We need to keep on taking a stand. Wearing a veil in public is counterproductive to the public good and anathema to community relations. It's just too bad societies like Britain have allowed Muslim numbers to grow to the point where the sense of threat is omnipresent and tauntingly visible. Multiculturalism rot. You'll never build towards a strong future when you're increasingly peopled by those who insist backward traditions and oppressive rules dominate their lifestyle and public face. And what's Britain going to do if demographics continue to shift and what is quietly enforced now becomes the law? Ridiculous? Then someone should do the math and make some projections. We've had a generation of incurably stupid people in top political positions world-wide riding John Lennon's dream of universal harmony. The lad was a flippin' singer-songwriter for Pete's sake. No guru for the treacherous century ahead.
British MP: I would prefer Muslim women not to wear the veil.
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
i'm not saying jack was immensely rude or a terrible fascist. All i'm saying is he should have known that even mentioning the idea would be unacceptable to those muslims who still wear them, and that mentioning it would get him in trouble
some british politicians really amaze me at what they don't seem to know about their own country
some british politicians really amaze me at what they don't seem to know about their own country
It's selfish to wear the veil, says Straw aide
By SIMON WALTERS and JONATHAN OLIVER
7th October 2006
Veiled demo: Muslim women join the protest against Jack Straw in Blackburn
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/10/muslim071006PA_700x440.jpg
The Government was plunged into disarray as a senior Minister accused Muslim women of being 'selfish' by refusing to stop wearing veils.
Amid growing signs that the controversy is causing civil disorder, Commons Leader Jack Straw's deputy Nigel Griffiths claimed that women who cover their faces in public are ignoring the feelings of others.
But a Government split emerged as Mr Griffiths was attacked by Race Relations Minister Phil Woolas who said: "In all honesty, I don't think these women are being selfish." Mr Woolas said outspoken comments by figures such as Mr Straw had provoked a dangerous backlash, with worried Muslims in other countries contacting British relatives and asking if they were safe from 'persecution'.
The row came as a 49-year-old mother's veil was torn from her at a bus stop in Liverpool. Her daughter Ilham Ali said: "The man was shouting, "Pull that scarf off your head, you Muslim''. I'm 100 per cent certain the racist attack on my mum was a direct result of the comments Jack Straw made."
Seventy people from the Stop The War Coalition, including 20 women in veils, staged a protest against Mr Straw in his Blackburn constituency. But he stood by his claim that veils were a 'visible statement of separation and difference' and harmed community relations.
Mr Griffiths went a step further, saying: "It's all very well for Muslim women to say that they feel comfortable wearing the veil but it is important that other people feel comfortable, too.
"The fact is that the veil does not make other people feel comfortable. In that way it could be said that they are being selfish. We live in a society where we applaud people for thinking about other people's feelings.
"We are the most ethnically integrated society in the world, we have welcomed immigrants and benefited from them. But we have to address the issue of what everyone feels comfortable with and what individuals feel comfortable with."
Women in veils were 'putting their feelings above those of the individuals they are meeting in their daily lives,' he said. "In our society, not being able to see a face when you are talking to someone makes people feel very uncomfortable."
One Muslim Labour MP, who did not wish to be named, hit back: "There are far more important problems in society than a small number of Muslims who wear veils. To call them selfish is totally wrong and will encourage Muslims to think they are being persecuted. This issue is more to do with jockeying for position in the Labour leadership contest than in improving community relations. It is sickening."
Mr Woolas, whose Oldham constituency has a significant Muslim minority, added: "People have a right to wear a veil if they are doing so freely." He said Britain risked being painted abroad as "Islamophobic', adding: "People in my constituency say they have received calls from members of their family abroad saying, "Are you still safe in Britain?'' They are being told by their news programmes that Muslims are being forced to dress as non-Muslims."
Mr Griffiths also came under fire from the Tories, who have been supportive of the Government. Conservative spokesman Dominic Grieve said: "It is not for the State to prescribe how people dress. "Selfish" is not a word I would use at all."
dailymail.co.uk
By SIMON WALTERS and JONATHAN OLIVER
7th October 2006
Veiled demo: Muslim women join the protest against Jack Straw in Blackburnhttp://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/10/muslim071006PA_700x440.jpg
The Government was plunged into disarray as a senior Minister accused Muslim women of being 'selfish' by refusing to stop wearing veils.
Amid growing signs that the controversy is causing civil disorder, Commons Leader Jack Straw's deputy Nigel Griffiths claimed that women who cover their faces in public are ignoring the feelings of others.
But a Government split emerged as Mr Griffiths was attacked by Race Relations Minister Phil Woolas who said: "In all honesty, I don't think these women are being selfish." Mr Woolas said outspoken comments by figures such as Mr Straw had provoked a dangerous backlash, with worried Muslims in other countries contacting British relatives and asking if they were safe from 'persecution'.
The row came as a 49-year-old mother's veil was torn from her at a bus stop in Liverpool. Her daughter Ilham Ali said: "The man was shouting, "Pull that scarf off your head, you Muslim''. I'm 100 per cent certain the racist attack on my mum was a direct result of the comments Jack Straw made."
Seventy people from the Stop The War Coalition, including 20 women in veils, staged a protest against Mr Straw in his Blackburn constituency. But he stood by his claim that veils were a 'visible statement of separation and difference' and harmed community relations.
Mr Griffiths went a step further, saying: "It's all very well for Muslim women to say that they feel comfortable wearing the veil but it is important that other people feel comfortable, too.
"The fact is that the veil does not make other people feel comfortable. In that way it could be said that they are being selfish. We live in a society where we applaud people for thinking about other people's feelings.
"We are the most ethnically integrated society in the world, we have welcomed immigrants and benefited from them. But we have to address the issue of what everyone feels comfortable with and what individuals feel comfortable with."
Women in veils were 'putting their feelings above those of the individuals they are meeting in their daily lives,' he said. "In our society, not being able to see a face when you are talking to someone makes people feel very uncomfortable."
One Muslim Labour MP, who did not wish to be named, hit back: "There are far more important problems in society than a small number of Muslims who wear veils. To call them selfish is totally wrong and will encourage Muslims to think they are being persecuted. This issue is more to do with jockeying for position in the Labour leadership contest than in improving community relations. It is sickening."
Mr Woolas, whose Oldham constituency has a significant Muslim minority, added: "People have a right to wear a veil if they are doing so freely." He said Britain risked being painted abroad as "Islamophobic', adding: "People in my constituency say they have received calls from members of their family abroad saying, "Are you still safe in Britain?'' They are being told by their news programmes that Muslims are being forced to dress as non-Muslims."
Mr Griffiths also came under fire from the Tories, who have been supportive of the Government. Conservative spokesman Dominic Grieve said: "It is not for the State to prescribe how people dress. "Selfish" is not a word I would use at all."
dailymail.co.uk
Religion is not above criticism
October 07, 2006
THE knee-jerk anger directed at Jack Straw by a section of the Muslim community is offensive.
There is not a racist, Islamophobic bone in his body.
For 27 years he has represented admirably a constituency with the third highest proportion of Muslims in Britain.
His constructive observations about veils have sparked an absurd overreaction from some Muslims for whom even the mildest criticism of any aspect of their religion amounts to a declaration of war.
When the Pope quoted dispassionately from an ancient text about the Prophet Mohammed, his effigy was burned in the street. One lunatic demanded his execution.
Mr Straw is the new hate figure.
What he said was this: Veils make it harder for Muslim and white communities to mix. And he prefers speaking to Muslim women constituents face to face instead of through a veil.
He sensibly suggested a mature debate on it. But there wasn’t much sign of that yesterday.
Some Muslim men and women queued up to heap bile on him for attacking their way of life.
Some plainly had no idea what he’d actually said. From their reaction you’d have thought he’d demanded Islam itself be outlawed.
This inability to brook any criticism fuels the resentment that feeds terrorism and civil disorder.
Look no further than Windsor — white yobs petrol-bombing an Asian dairy, Muslim yobs vandalising a house rented by British soldiers.
Jack Straw is entitled to his view. Muslims are entitled to oppose it, but not with such unrestrained vitriol.
Let’s keep some perspective, for heaven’s sake . . . even Muslim scholars are divided over whether veils should be worn.
Part of living in our free society involves accepting that a Cabinet Minister has the right to comment on an aspect of Islam he considers detrimental to society.
Just as it should also involve a Muslim police officer putting his personal beliefs to one side and doing his sworn duty outside the Israeli embassy.
It is perhaps understandable if Muslims feel under siege at the moment. That is the unhappy and unfair consequence of Islamic extremists bringing terror and death to the UK and the world.
But our mainstream Muslim community can help itself simply by getting a grip.
And accepting that, in Britain, no religion should be above criticism.
thesun.co.uk
And why do western countries have strong and growing Muslim communities in their midst? it's a damn good question. What had seized the tiny brained amongst them to think you can build for the future while supporting such challenging remnants of the past?
Well I would prefer Muslim female children not be stoned by their mad muslim robots
A third grade child of possibly eight years of age indisposed? A third grade child called a "woman"?
A third grade child of possibly eight years of age indisposed? A third grade child called a "woman"?
Not passed- yet. The dilemma remains it will be vetted 'til it passes. Tolerance is a spineless handmaiden when it comes to confronting bullies. The very fact it (sharia) has been suggested by our Muslim communities bespeaks the boldness that tolerance invites. Policy makers here really do need to get a life.
I keep forgetting that wasn't exactly a national issue. But yes, you're right......hasn't been passed yet.
Said1 wrote: I keep forgetting that wasn't exactly a national issue. But yes, you're right......hasn't been passed yet.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Sharia Law: Not if I can help it, I don't want Canada to become like the UK whom panders to the Muslims, Germany canceled an Opera in case it might offend, England digging graves to face Mecca even thou their clientel is Christian, Why? Well Clientel may be an oxymoron. I've read story after story where the rights of non-Muslims have been trampled to pander to the Muslim Religion, it's wrong why is the UK doing this. Let them froth at the mouth and riot and burn and slaughter and them throw them in Prison.
If any Province in Canada or Canada itself adapts to Sharia Law I'm leaving this Country, this Law is beyond contemptuous it is a cruel and evil Law that serves no purpose other than to demean women and children. If "Moderate Muslims" want to practice Sharia Law go back to the "Mother Land", if you can't adapt to Canada and it's Governing Laws it's best that you leave. No religious law should be allowed to Negate a Canadian Law ergo Criminal or British Common Law ever!!!!!!!!!!!
Regarding the Veil, I read a great deal about Islam starting back to the eighties and it was the usual custom of Muslim Females to wear the Hyjab or head scarf, it was and is a deeply personal decision like me taking part in my "Confirmation" as a catholic. After September 11 more and more Muslim Females are opting to wear the Burka which is an outfit that originated from the Taliban and Iran, it is the symbol of Extreme Islam. So why are so many Moderates now wearing the Burka? When I see them in a Burka in Canada with only their eyes showing it screams Extremist to me. Did anyone see any Burkas in their cities before September 11, I didn't and more and more Muslim women are opting to wear them why?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Sharia Law: Not if I can help it, I don't want Canada to become like the UK whom panders to the Muslims, Germany canceled an Opera in case it might offend, England digging graves to face Mecca even thou their clientel is Christian, Why? Well Clientel may be an oxymoron. I've read story after story where the rights of non-Muslims have been trampled to pander to the Muslim Religion, it's wrong why is the UK doing this. Let them froth at the mouth and riot and burn and slaughter and them throw them in Prison.
If any Province in Canada or Canada itself adapts to Sharia Law I'm leaving this Country, this Law is beyond contemptuous it is a cruel and evil Law that serves no purpose other than to demean women and children. If "Moderate Muslims" want to practice Sharia Law go back to the "Mother Land", if you can't adapt to Canada and it's Governing Laws it's best that you leave. No religious law should be allowed to Negate a Canadian Law ergo Criminal or British Common Law ever!!!!!!!!!!!
Regarding the Veil, I read a great deal about Islam starting back to the eighties and it was the usual custom of Muslim Females to wear the Hyjab or head scarf, it was and is a deeply personal decision like me taking part in my "Confirmation" as a catholic. After September 11 more and more Muslim Females are opting to wear the Burka which is an outfit that originated from the Taliban and Iran, it is the symbol of Extreme Islam. So why are so many Moderates now wearing the Burka? When I see them in a Burka in Canada with only their eyes showing it screams Extremist to me. Did anyone see any Burkas in their cities before September 11, I didn't and more and more Muslim women are opting to wear them why?
Once again, Political Correctness overtakes rational discussion!!
How is requesting a woman to remove her veil during a conversation, racist, discriminatory or any other derogatory word one wants to use?? Good grief, can you not discuss ANYTHING without "offending" someone. That's shear BS, quite frankly. I, too, as a female, would ask a woman to remove their veil if I wanted to converse with her for any length of time. I have no problem with her wearing it otherwise, but I agree with the British Minister, that it takes away from the conversation. A good, honest discussion/conversation is not only about words but involves body language and facial expressions as well.
How is requesting a woman to remove her veil during a conversation, racist, discriminatory or any other derogatory word one wants to use?? Good grief, can you not discuss ANYTHING without "offending" someone. That's shear BS, quite frankly. I, too, as a female, would ask a woman to remove their veil if I wanted to converse with her for any length of time. I have no problem with her wearing it otherwise, but I agree with the British Minister, that it takes away from the conversation. A good, honest discussion/conversation is not only about words but involves body language and facial expressions as well.
I came across this article and it touches on what a Moderate Muslim thinks.
Why Muslim women should thank Straw
Saira Khan
The veil is not a religious obligation — it is a symbol of the subjugation by men of their wives and daughters
NI_MPU('middle');
MY PARENTS moved here from Kashmir in the 1960s. They brought with them their faith and their traditions. But they also arrived with an understanding that they were starting a new life in a country where Islam was not the main religion.
My mother has always worn traditional Kashmiri clothes — the salwaar kameez, a long tunic worn over trousers, and the chador, which is like a pashmina worn round the neck or over the hair. But no one in my immediate family — here or in Kashmir — covers their face with a nikab (veil). As a child I wore the salwaar kameez at home — and at school a typical English school uniform. My parents never felt that the uniform compromised my faith; the important thing was that I would fit in so that I could take advantage of all the opportunities school offered. I was the hockey team captain and took part in county athletics: how could I have done all of this wearing salwaar kameez, let alone a veil?
My mother has worked all her life and adapted her ways and dress at work. For ten years she operated heavy machinery and could not wear her chador because of the risk of it becoming caught in the machinery. Without making any fuss she removed her scarf at work and put it back on when she clocked out. My mother is still very much a traditional Muslim woman, but having lived in this country for 40 years she has learnt to embrace British culture — for example, she jogs in a tracksuit and swims in a normal swimming costume to help to alleviate her arthritis.
Some Muslims would criticise the way my mother and I dress. They believe that there is only one way to practise Islam and express your beliefs, forgetting that the Muslim faith is interpreted in different ways in different places and that there are distinct cultures and styles of dress in Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. But it is not a requirement of the Koran for women to wear the veil.
The growing number of women veiling their faces in Britain is a sign of radicalisation. I was disturbed when, after my first year at university in 1988, I discovered to my surprise that some of my fellow students had turned very religious and had taken to wearing the jilbab (a long, flowing gown covering all the body except hands and face), which they had never worn before and which was not the dress code of their mothers. They had joined the college’s Islamic Society, which preached that women were not considered proper Muslims unless they adopted such strict dress codes. After that, I never really had anything in common with them.
It is an extreme practice. It is never right for a woman to hide behind a veil and shut herself off from people in the community. But it is particularly wrong in Britain, where it alien to the mainstream culture for someone to walk around wearing a mask. The veil restricts women, it stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: “I do not want to be part of your society.”
Some Muslim women say that it is their choice to wear it; I don’t agree. Why would any woman living in a tolerant country freely choose to wear such a restrictive garment? What these women are really saying is that they adopt the veil because they believe that they should have less freedom than men, and that if they did not wear the veil men would not be accountable for their uncontrollable urges — so women must cover-up so as not to tempt men. What kind of a message does that send to women?
But a lot of women are not free to choose. Girls as young as three or four are wearing the hijab to school — that is not a freely made choice. Girls under 16 should certainly not have to wear it to school. And behind the closed doors of some Muslim houses, women are told to wear the hijab and the veil. These are the girls that are hidden away, they are not allowed to go to universities, they have little choice in who they marry, in many cases they are kept down by the threat of violence.
So for women such as them it was absolutely right for Jack Straw to raise this issue. Nobody should feel threatened by his comments; after all, the debate about veils has been raging in the Islamic community for many years. To argue that non-Muslims have no right to discuss it merely reinforces the idea that Muslims are not part of a wider society. It also suggests, wrongly, that wearing the veil affects only Muslims. Non-Muslims have to deal with women wearing a veil, so why shouldn’t their feelings be taken into consideration? I would find it impossible to deal with any veiled woman because it goes so deeply against my own values and basic human instincts. How can you develop any kind of a social relationship with someone who has shut themselves away from the rest of the world?
And if we can’t have a debate about the veil without a vocal minority of Muslims crying “Islamophobia”, how will we face other issues, such as domestic violence, forced marriages, sexual abuse and child abuse that are rife in the Muslim community? These are not uniquely Muslim problems but, unlike other communities, they are never openly debated. It is children and women who suffer as a result.
Many moderate Muslim women in Britain will welcome Mr Straw’s comments. This is an opportunity for them to say: “I don’t wear the veil but I am a Muslim.” If I had been forced to wear a veil I would certainly not be writing this article — I would not have the friends I have, I would not have been able to run a marathon or become an aerobics teacher or set up a business. This is my message to British Muslim women — if you want your daughters to take advantage of all the opportunities that Britain has to offer, do not encourage them to wear the veil. We must unite against the radical Muslim men who would love women to be hidden, unseen and unheard. I was able to take advantage of what Britain has got to offer and I hope Mr Straw’s comments will help more Muslim women to do the same. But my argument with those Muslims who would only be happy in a Talebanised society, who turn their face against integration, is this: “If you don’t like living here and don’t want to integrate, then what the hell are you doing here? Why don’t you just go and live in an Islamic country?”
I like her attitude, give hell sister.
Why Muslim women should thank Straw
Saira Khan
The veil is not a religious obligation — it is a symbol of the subjugation by men of their wives and daughters
MY PARENTS moved here from Kashmir in the 1960s. They brought with them their faith and their traditions. But they also arrived with an understanding that they were starting a new life in a country where Islam was not the main religion.
My mother has always worn traditional Kashmiri clothes — the salwaar kameez, a long tunic worn over trousers, and the chador, which is like a pashmina worn round the neck or over the hair. But no one in my immediate family — here or in Kashmir — covers their face with a nikab (veil). As a child I wore the salwaar kameez at home — and at school a typical English school uniform. My parents never felt that the uniform compromised my faith; the important thing was that I would fit in so that I could take advantage of all the opportunities school offered. I was the hockey team captain and took part in county athletics: how could I have done all of this wearing salwaar kameez, let alone a veil?
My mother has worked all her life and adapted her ways and dress at work. For ten years she operated heavy machinery and could not wear her chador because of the risk of it becoming caught in the machinery. Without making any fuss she removed her scarf at work and put it back on when she clocked out. My mother is still very much a traditional Muslim woman, but having lived in this country for 40 years she has learnt to embrace British culture — for example, she jogs in a tracksuit and swims in a normal swimming costume to help to alleviate her arthritis.
Some Muslims would criticise the way my mother and I dress. They believe that there is only one way to practise Islam and express your beliefs, forgetting that the Muslim faith is interpreted in different ways in different places and that there are distinct cultures and styles of dress in Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. But it is not a requirement of the Koran for women to wear the veil.
The growing number of women veiling their faces in Britain is a sign of radicalisation. I was disturbed when, after my first year at university in 1988, I discovered to my surprise that some of my fellow students had turned very religious and had taken to wearing the jilbab (a long, flowing gown covering all the body except hands and face), which they had never worn before and which was not the dress code of their mothers. They had joined the college’s Islamic Society, which preached that women were not considered proper Muslims unless they adopted such strict dress codes. After that, I never really had anything in common with them.
It is an extreme practice. It is never right for a woman to hide behind a veil and shut herself off from people in the community. But it is particularly wrong in Britain, where it alien to the mainstream culture for someone to walk around wearing a mask. The veil restricts women, it stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: “I do not want to be part of your society.”
Some Muslim women say that it is their choice to wear it; I don’t agree. Why would any woman living in a tolerant country freely choose to wear such a restrictive garment? What these women are really saying is that they adopt the veil because they believe that they should have less freedom than men, and that if they did not wear the veil men would not be accountable for their uncontrollable urges — so women must cover-up so as not to tempt men. What kind of a message does that send to women?
But a lot of women are not free to choose. Girls as young as three or four are wearing the hijab to school — that is not a freely made choice. Girls under 16 should certainly not have to wear it to school. And behind the closed doors of some Muslim houses, women are told to wear the hijab and the veil. These are the girls that are hidden away, they are not allowed to go to universities, they have little choice in who they marry, in many cases they are kept down by the threat of violence.
So for women such as them it was absolutely right for Jack Straw to raise this issue. Nobody should feel threatened by his comments; after all, the debate about veils has been raging in the Islamic community for many years. To argue that non-Muslims have no right to discuss it merely reinforces the idea that Muslims are not part of a wider society. It also suggests, wrongly, that wearing the veil affects only Muslims. Non-Muslims have to deal with women wearing a veil, so why shouldn’t their feelings be taken into consideration? I would find it impossible to deal with any veiled woman because it goes so deeply against my own values and basic human instincts. How can you develop any kind of a social relationship with someone who has shut themselves away from the rest of the world?
And if we can’t have a debate about the veil without a vocal minority of Muslims crying “Islamophobia”, how will we face other issues, such as domestic violence, forced marriages, sexual abuse and child abuse that are rife in the Muslim community? These are not uniquely Muslim problems but, unlike other communities, they are never openly debated. It is children and women who suffer as a result.
Many moderate Muslim women in Britain will welcome Mr Straw’s comments. This is an opportunity for them to say: “I don’t wear the veil but I am a Muslim.” If I had been forced to wear a veil I would certainly not be writing this article — I would not have the friends I have, I would not have been able to run a marathon or become an aerobics teacher or set up a business. This is my message to British Muslim women — if you want your daughters to take advantage of all the opportunities that Britain has to offer, do not encourage them to wear the veil. We must unite against the radical Muslim men who would love women to be hidden, unseen and unheard. I was able to take advantage of what Britain has got to offer and I hope Mr Straw’s comments will help more Muslim women to do the same. But my argument with those Muslims who would only be happy in a Talebanised society, who turn their face against integration, is this: “If you don’t like living here and don’t want to integrate, then what the hell are you doing here? Why don’t you just go and live in an Islamic country?”
I like her attitude, give hell sister.
As long as women wear veils voluntarily, then its a matter of free choice. Forcing women who want to wear veils to remove them makes about as much sense as forcing Nuns to remove their habits.
The exception being when safety/security is involved. For example driver's licence photographs.
The exception being when safety/security is involved. For example driver's licence photographs.
While many Westerners believe that the hijab is a sexist tool used to suppress women, far more Middle Eastern + Muslim women believe it is sacred for them.
Why should I keep true stories to myself, if it's true why are you so angry. I don't make this stuff up it happens should we hide these stories? Why the fear? Researcher when a Radical Commits foul acts in the name of "Allah" it's about religion. I'd be happy to read articles where Christians are shoving their beliefs violently down non-christians throats, by all means post them. I'm half Native by the way, and this isn't about hate it's about educating those who blame the West for being Racists, Islam is a religion not a race. You however sound more like a fascist than moi.
Curio, yes I remember that little tid bit about passports. How can a boarder guard be sure the person in the full Burka is the person in the passport if their is no face showing. It's not about religion but safty.
Here's another article for you researcher, whom shoving whoms beliefs down who's throats?
I was happy when I heard of Sept 11 attacks, terror suspect tells court
By Duncan Gardham
(Filed: 15/09/2006)
One of the leaders of a group of British Muslims allegedly planning a bomb attack on a shopping centre and nightclub told a court yesterday that he was happy when he heard about the September 11 attacks.
Omar Khyam, of Crawley, West Sussex, said America was the greatest enemy of Islam because it had put puppet regimes in Muslim nations.
Omar KhyamAs the defence opened in the case, which has been running for almost six months, Khyam, 24, was asked if he believed in a cause.
He replied: "The freedom of Muslim lands from occupation."
Khyam said there were people around the world and in Pakistan who were still working for "the cause" and he would not give details about all of their meetings.
"I still believe in that cause and I don't want them arrested," he added.
It is claimed that the gang of seven was planning to use half a ton of ammonium nitrate stored in a lock-up in north-west London to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent or the Ministry of Sound nightclub in central London.
Khyam said his grandfather had fought with the British Army in the Second World War and joined the Pakistani army after independence before moving to Britain in the 1970s.
Growing up in Crawley, Khyam said he went to the mosque every evening after school between the ages of five and 11 to learn the Koran in Arabic.
His parents divorced when he was 10 and Khyam was sent to a mainly white school in Crawley where he did well academically and was captain of the cricket team.
But he achieved disappointing GCSE results and began to take his religion more seriously, praying five times a day, the court heard.
He moved to a college in Redhill to take his A-levels and became involved with the radical group al-Muhajiroun, which showed him videos of Muslims being killed in Bosnia and Chechnya.
That summer, aged 17, he went on a family holiday to Pakistan.
He came across a marquee run by a Kashmiri group called al-Badr Mujahideen, where a senior member of the group urged him to go to Kashmir for military training.
However, he was also told to "look like a Muslim and start learning my religion because the way I came across was ignorant". Khyam returned to Britain but fled in January 2000. He went to Pakistan and told a taxi driver: "Take me to the mujahideen office." He said he spent the next three months in the mountains of Kashmir training with weapons, before his group received a radio message saying his grandfather was waiting for him at the bottom of the mountains with the Pakistan security service.
Although his mother was not pleased, Khyam said he received a hero's welcome when he got home: "Some of my younger cousins were standing in two rows and they threw flowers at me as though I was getting married."
He was sent to work with his father in his clothing business in Belgium but the following summer, in 2001, instead of taking his A-levels, he flew back to Pakistan and crossed into Afghanistan to meet the Taliban.
"They were soft, kind and humble to Muslims and harsh to their enemies," he said.
On his return to west London, Khyam set about raising funds for Afghanistan. He went back to Pakistan in 2002 and 2003.
He said Britain was not considered a target until after the invasion of Iraq.
"Before, myself and others may have made excuses, now people were silent," he said. "When they said the UK needed to be attacked, there would be no defending the UK." But he denied he had been told to attack Britain.
"I believe we should be working in our countries, Muslim countries, to establish Muslim states and not waste resources elsewhere."
In 2003 he said his younger brother, Shujah, was sent to join him from Crawley because he had been vandalising cars near a mosque.
Khyam said he sent his brother to a training camp on the Afghan border. "I was busy with the cause. It was the easiest thing to do."
Khyam and his brother Shujah ud din Mahmood, 19, along with Jawad Akbar, 22, his cousin Nabeel Hussain, 20, and Waheed Mahmood, 34, all from Crawley, West Sussex, as well as Anthony Garcia, 24, from Ilford, Essex, and Salahuddin Amin, 31, of Luton, Beds, all deny conspiracy to cause explosions.
The trial continues.
• Atilla Ahmet, 42, from south-east London, appeared at City of Westminster magistrates' court yesterday accused of encouraging people to murder those who do not believe in Islam. He was remanded in custody until Sept 29 to appear at the Old Bailey.
What are you trying to say? I mean i do understand why the guy was happy because the states were attacked. These kind of things and i mean people being happy when something bad happens to Americans will not stop whether anyone likes it or not unless the Americans stop trying to gain some kind of world dominance. Don't get me wrong because i don't think all those innocent people deserved to die. What I'm trying to say is that around 3000 people were killed on 9/11. How many people are the Americans killing a day? combine afghanistan and iraq it would probably be a thousand a day. 9/11 made the Americans realize what it feels like to be attacked and that it is no joke. It's really funny how The government of the US doesn't think of itself as some kind of Christian radicals with blood on thier hands.
In my view if you are coming from a country that is repressed, or dominated by religion, one should
either get with the program or migrate to another country. I for one have given up on the multicultural
format. There is no way in hell I want to give up my traditions even though I am ore secular than than
anything. We have established our traditions and we welcome anyone who wants to celebrate too,
but we should not be expected to change everything to accommodate anyone coming here.
Consider it, it is what it is take it or leave it.
If you want to wear your veil, don't fly, don't vote, and don't complain. I know I am nasty and God knows
what else. Actually I am more left of center than most. I don't belong to a party, and I don't side with one
or the other spectrum of politics all the time, but I am socially progressive and fiscally conservative.
What I am is fed up, with people who come here and expect the courts, the schools the institutions should
cater to them specifically.
And to stay on topic, yes women should join the twenty first century and hang the veil in the closet.
And Dixie Cup you are right the veil is about tradition and not a garment of the religion
either get with the program or migrate to another country. I for one have given up on the multicultural
format. There is no way in hell I want to give up my traditions even though I am ore secular than than
anything. We have established our traditions and we welcome anyone who wants to celebrate too,
but we should not be expected to change everything to accommodate anyone coming here.
Consider it, it is what it is take it or leave it.
If you want to wear your veil, don't fly, don't vote, and don't complain. I know I am nasty and God knows
what else. Actually I am more left of center than most. I don't belong to a party, and I don't side with one
or the other spectrum of politics all the time, but I am socially progressive and fiscally conservative.
What I am is fed up, with people who come here and expect the courts, the schools the institutions should
cater to them specifically.
And to stay on topic, yes women should join the twenty first century and hang the veil in the closet.
And Dixie Cup you are right the veil is about tradition and not a garment of the religion