Humayra Abedin, the only child of Mohammed Joynal Abedin, a retired businessman, and his wife, a housewife, was trained as a doctor in Bangladesh. She went to England in 2002 to attend Leeds University, eventually moving to East London and working in hospitals across the capital as she studied to become a doctor. According to UK press reports, when her family found out that she had developed a close friendship with a Hindu Bangladeshi man in London, they were furious and since May of this year, they have desperately been trying to force her into a marriage with a Muslim man.

In August her mother sent news to Humayra that she was seriously ill and that she should immediately come to visit. When Humayra returned to Dhaka on August 5th for a two-day stay, she was manhandled into the property by a number of people and locked up. Her parents hid her passport and plane ticket and held her captive. On about the 10th or 11th of August 2008, her first cousin Masud Rana, who is the son of her paternal uncle, gave her some tablets and told her that she must take them. She refused to take them but was forced to do so. They were possibly sleeping pills. She was also forcibly taken to a psychiatric hospital and injected with what she believed were mood stabilisers and anti-psychotic drugs. She was given these drugs every day and told that she would not be discharged until she confirmed that she would not be returning to the UK, that she would be resigning from her employment in the UK and that she would disassociate herself from everybody she knew in the UK.

Her only ally was her cousin Dr. Shipra Chaudhury, who got in touch with lawyers at local human rights NGO Ain o Shalish Kendro (ASK). Other family members were hostile towards her, had no sympathy for her situation, or were afraid to break family silences. Although ASK staff and police, alerted to this situation, were able to meet her for a few moments in August 2008, they were obstructed by her parents from speaking to her in private. After that brief meeting, none of them were able to get back in touch with her.

The High Court of Bangladesh, on October 27th, directed the parents and uncle to appear and produce Humayra in person, after ASK and Humayra’s cousin filed a habeas corpus petition that she was being confined against her will. The parents and uncle repeatedly failed to comply and after the Court ordered the top police official to ensure Humayra’s recovery, lawyers for the parents finally appeared before the Court. But the parents continued to refuse to comply with the Court’s orders – keeping Humayra from appearing before the Court. The parents claimed through their lawyers that Humayra, though an adult, should be in her parents’ custody - first on the ground that she was ‘unmarried’ and, later, because she was ‘mentally ill’.

The parents refusal to comply with the order to produce Humayra before the Court continued throughout November. The Court issued a suo motu contempt notice on the parents and her uncle and directed them to appear in person on December 3rd. The parents and uncle came to court again without Humayra. At one point, Humayra was able to send an email to a close friend in the UK where she expressed deep depression and, under the circumstances, there were underlying indications that she was either contemplating suicide or that she would be killed. An excerpt from the email read - “I wish I could see you once in my lifetime. This is the only wish I have. Most important thing is please try to forgive me if you can. I AM SORRY. Please don't hate me. My life is already ruined. I don't care any more. I just want to end my life as nothing left to live and look forward to. You are one of the best person. I will always remember you. I wanted to grow old with you. It will never happen now”

At this point, a British court directed the parents and uncle to disclose Humayra’s whereabouts, not to harass her and force her into a marriage and hand her over to ASK or the British High Commission in Bangladesh. On December 14th, Humayra was finally produced before the court in Dhaka. She expressed that her movement was severely restricted since August. She voiced her desire to pursue her education in England. The High Court ordered the Police Commissioner and Court officers to escort Humayra to the British High Commission to arrange her safe travel to London and also directed journalists not to try to speak to her. She refused to speak to the press about the nature of entrapment at her parents’ home but after arriving safely in London she confirmed that on November 14th, she entered into a marriage ceremony against her will and under duress.

Humayra is just one of many Bangladeshis who are forced into marriages against their will every year. The phenomenon occurs not just in Bangladesh, but throughout South Asian and some African diaspora communities in the UK and USA. According to the Independent, in the first nine months of this year, the UK Government's Forced Marriage Unit was contacted by 1,308 concerned callers fearing they or someone close to them might be forced into marriage. The unit directly helped 388 of these victims - nearly twice as many as in 2007. The new Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, which came into force in November 2008 because of the high number of reported cases, offers protection to all residents of the UK.

Forced marriages are different from arranged marriages in that in an arranged marriage, the family will take the lead in arranging the match but couples have the choice as to whether or not to proceed. With forced marriages, there is no choice. As such, it is a form of domestic violence and an abuse of human rights. There is usually much emotional and physical violence and manipulation involved, where a person is sometimes forced to agree to the marriage in fear of his/her life. According to an article by Abedin's lawyer in Bangladesh, Sara Hossain, and Suzanne Turner, at least 1000 women are abducted every year from the UK by their families and taken to a foreign country in order to be forced into marriage. According to the UK government’s Forced Marriage Unit 85 percent of victims of forced marriages are women and girls and 44 percent of the overseas cases dealt with by the government’s Forced Marriage Unit involved minors.

The particular case of Humayra Abedin portrays why forced marriages have increased so much in recent years. For many South Asian parents, there is a xenophobic and communal fear of their children choosing partners outside their nationality and religion. In a bid to marry their children off within the same community, parents try to ‘arrange’ their marriages. Parents also try to marry their children off early, thinking it is easier to coerce and manipulate children until a certain age.

It is important to note that forced marriage violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Bangladesh. Humayra was fortunate because her case got coverage in the British media and the UK government got involved. But there are many more women and girls who are forced into marriages in Bangladesh that no one ever hears about. In Humayra’s case, there was little interest in from the local media until the foreign media got involved.

While the press all over Bangladesh have always worked as mouthpieces for political parties, trailing every public move of politicians, the interest in Humayra’s case has been slow. Even many progressive bloggers were sceptical about the nature of the case. Some quoted from Humayra’s father’s shock at the court verdict and his claim that they had ‘done nothing wrong’. One blogger even went on to quote “it is thought Dr Abedin's relationship with a Hindu Bangladeshi software engineer prompted her Muslim parents to intervene” - was it an attempt to somehow prove legitimate justification for such brutal violence by the parents? Some were downright vindictive - “Who knows what she has been up to? It’s shameful to go to court against her parents who made her what she is today and act in such a disgraceful manner by fighting them in public. It’s shameful to see what greed for the Western way of life can change someone so drastically. Maybe she will be happily divorced and lead her cheerful life as and when she decides to.”

This surprising prejudice was not limited to Bangladesh. A British commentator, Mary Dejevsky, wrote for the UK's Independent questioning the necessity of the UK Court’s intervention, saying that “this case is less about forced marriage than personal fulfilment.” She goes on to say, “Britain and other former colonial countries have to be particularly careful how they use their power vis-à-vis former colonies, where a sense of post-imperial grievance is never far below the surface. But they need to be doubly careful when, as in this case, the individual concerned is not a citizen. You can argue forever about the universality of human rights and individual freedoms, but there are difficult questions about the obligations of a state – if any – towards those who reside there as citizens of another country.” Dejevsky seems to be effectively saying that these human rights are a luxury for UK nationals only. A person resident in the UK, serving British nationals through their National Health Service, somehow did not deserve the same demands for ensuring her protection. Anila Baig of the Sun seemed to be more spot on in her analysis, that this was a case of forced marriage and a gross violation of a person’s basic right to life of dignity and liberty.

The marriage scenario in Bangladesh is far from black and white. In reality, although ‘consent’ of both a man and a woman is a must for a legal marriage to take place, in many cases a thin line exists between ‘social pressure’, ‘coercion’ and ‘consent’. Consent, particularly by a woman, can be coerced via emotional blackmail or under fear or emotional pressure. Also consent can only be given by the individuals if they have reached a certain age. While people can give the excuse of ‘religion’ or ‘culture’, the truth is that nothing supports parents forcing children to marry someone against their will. If the press and bloggers do not start paying more attention to these cases, then there will be many more Humayras. What is needed ultimately are proactive efforts to change regressive attitudes among Asian communities - both living in Asia and in Europe. The rationale of cultural relativism, or sensitivity to ‘Western intervention’ cannot be used to justify a continuation of these human rights abuses.

>> In Humayra’s case, there was little interest in from the local media until the foreign media got involved.

Which is actually typical of most serious issues that communities have not yet dealt with, either through lack of capacity or lack of will. Also, people tend to stop objective observation where information threatens their ideas/beliefs.

>> For many South Asian parents, there is a xenophobic and communal fear of their children choosing partners outside their nationality and religion.

This is the dichotomy that afflicts our communities around the world. A blind eye is turned to the moral conundrums that comes from involvement with societies that we take exception to. The conundrum is mostly ours, because we are critical of western culture and ideas, but freely participate and use those elements that benefit us. We also tend to promote Islamic education of our children that deals with observances and legalism, yet does little to express the importance of each individuals personal spiritual path.

When children become adults and struggle with a world view that is conflicting, why are we then surprised when they turn to the more compassionate/merciful/understanding/just values of outside societies? I have no doubt in my mind that her parents and many Muslims around the world find the actions "Islamically" correct.

That sucks how they treated her. However, don't ask for much sympathy for a Muslim woman who has a "close relationship" with a polytheist male. I mean, seriously...

> However, don't ask for much sympathy for a Muslim woman who has a "close relationship" with a polytheist male. I mean, seriously...<

Cumon OmarG. Really. This nugget from you? Can't believe a horny humpingty dumpty male like you would be such a prude. Did you consider, maybe the "polythesit" would have converted to Islam to marry her and accompanied her back to Bangladesh to help doctor to poor people there. Think about it. Bangladesh sure could use some doctors, the place is so spiritually bankrupt it makes even South Africa look like a normal third world country. Holy Jesus.

>>> That sucks how they treated her. However, don't ask for much sympathy for a Muslim woman who has a "close relationship" with a polytheist male. I mean, seriously...

I don't think that Hinduism fits in as neatly with our normal view of polytheism. I don't think many Hindus concern themselves with the question and I'm quite sure that they worhsip one Supreme being. It seems to me that they are more inclined to use different figureheads as a point of reference. Further, I think they only use the words polytheism/monotheism/pantheism, because those are the most significant point of reference for non-Hindus. The philosophy seems to be loosely comprised of all three.

Alhamdulillah, we use an objective source of guidance from Allah (SWT) and don't need to indulge to much in the varying questions either. To be honest though, I find that our Aqeedah too is something that isn't easily understood through a formal literal learning and can only be understood through practicing the Deen of Allah (SWT).

What a horrific ordeal this woman went through, it's outrageous that her parents could be so cruel towards their own daughter...But still, a Hindu?? A freakin' atheist makes more sense than a Hindu, these people are crazy... Seriously, he obviously wasn't a convert or willing to since if that were the case it wouldn't have been much of an issue to her family (unless they were like nationalists or smth but he's also Bangladeshi). This is just bad PR but its a good thing that these organizations which help Muslim women who are forced into marriage exist, they are actually doing a lot of good, plenty of Muslim Australian girls have turned to them when their ignorant families tried to force them into forced marriages, with cousins no less!!!

>>>I don't think that Hinduism fits in as neatly with our normal view of polytheism

Ghulam's moral relativism extends to Hinduism as well...Go figure

I don't know Ghulam; the Quran is very specific about Muslim men and women *not* marrying mushrikeen. Hinduism is not much different at all from Ancient Arabian polytheism in that they also admitted a higher-than-others Being. Yet, the Quran still did not accept it as it did the flawed monotheism of Christianity, Judaism and the Sabians (who they were, we don't know, possibly Zoroastrianism as some medieval scholars speculated).

But still, confinement is not a solution and I'd hope the Bengali courts throw the book at the parents or someone takes care of business on them the old fashioned way.

Frankly the Qur'an does not say much about Hinduism, Buddhism and Confusionism. God seems to be pre-occupied with the Meccan pagans and People of the Book. You would think, He would spend much more time on that remaining 66% of the world population, which has received no message from Him altogether. GLARING flaw in the Qur'an that purports to be a book for all mankind. GLARING flaw by God to depend on so-called "Muslims" and Jews to spread His message to other peoples across the globe. Big-time goof-ups. If it was a football game, God'd be down 35-7 at half-time.

Now the other thing that buggers me all the time is this. When is God going to take the task of spreading His religion away from the Muslims and hand it to someone more competent? Say the Swedes for example or the Chinese. One has to reach a point in the trajectory where enough evidence abounds to show that the Muslims are no better than the so-called "kuffar" when it comes to human rights or for that matter anything.

The office athiest and born-again murtad was always asking me how long God is going to persist with these "shoving cactus up people's rectums in Gulags" Muslims to promote His religion, when he very well could turn it over to the Americans, who are far superior in their treatment of prisoners. I was well and truly stumped for an answer. But I will say this about God. In His infinite wisdom, He did save me from that on-going embarassment by laying me off!!!!

>> Ghulam's moral relativism extends to Hinduism as well...Go figure

Moral relativism? lol ... said the Palestinian who thinks Americans are moral degenerates and lives and educates herself in capitalist dogma in the United States ... How many F16's and Apache helicopters make you the moral relativist?

What did I say? I said that Hinduism is not neatly polytheistic. Is that a moral judgement in the first place? NO. More than that, what is wrong with relativism when dealing with other religions/cultures? Orthodox Muslims seems to endorse the idea.

>> You would think, He would spend much more time on that remaining 66% of the world population, which has received no message from Him altogether.

http://qaazi.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/are-ram-and-krishna-prophets-of-god/

I don't agree with Zakir Naiks opinions, but some things are objectively true about Islam as attested to in the Quraan. As Muslims we are taught that every nation in the world received a Messenger from amongst themselves. We also accept that the message is for the benefit of mankind and our role as an Ummah is to benefit mankind.

>>> ... how long God is going to persist with these "shoving cactus up people's rectums in Gulags" Muslims to promote His religion, when he very well could turn it over to the Americans, who are far superior in their treatment of prisoners. I was well and truly stumped for an answer.

Where are Muslims treating foreign prisoners worst than the American military as a matter of Islamic principle? (Remember that American principle mandates the treatment of POW's and terror suspects as its policy). I don't think there is any Islamic establishment that endorses ill-treatment of prisoners. Yvonne Ridley will attest to that. So the next time someone criticises Islam because of some random abuse in some backwater somewhere, just be honest and point out that Islamically governed institutions and societies actually promote the opposite. And the next time an atheist claims to be a victim of religion, just point out that no person who is truly conscious of God will commit excesses against others.

Well. Thank you Ghulam for picking up on my blurts. But I still hold onto my point that the Qur'anic message is not that universal in tone, but more "internally focused" along the lines of Allah's existing Judeo-Christian established traditions. I mean your link to the irrepressible Dr. Naik (whom I have met in person, he he he, *blushing with self-importance*) only reinforces the idea that taking all the bigwigs in Buddhism, Hinduism and Confusionism and ad homme labeling them "potential prophets" is a sort of cheap way of trying to convince people that 'O our God Allah was already there talking to you all the time.' For instance, by the same token, why then not Paul! Why not add Paul to the list of Prophets??

God mentions all manner of Jewish Prophets, but forgets to give 'significant air-time' to any of the gazillions of hindus on earth at the time?? That's odd. One would think, He would spend more time on naming a few Hindu/Buddhist messengers instead of being pre-occupied with the prophets of 1/1000th as many Jews. More so given that these same "Hindu Prophets" are also our Prophets ;-----)

Would be a WHOLE LOT more effective walking into a Call Centre or a Bollywood Movie Set or a Jewelery Shop (assuming these three places are where 90% of hindus on earth are found) and showing them a handful of verses with their Krishnas name right there instead of some obscure Prophet like Saleh (ra) or Ilyas (ra) etc etc for example. Get it?????

===========================
Now in terms of Sodomizing Muslim Thugs, they are all over the Muslim World my friend!!!! Where you at??? Yvonne Ridley is not a good example either because she was in the hands of the Taliban and as OmarG has repeatedly pointed out with documentary evidence and CIA web-site links, the Taliban are evil Satan worshiping thugs all going straight to hell. And he should know since he is a professor of persian language and according to himself an expert and 'the only person on this web-site to have actually been in contact with those horrible horrible evil people.'

Go to any Muslim country, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and take a peek at the prisons, no shortage of ACTUAL Islamic Activists abused, tortured and sodomized. Forget, thiefs and petty criminals. The norm is to abuse the decent and the good. And By who? Muslims, of course. Muslim representatives of Muslim governments. Presidents and Kings from whence are often seen praying on TV. Duh.

Hey, one safe white chick by the name of Yvonne makes the Talibs heros!! Woohooo, they even got a radical reporter who says the darndest things to convert to Islam, so they must be double heros! Gimme five, soul brother!

But seriously, if we want to know how well the Taliban treat prisoners, you can ask the families of Afghans they beheaded...but I suppose you can find some excuse why thier lives were forfeit since they didn't support this or that anti-imperialist cause of the week.

>> God mentions all manner of Jewish Prophets, but forgets to give 'significant air-time' to any of the gazillions of hindus on earth at the time??

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but don't you think the message had to have a context that the people understood? And in that context, those ayats that dealt with race/culture and the Prophets (AS) of other peoples were enough? I read somewhere that when Omar RA discovered a grave that was being worshipped by an otherwise unknown person, he remarked that his character was such that he had to be Muslim and he moved the grave to a better place and "adopted" the personality as a pious predecessor.

>> The norm is to abuse the decent and the good. And By who? Muslims, of course. Muslim representatives of Muslim governments. Presidents and Kings from whence are often seen praying on TV.

I agree with you. But Saddam Hussein and his sons were "Muslims". George Bush is a "Christian". That norm of abuse I believe, is part of our failing political models and religious double speak. America by the very notion of composition is a Christian government. If America has a 1% prison population and a huge wealth-poverty income disparity, noone turns around and says "look at what the Christians do".

I've had this argument with Muslims who generally fall on the "blame the people, not the religion" (a silly argument). It can be an empty argument in certain instances, but I think in relation to the various secular and puppet regimes, its more important to consider their political imperatives than to consider the religious composition. The abuse of prisoners is an extension of a prison institution. When we look at the roots of institutions in Muslim countries, there are glaring questions that don't relate to Islamic influences/institution at all.

>> But seriously, if we want to know how well the Taliban treat prisoners, you can ask the families of Afghans they beheaded...but I suppose you can find some excuse why thier lives were forfeit since they didn't support this or that anti-imperialist cause of the week.

It wasn't a political statement about the Taliban. I was just pointing out that Islamic behaviour is not necessarily politically driven Muslim behaviour. Its unfair to have atheists demand those types of answers from theists, because for all we know, Hitler was an atheist purely by the actions he justified. Its also irresponsible to allow atheists to boil down arguments to religion when political and social factors are at play. Politics is a dirty game. Probably the dirtiest.

>>> and as OmarG has repeatedly pointed out with documentary evidence and CIA web-site links, the Taliban are evil Satan worshiping thugs all going straight to hell...

... except that they claim their philisophical roots from a movement that spans an entire continent of tikka-chicken eating desis, and their substantial diaspora.

>> ..But still, a Hindu?? A freakin' atheist makes more sense than a Hindu, these people are crazy...

With comments like that coming from members of our community, you've got to think that whatever the PR, this response is coherent with the core values. Some of the best and most honest people I know are Hindu.

>> I'm not trying to be obtuse, but don't you think the message had to have a context that the people understood? And in that context, those ayats that dealt with race/culture and the Prophets (AS) of other peoples were enough? <<

Ummm. Well, Allah (swt) in His infinite wisdom knows better why He revealed His Book in the way He did, it is not my intention to provide Him consultancy services here! I am just arguing from the point of view of an average Hindu or Confusionist, who may make the case that they find the Qur'an alienating vis-a-vis their own religious traditions.

It seems to me that the world at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) was what? The Chinese Dynasties, the Indian Kingdoms, the Persian Empire, the Byzantine/Roman Empire and various African Kingdoms from East Africa down to South Africa. How many of these did the Arabs know about? Probably all of them. Chinese goods (open air sandals at the time *cough) were passing through Arabia (I assume). The vast Indian Sub-continent itself was/is not that far from Arabia either.

And this was just the beginning. A mere 100 years later, Muslims had already conquered lands in virtually all these places. So for God to send a "Universal Message" in this narrow time frame and not mention any of the Prophets sent to all these nations in afore time certainly seems odd.

I mean, if I am a Hindu or a Confusionist or an African Mumbo Jumbo religionist at that time unfamiliar with the Jewish Prophets, can you say the Qur'an would be talking to me? I think not, it would come across as a Book addressing a particular Middle Eastern Jewish/Christian/Meccan tradition. Yet were you to visit China or India or Africa at that time, I doubt any of those millions of people were aware of the Middle East as being the Centre of God's Religions. They had their centers of religion around which their spirituality revolved and around which they thought God(s) had spoken to them.

Infact, even today the Hindus lump the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions as something alien and other-worldly not from their past.

>>>>With comments like that coming from members of our community, you've got to think that whatever the PR, this response is coherent with the core values. Some of the best and most honest people I know are Hindu.

What a stupid argument "some of the best people I know are Hindus", you always revert to cliches, of course some of them are nice but their whole "religion" is a travesty, its comparable to Scientology, nobody takes them seriously. I'm not an extremely orthodox as you may think, in fact I deeply admire athiests and agnostics (well athiests more because they have more guts), I understand doubt and that some people simply can't accept faith. I also respect the Christian and Jewish faiths but polytheism is where any reasonable person draws the line.

>>>> What a stupid argument "some of the best people I know are Hindus", you always revert to cliches, of course some of them are nice but their whole "religion" is a travesty, its comparable to Scientology, nobody takes them seriously.

its not important how you label yourself ... Your opinions are adequate enough a label. To say that Hinduism is a "travesty" and the religion amounts to scientology is IGNORANT. You don't understand Hinduism, or its followers, or my neighbours and friends but you are quick to oafishly blurt out every pre-conceived notion and half-conceived idea that flips through that scatterbrain of yours. You don't even know when you're being rude.

What are their holy books? What are their major festivals? What are their core values etc. ... The travesty is that you can pass judgement without a clue. Its no wonder that Indians/Pakistanis face such rampant discrimination throughout the middle east.

>>> ... in fact I deeply admire athiests and agnostics ... I also respect the Christian and Jewish faiths but polytheism is where any reasonable person draws the line.

Probably because despite that thinly veiled hatred that you mask as tolerance, you don't live amongst any or associate with any. I don't consider 900 Million people unreasonable. And like I've said before, the polytheism/idolatory of your understanding is very different from the polytheism of Hinduism.

So you see .. cliche or not, I try to not make ignorant and insulting remarks. Believe it or not, I consider that a virtue.

I think that believing in one God and reading the Quran ought to make a person consider Hinduism a travesty: it is shirk pure and simple. HOWEVER, that same belief in one God and reading of the Quran ought to prevent us from taking it out on individual Hindus. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with informing oneself of the details of Hinduism, or at least which regional or philosophical variation of it.

>> but you are quick to oafishly blurt out every pre-conceived notion and half-conceived idea that flips through that scatterbrain of yours. <<

I think we need to have a change of policy on this site in regards to infantile Nadia86. We need to start treating her like a precious jewel, with care and delicacy and respect. The problem is that we have been focusing on her brain too much, which is not the part of her physiology where she is going to make any contribution to the ummah. Her usefulness lies elsewhere. I shall explain.

Last week I was walking across the parking lot towards the mall, when I see this couple with two little kids shouting and squabbling in front of me, while heading for the mall as well. When I passed by them, I heard "yallah yallah, yallah barra, hazza himar" "yallah, ya yallah". And the kids shouted back something in Arabic as well.

Now the first athing that occurred to me is that how come Arabs families only communicate with each other in screams and shouts. I do not recall ever meeting an Arab family that talks to each other in normal tones. The second thing that occurred to me was that imagine someday Nadia86 is going to find a husband (poor sod) and who knows, maybe she will have some kids. Kids born and raised in America who speak Arabic and they will grow up and teach the Qur'an to people in America. Or maybe they will bring many people to Islam. You never know.

Lesson: we should not give up on even the most dumb-brained people, you never know what they may contribute to the ummah in the most unexpected of ways.

>>>You don't understand Hinduism, or its followers, or my neighbours and friends but you are quick to oafishly blurt out every pre-conceived notion and half-conceived idea that flips through that scatterbrain of yours. You don't even know when you're being rude.


I know enough, and I'm not saying that it's similar to Scientology in its doctrine but that they are both non-monotheistic faiths-and that renders them both irrelevant. I don't see how it's possible to assert that Hinduism is in any way on equal footing with the monotheistic, divinely inspired religions, especially Islam. There is nothing ignorant or stupid about that on a rational level, and if you read the Quran, on a theological one too. I'm not rude, but I will say this- I don't give a damn about political correctness, I think it inhibits free thinking and forces us all to be "multiculturalists" when its human nature to believe that one's religion and culture is superior to that of others, but far-left loons like you want to strip people of that right. Yeah that's another problem you have Ghulam, you're bogged down by political correctness, well I think I've enlightened you to just another one of the many things wrong with you. Feel free to thank me in your next rambling post.


>>>Its no wonder that Indians/Pakistanis face such rampant discrimination throughout the middle east.

Now that's dumb on many levels. First of all, they are the ones who come to the mideast looking for jobs, they should be grateful to have such opportunities. Sure they may be discriminated against but I don't think its personal, Arabs are like that towards people, if we're in charge we can be pretty mean, my grandfather (may he rest in peace) was a prominent man in our community and he loved threatening to kill people who disagreed with him, it was so much fun to watch him scream his head off, yeah I miss that... But seriously, there is an active policy by the Gulf countries that's aimed to bring in as many South Asians as possible so that they won't have to hire other Arabs (Egyptians, Palestinians, Syrians..) who might eventually lay claim to the country they immigrate to...Analysts are beginning to agree that it's a flawed strategy mainly because it's bringing in so many Hindus who may be a problem in the future with their travesty of a "religion".