QUOTE

Supporting suicide bombers, the executiuon of homosexuals, the endorsement of wife beating, and the call for war against all Jews.

One supports bombing in war, and if it’s efficiency is reinforced by a level of unbelievable commitment by the involved, well, one’s comment would depend on which side one exists.

· Call for executing homosexuals may at best be a rhetoric for gathering support for other issues. And heard just for its ridiculousness.

· Beating up wives, is not a very enjoyable thing, more so, if the wife puts up a hearty offensive posture. So the endorsement does not have any meaning.

· Call for war against all Jews, is actually nothing to do with the English nations; if careful demarcation of issues is done. The issues need to be debated.

QUOTE

Yet, this man is a Muslim, with alleged connections with international Islamic terrorist groups. The question remains why the English nations have come to be seen as the enemies of world Muslims, when the reality was not always so. For, one clear instance where it stands as the protector of Muslims is in the case of Bosnia, where the British/American troop initiative led to the saving of Muslims from Christian attackers.

Another ancient example that comes to my mind is the 1972 Indo-Pak war, in which the American 7th Fleet stationed in the Bay of Bengal, was instrumental in restraining Indian offensive on Pakistan, when that nation stood in a very demoralised mood, with the loss of East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh). US had an enduring black mark in India for years, as the supporter of the ‘Evil Pakistan’. Also, most Middle East small-time Muslim nations exist, basically because of British/American support.

Well, there might not be much of a problem, if Yusuf Al-Qardawi, the Muslim cleric is allowed to preach his philosophy, so long as his stay is not utilised for subversive activities. But the danger is that of local politicians using him for garnering them political support from among the domiciled Muslim citizens. This could have a very long-term negative affect on the effectiveness of unaffected British political debate, in all arenas.

But what impresses me most is:

QUOTE

“You are truly, truly welcome. Welcome to London, a city of all faiths.”

Why should London be the city of all faiths? Can’t London just remain the home of the English way of life and culture; other than being the pasture ground of the various ethnic religious beliefs that come over there to exhibit a most metamorphosed form?