the house unaccompanied by a mehraam male and the sort.

Of course, I`m sure there are those who do indeed want to forgo education and freedom of movement and all expression... would you argue that such are indeed not victims of oppression? Remember, many slaves didn`t want their liberty back in 1860 either.

Zee: re. #7
I knew two men who wrote poetry like that-- one was in prison, the other in an asylum.

#8 by PM

Dear PM,

You`re making two points here. One is bucketing the `burqa` policy of Taliban alongwith all other policies of theirs such as banning women`s education and work as all being somehow a package of Islam. This is a fallacy, and in no way related to the UK protestors because all these are working women.

The other point you make is of a Stockholm syndrome. This is another strawman kind of an observation. What these women are demonstrating is the conqueror mentality, not the conquered.

Thank you Naqshbandi Sahib for a ``balanced`` article.




The FUN
Has just begun.

It is not the veil per se. It is how the slaves will unveil their minds on this issue.
What is that slaves won`t do to keep their jobs..worried as hell as they always are to maintain ``status`` ( I speak enfglish, therefore I am), their passion for ``adjustment``,

They will wear suit & tie for interviews to be conducted in english in SLAVELANDS.

They will pimp their mother wife and daughter to take them to parties, clubs and white houses [ Look goraa-saab I`m evolving. I`ve mastered enfglish in YOUR accent, if only Allah bleaches me a bit...and see you not hate my mullah & religion in public?].

They will abhor anything ``natives`` do [ but I look walk talk faarin do`nt I? Look how WEAK my URDU is..Is that not a sign of a higher Intelligence in SLAVELAND?]

They forget the days when ``Indians & dogs not allowed`` was written at every entrance in SLAVELANDS [ But I`m your dog massa, let me in, let me in..the SLAVES are terribly
upset if the massa is upset..whatever the massa does is GOOD for us...``If the englishman thinks we are dogs, let me say that not only is he right but is being generous; we are worse``
{ exact words of that SLAVE, the one whose darRi (beard) looks so cute to slaves --Sir Ahmaq khan..never call him SYED or Ahmed}........


More to come...

---

In the meantime
It`s NOT about the veil stupid, it`s the death rattle of the SECULAROON, LIBERALOON and AHMAQUOONS

Let the FUN begin:

---

16 October 2006
IF A MUSLIM CAN WEAR HER VEIL TO WORK WHY IS MY CROSS FORBIDDEN?
EXCLUSIVE: BA ROW WOMAN SPEAKS OUT..
By Julie Mccaffrey

IT is smaller than a 10 pence piece and all but invisible to people standing just inches away.

Yet Nadia Eweida`s tiny white gold cross is at the centre of a huge legal row that has engulfed Britain`s biggest airline and infuriated religious groups.

Check-in worker Nadia, 55, was forced to take unpaid leave by British Airways after refusing to remove the Christian emblem. But she claims it is a clear display of double standards as Muslims can wear head scarves and Sikh males their turbans.

Advertisement
Falk AdSolution

``It seems that only Christians are forbidden to express their faith,`` she told the Mirror. ``I am not ashamed to be Christian and shouldn`t be made to feel that way.

``I want people to know I am a Christian when they meet me.

Just like people know when they meet a Muslim.``

Dear Zee:
I was not seeking to mix up the two issues. Hence my quite sincere apology on misreading you the first time.

re. Afghani women protesting in burqah: My point was simple: The rationale (I referred to it as a canard) that the war was to liberate Afghanistan of opression was NOT an invalid one. There will always be those in burqah to come out in protest. Just as there will be those WITHOUT (much more in Syria or Lebanon than in Afghanistan-- no points for guessing WHY). For every women choosing to keep the burqah, there is probably one that has chosen not to. What could be wrong with that?

My guess is that most of those who choose not to are happier that the taliban is gone, and that if you had a choice of sending your daughters to Afghanistan pre-invasion or post, I`d know what you`d choose.

The drama for the conflict between superiority of one`s costume has begun....................idiots are going to fall prey to this and mullahs are going to make more money...............

Zeemax:
Thas was a great & very appropriate Iqbal. Thanks.

Listen!
This is NOT about the veil. The Mirror is being shown to the goraa-saab. This is tallow & lard on cartridges saga continuing to its logical destiny.

Those be they hindu or muslim, but have salve genes in them, will continue to ``work together`` ``adjust`` ``compromise`` ``get tolerated``....They are the JOBBERS, The money savers , the good-life charlies; they are the pimps & purveyors of their mothers, wives, and daughters for an evening at the goraa-ghar, they are the Mir Jaffars & Mir Sadiques in their small capacities...

They are the first ones InshaAllah, to see their children or at the most their grand-children in Europe & America, laying down the rules of proper cultural conduct & behaviour in public places.

Muslims MUST continue to IRRITATE the west. It establishes their presence & power. Only compromisers & adjusters are building up fortunes for a Ghaznavi or Ghauri.

If one thinks 24/7 to become a billionaire, chances are he will.
If one thinks 24/7 to conquer & enslave the billionaire chances are he will.

---

Echoboom,

...``If the englishman thinks we are dogs, let me say that not only is he right but is being generous; we are worse``
{ exact words of that SLAVE, the one whose darRi (beard) looks so cute to slaves --Sir Ahmaq khan..never call him SYED or Ahmed}........

Is this true? I didn`t know this.... but I can believe it.

You`re right. The `fun` has just begun. I just saw on TV that the Tunisian women (that great vacation destination of the goraas) have started to defy the veil ban imposed ten years ago.

Bring out the nails .... but keep a silver bullet handy!

Zeemax:
100% True.

This man the DarReevallah Uncle Tom has been solely responsible for the misfortunes of the
Pakistani muslim.. and the fortunes of the elite class there.

You will seen contrararian opinions in ALL media about Jinnah & Quaid..but to talk against his views is blasphemy. IT IS NEVER ALLOWED...because the army & bureaucracy ( I use the metaphors of Cantonement-and Colony-kuttas for them).

China Japan Iran, Russia...and so many other nations have outdone Indo-Pak slaves in EVERY field of learning. Indo-Pak Nobel, ``we know english`` types have SERVED the Master`s land with their learning..the others knowledge (Nobel or No Nobel) have worked for their own.

It is worthwhile to read about him. How he personally protected the angraiz by reporting & handing over freedom fighters....reported by him in. ``Asbaab-i-Baghavat-i-Hind`` himself to get medals. He was playing a ``triple`` agent against Muslims, Hindus, & angraiz at the same time see-sawing between ````loyalties``..a true MUSHARRAF of his times ( Talibaans of the times..history never taught in Slaveland).
How he stood guard outside the homes of goraas & organised posses & vigilantes { Unfortunately one of my ancestors--third branch from G-Grandfather was his sidekick in all these matters--won`t name him}