The Fundo Chic?
Nadeem F Paracha January 25, 2006
#61 Posted by baaghiraja on January 30, 2006 8:35:10 pm
Re: # 59
Agreed Yasser. My point was that a real debate is vital in a country like Pakistan. Purely to clear exactly what secularism is. In other words it requires an explaination other than what has been given by the mullahs.
And of course ARY sucks, man. Thus the irony of it being the only channel on which a one-off debate took place that was the closest to explaining secularism beyond the mullah version.
Rgds,
NfP
Agreed Yasser. My point was that a real debate is vital in a country like Pakistan. Purely to clear exactly what secularism is. In other words it requires an explaination other than what has been given by the mullahs.
And of course ARY sucks, man. Thus the irony of it being the only channel on which a one-off debate took place that was the closest to explaining secularism beyond the mullah version.
Rgds,
NfP
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#60 Posted by aquaris on January 30, 2006 6:45:33 am
I think Farhat Hashmi is a commercial Phenomenon .... cashing In on a perticular Mind set prevailing ..... and a Fad.
#59 Posted by MantoLives on January 30, 2006 5:40:57 am
The debate... nfp... has to avoid any pitfalls of Islam vs Secular ... so as to avoid the two being pitted against each other.
ARY sucks... but there will come a number of channels more kosher to our views...
ARY sucks... but there will come a number of channels more kosher to our views...
#58 Posted by aquaris on January 30, 2006 5:18:35 am
I think Farhat Hashmi is a commercial Phenomenon .... cashing In on a perticular Mind set prevailing ..... and a Fad.
#57 Posted by Love2love on January 30, 2006 1:37:19 am
Re: # 56
Even though a hint of sarcasm is obvious when you call publishers of Daily Times and Friday Times progressive, but really NFP, that ARY debate you are hailing was more of what you called was going around in chakars. Fine Najam Sethi and co. of DT and TFT may not come up to your standards of progressivism but the truth is if they too start airing their secular or agnostic views like you do, we`ll all be left isolated. You may enjoy that, but maybe other progressives would like to take a more, if I may, a practical way? Of course, none of this takes away the fact that I pretty much agree with you as far as your piece is concerned.
Even though a hint of sarcasm is obvious when you call publishers of Daily Times and Friday Times progressive, but really NFP, that ARY debate you are hailing was more of what you called was going around in chakars. Fine Najam Sethi and co. of DT and TFT may not come up to your standards of progressivism but the truth is if they too start airing their secular or agnostic views like you do, we`ll all be left isolated. You may enjoy that, but maybe other progressives would like to take a more, if I may, a practical way? Of course, none of this takes away the fact that I pretty much agree with you as far as your piece is concerned.
#56 Posted by baaghiraja on January 30, 2006 12:28:33 am
#55 ``The secular-vs-Islamic debate is old, endless and useless. ``
In total agreement with you, Yasser. But the problem in Pakistan is that this debate is still a very uncommon happening. Even on so-called ``progressive`` forums (and which, by the way, includes publishers of Daily Times and Friday Times). In Pakistan we are not exactly debating secularism Vs. Islam, but this Islam Vs. that. Not even the most progressive intellectual in this country is ready to go public about his or her pro-secular views. They are all stuck in a war of interpertations (of Koran). That`s why we keep going in circuls.
Ironically the only worthwhile debate in this context took place on ARY. I say ironic because ARY usually takes a right-wing view and the debate (which included Dr. Javed Iqbal, Dr. Akber Ali and Dr. Israr Ahmed), was hosted by Dr. Shahid Masood. But then, like they say, only Nixon can go to China.
Rgds,
NfP
In total agreement with you, Yasser. But the problem in Pakistan is that this debate is still a very uncommon happening. Even on so-called ``progressive`` forums (and which, by the way, includes publishers of Daily Times and Friday Times). In Pakistan we are not exactly debating secularism Vs. Islam, but this Islam Vs. that. Not even the most progressive intellectual in this country is ready to go public about his or her pro-secular views. They are all stuck in a war of interpertations (of Koran). That`s why we keep going in circuls.
Ironically the only worthwhile debate in this context took place on ARY. I say ironic because ARY usually takes a right-wing view and the debate (which included Dr. Javed Iqbal, Dr. Akber Ali and Dr. Israr Ahmed), was hosted by Dr. Shahid Masood. But then, like they say, only Nixon can go to China.
Rgds,
NfP
#55 Posted by MantoLives on January 29, 2006 10:06:13 pm
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 01 29 story_29-1-2006_pg7_18
January 29 — A red letter day for Modern Pakistan
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Forgive me for being an eternal optimist, but I look forward to this Sunday as a Pakistani. Not only will Lahore once again organise a city marathon, which will hopefully show case Pakistan as a leading tourist and sporting destination, but Bryan Adams, the world-renowned rock star, will hold a mega concert in Karachi with our very own Shehzad Roy. For many countries in the world, these would not constitute major national events, but the story is different in Pakistan, or atleast the Pakistan that I grew up in after General Zia ul Haq’s military rule.
To be fair, they say that Pakistan was a different country before Zia, though very much Islamic, but being Islamic meant something entirely different from what it means now. Before General Zia-ul-Haq took over, to be Islamic meant to be just and fair, to believe in an egalitarian society, to live and let live and all that could be thought positive. It did not mean rituals, hijabs, beards, oppressive hudood laws and victimization of women and minorities. They say it was possible for good Muslims then to have a drink and show their moves on the dance floor without calling into question their loyalty to Islam.
All this changed with the coming of General Zia and the Afghan war. Islam since then has meant shia-sunni violence and jehad. The globalisation that took place in 1990s only fanned these feelings as now apart from the growing sectarian violence, Muslims also imagined themselves to be a global minority. With borders increasingly becoming meaningless, the security of a Muslim majority country was not enough. Thus loyalty to Pakistan was being eroded and replaced by a loyalty to a global jehad movement. And this seemed to affect all sections society and in fact the upper crust more than the rest. Back in high school in the mid 1990s, one of my classmates, a really rich spoilt brat, got a very expensive sports car as a present from his parents. He told me very seriously one day that he would modify it to go wage a jehad. I don’t know if it was a James Bond flick or real Islamist propaganda, but luckily he grew out of it and the car stayed as is.
Alongside the rise of this violent Islam, we have also seen increased conservatism in form of the Tablighi Jamaat- now officially an organisation with terror links on US-homeland security list. An aside: I shudder to think what would happen to our cricket team if the proposal to play India-Pakistan matches in the United States goes through. Interesting fellows these Tablighi jamaatwallahs are. One Ramzan afternoon, they came and bothered me about Islam. Their notions of Islam are very Post-Zia and certainly not what I believe Islam is. So naturally when I asked them what they had done as good Muslims for the material development of Pakistan and the Muslim world, they had no answers and these were LUMS students. One wonders why they feel so qualified to speak on Islam then?
For our ladies, of course, there was until recently Dr Farhat Hashmi and her Al Huda brigade. Many queens of the society pages suddenly went Hijabis come this millennium. It was almost as the saying goes ‘Nau sau chuhay khaa kay billi haj ko chali’ but jokes aside, the Al Huda fad, now receding mercifully after Farhat Hashmi’s allegedly forced departure to Canada, showed us how our understanding of Islam has completely gone haywire.
One must give credit where it’s due. Our Oligarch-in-chief President Musharraf, recently nominated the 17th worst dictator of 2005, has in some ways smashed Zia-ul-Haq’s legacy with his own social liberalism. The proliferation of private channels and state patronage of art and culture has made much of this irreversible. One remembers when Zafrullah Jamali tried to clamp down on fashion shows as “against Islam” our soldier statesman put him in his place. Last year’s marathon and now this year’s repeat- though one was apprehensive that this would be another one in Musharraf’s long list of one-time experiments such as the Daylight Saving Time- and also the return of international musicians of the stature of Bryan Adams to Pakistan is just one indication that maybe General Zia-ul-Haq’s 11 years are now finally behind us, even if our understanding of Islam has not reverted to pre-1977 or some would argue pre-1974 period.
This is not enough however. Musharraf must ensure that his is the last military intervention and from 2007 onwards Pakistan will become a constitutional democracy with stability and consistency and a smooth and regular transfer of power. He should ensure that the marginalised groups, the minorities and women are no longer marginalized but get a major chunk of the Pakistani political pie not just because it was one of the stated aims at the initiation of Pakistan and not just because the world now is increasingly intolerant of militarised theocracies and oligarchies, but because only a constitutional democratic path can ensure the continuity of a socially liberal welfare state which is truly, not ritually, Islamic and therefore just and egalitarian.
In the meantime, let us run the Lahore Marathon and listen to Bryan Adams for this is the red-letter day for a new, confident and modern Pakistan.
--
Choice of Pakistan’s people
Sir: Abdul Mannan’s letter (‘The leader and the led’, January 26) proclaiming an Islamic state on behalf of the ‘masses’ misses the point. I wish to point out the following:
1. The secular-vs-Islamic debate is old, endless and useless. The relevant discussion here is about a constitutional democracy and a military-sponsored theocracy. I am sure the people of Pakistan will choose constitutional democracy, which is Jinnah’s vision, over a military theocracy any day.
2. That said why did the Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Majlis-e-Ahrar bitterly oppose the creation of Pakistan — denouncing it as a Kemalist state when establishing an Islamic utopia was Pakistan movement’s battle cry. The ulema opposed the creation of Pakistan because they knew the Islam Jinnah spoke of was not the Islam they wanted to impose on the masses.
3. Jinnah did speak of Islam as a positive reinforcer, not least because it was important to his constituents. But what was the nature of the Islam he spoke of? He spoke of an Islam that “came into the world for democracy” (March 1945); whose “idealism has taught us democracy” (July 1947); an Islam “in which there is no ecclesiastical state” (December 1947); of Islamic principles of “Equality, fraternity and justice for all mankind”. He repeatedly spoke of equal rights for non-Muslims. He said very clearly on at least two dozen occasions that Pakistan “shall not be a theocracy”.
4. The masses were not stupid when they chose Jinnah instead of Maududi or Madni as their leader. They were not stupid when they voted en masse for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. They were not stupid when they voted for Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Even in 2002 they voted overwhelmingly for parties opposed to theocracy. When the people speak of an Islamic state, they speak of a just and egalitarian state free of corruption that is committed to peace and rule of law. The “masses” are not interested in discriminating against non-Muslims or imposing their religious views on others, as is the wont of every religious party. Elections have repeatedly shown this.
5. The lives lost in 1947 were not sacrificed to an idea. They were lost because communal violence broke out on both sides. This stigmatised, rather than glorified the idea of Pakistan.
YASSER LATIF HAMDANI
Lahore
January 29 — A red letter day for Modern Pakistan
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Forgive me for being an eternal optimist, but I look forward to this Sunday as a Pakistani. Not only will Lahore once again organise a city marathon, which will hopefully show case Pakistan as a leading tourist and sporting destination, but Bryan Adams, the world-renowned rock star, will hold a mega concert in Karachi with our very own Shehzad Roy. For many countries in the world, these would not constitute major national events, but the story is different in Pakistan, or atleast the Pakistan that I grew up in after General Zia ul Haq’s military rule.
To be fair, they say that Pakistan was a different country before Zia, though very much Islamic, but being Islamic meant something entirely different from what it means now. Before General Zia-ul-Haq took over, to be Islamic meant to be just and fair, to believe in an egalitarian society, to live and let live and all that could be thought positive. It did not mean rituals, hijabs, beards, oppressive hudood laws and victimization of women and minorities. They say it was possible for good Muslims then to have a drink and show their moves on the dance floor without calling into question their loyalty to Islam.
All this changed with the coming of General Zia and the Afghan war. Islam since then has meant shia-sunni violence and jehad. The globalisation that took place in 1990s only fanned these feelings as now apart from the growing sectarian violence, Muslims also imagined themselves to be a global minority. With borders increasingly becoming meaningless, the security of a Muslim majority country was not enough. Thus loyalty to Pakistan was being eroded and replaced by a loyalty to a global jehad movement. And this seemed to affect all sections society and in fact the upper crust more than the rest. Back in high school in the mid 1990s, one of my classmates, a really rich spoilt brat, got a very expensive sports car as a present from his parents. He told me very seriously one day that he would modify it to go wage a jehad. I don’t know if it was a James Bond flick or real Islamist propaganda, but luckily he grew out of it and the car stayed as is.
Alongside the rise of this violent Islam, we have also seen increased conservatism in form of the Tablighi Jamaat- now officially an organisation with terror links on US-homeland security list. An aside: I shudder to think what would happen to our cricket team if the proposal to play India-Pakistan matches in the United States goes through. Interesting fellows these Tablighi jamaatwallahs are. One Ramzan afternoon, they came and bothered me about Islam. Their notions of Islam are very Post-Zia and certainly not what I believe Islam is. So naturally when I asked them what they had done as good Muslims for the material development of Pakistan and the Muslim world, they had no answers and these were LUMS students. One wonders why they feel so qualified to speak on Islam then?
For our ladies, of course, there was until recently Dr Farhat Hashmi and her Al Huda brigade. Many queens of the society pages suddenly went Hijabis come this millennium. It was almost as the saying goes ‘Nau sau chuhay khaa kay billi haj ko chali’ but jokes aside, the Al Huda fad, now receding mercifully after Farhat Hashmi’s allegedly forced departure to Canada, showed us how our understanding of Islam has completely gone haywire.
One must give credit where it’s due. Our Oligarch-in-chief President Musharraf, recently nominated the 17th worst dictator of 2005, has in some ways smashed Zia-ul-Haq’s legacy with his own social liberalism. The proliferation of private channels and state patronage of art and culture has made much of this irreversible. One remembers when Zafrullah Jamali tried to clamp down on fashion shows as “against Islam” our soldier statesman put him in his place. Last year’s marathon and now this year’s repeat- though one was apprehensive that this would be another one in Musharraf’s long list of one-time experiments such as the Daylight Saving Time- and also the return of international musicians of the stature of Bryan Adams to Pakistan is just one indication that maybe General Zia-ul-Haq’s 11 years are now finally behind us, even if our understanding of Islam has not reverted to pre-1977 or some would argue pre-1974 period.
This is not enough however. Musharraf must ensure that his is the last military intervention and from 2007 onwards Pakistan will become a constitutional democracy with stability and consistency and a smooth and regular transfer of power. He should ensure that the marginalised groups, the minorities and women are no longer marginalized but get a major chunk of the Pakistani political pie not just because it was one of the stated aims at the initiation of Pakistan and not just because the world now is increasingly intolerant of militarised theocracies and oligarchies, but because only a constitutional democratic path can ensure the continuity of a socially liberal welfare state which is truly, not ritually, Islamic and therefore just and egalitarian.
In the meantime, let us run the Lahore Marathon and listen to Bryan Adams for this is the red-letter day for a new, confident and modern Pakistan.
--
Choice of Pakistan’s people
Sir: Abdul Mannan’s letter (‘The leader and the led’, January 26) proclaiming an Islamic state on behalf of the ‘masses’ misses the point. I wish to point out the following:
1. The secular-vs-Islamic debate is old, endless and useless. The relevant discussion here is about a constitutional democracy and a military-sponsored theocracy. I am sure the people of Pakistan will choose constitutional democracy, which is Jinnah’s vision, over a military theocracy any day.
2. That said why did the Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Majlis-e-Ahrar bitterly oppose the creation of Pakistan — denouncing it as a Kemalist state when establishing an Islamic utopia was Pakistan movement’s battle cry. The ulema opposed the creation of Pakistan because they knew the Islam Jinnah spoke of was not the Islam they wanted to impose on the masses.
3. Jinnah did speak of Islam as a positive reinforcer, not least because it was important to his constituents. But what was the nature of the Islam he spoke of? He spoke of an Islam that “came into the world for democracy” (March 1945); whose “idealism has taught us democracy” (July 1947); an Islam “in which there is no ecclesiastical state” (December 1947); of Islamic principles of “Equality, fraternity and justice for all mankind”. He repeatedly spoke of equal rights for non-Muslims. He said very clearly on at least two dozen occasions that Pakistan “shall not be a theocracy”.
4. The masses were not stupid when they chose Jinnah instead of Maududi or Madni as their leader. They were not stupid when they voted en masse for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. They were not stupid when they voted for Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Even in 2002 they voted overwhelmingly for parties opposed to theocracy. When the people speak of an Islamic state, they speak of a just and egalitarian state free of corruption that is committed to peace and rule of law. The “masses” are not interested in discriminating against non-Muslims or imposing their religious views on others, as is the wont of every religious party. Elections have repeatedly shown this.
5. The lives lost in 1947 were not sacrificed to an idea. They were lost because communal violence broke out on both sides. This stigmatised, rather than glorified the idea of Pakistan.
YASSER LATIF HAMDANI
Lahore
#54 Posted by MantoLives on January 29, 2006 9:38:32 pm
Masanamuthu,
I am not responsible for your ignorance of history.
Needless to say those who are clamouring for Sharia in Pakistan- the Israr Ahmed types were hand-in-glove with the Congress in 1940s... so lets not get ahead of ourselves. The world cannot be explained in an occam`s razor... or else the United States of America would be a Puritan Commonwealth.
I am not responsible for your ignorance of history.
Needless to say those who are clamouring for Sharia in Pakistan- the Israr Ahmed types were hand-in-glove with the Congress in 1940s... so lets not get ahead of ourselves. The world cannot be explained in an occam`s razor... or else the United States of America would be a Puritan Commonwealth.
#53 Posted by Zeena on January 29, 2006 9:19:10 pm
#51 ZahraJ
Yes, we should not follow them. But,may be we are strong elements of the society. May be we have to tell those weaker elements NOT to follow them. In that way, we need to rectify our strength to strengthen the weaker ones.
Remember, society, has two elements stronger and weaker. Now, strongers are again divided in to evils and good ones, where as weakers can either be strengthened by evil stronger or good stronger. Now, if, evil strongers are pursuing weakers and brainwashing them. It is good strongers duty to make them stronger in a good way. Thanks,, nothing more to discuss.
Take care
Yes, we should not follow them. But,may be we are strong elements of the society. May be we have to tell those weaker elements NOT to follow them. In that way, we need to rectify our strength to strengthen the weaker ones.
Remember, society, has two elements stronger and weaker. Now, strongers are again divided in to evils and good ones, where as weakers can either be strengthened by evil stronger or good stronger. Now, if, evil strongers are pursuing weakers and brainwashing them. It is good strongers duty to make them stronger in a good way. Thanks,, nothing more to discuss.
Take care
#52 Posted by shantygal on January 29, 2006 8:54:44 pm
Farhat Hashmi is scary, but Nadeem, I think you give too much importance to people like JJ or Najam. Must say though this fundo chic thingie of yours is true specially among aunties. And I know some of my freinds do the hijab but not all of them are going wild about such preachers. But should add two of my freinds have ended up working and travelling for Ms. Hashmi.
#51 Posted by ZahraJ on January 29, 2006 8:25:36 pm
Re: # 50
Incomplete thought...
[There are so, many cults in the world with their followers or disciples, if, they affect our society in a negative way, then we blame them for brainwashing our society.]
Most importantly, we do not FOLLOW them!
We need to use our ``brain`` and the strange looking thing known as ``heart`` to proceed with what attracts us and discard what repels us. Now, it will be unreasonable to expect the repelling elements to disappear from the planet earth. There is a reason why they exist. Have you ever read the story of God, Moses and the big chip`kalee` (I think the correct word is chupkalee, but I do not like it. So I call it chipkalee). Also, what is appealing to you may not be appealing to others.
Lastly, it`s fine that you were not impressed by her approach and weren`t convinced by her views. If I were you I would not attend her gatherings again. Your interaction with her may have left a bad taste with you, but repeating that encounter several times is not going to make her change. I had a weird encounter with Hamza Yousuf. I decided not to attend anything by him again. I wish him well, but I do not want to subscribe to anything stated by him. He is another extreme and would be happy if muslims lived in caves, used a branch of a tree to create drawings for calculation vs using any technology device. Now, if I keep on saying him backward 10 times(remember he is impacting the minds of muslim men - even more dangerous), I am not achieving anything except for massaging my own ego.
You have made your point. You should thank your stars that you are not in Saudi Arabia where Ms. Hashmi is the assigned shurta. You have the option to pursue life as you want to.
Best Wishes.
Incomplete thought...
[There are so, many cults in the world with their followers or disciples, if, they affect our society in a negative way, then we blame them for brainwashing our society.]
Most importantly, we do not FOLLOW them!
We need to use our ``brain`` and the strange looking thing known as ``heart`` to proceed with what attracts us and discard what repels us. Now, it will be unreasonable to expect the repelling elements to disappear from the planet earth. There is a reason why they exist. Have you ever read the story of God, Moses and the big chip`kalee` (I think the correct word is chupkalee, but I do not like it. So I call it chipkalee). Also, what is appealing to you may not be appealing to others.
Lastly, it`s fine that you were not impressed by her approach and weren`t convinced by her views. If I were you I would not attend her gatherings again. Your interaction with her may have left a bad taste with you, but repeating that encounter several times is not going to make her change. I had a weird encounter with Hamza Yousuf. I decided not to attend anything by him again. I wish him well, but I do not want to subscribe to anything stated by him. He is another extreme and would be happy if muslims lived in caves, used a branch of a tree to create drawings for calculation vs using any technology device. Now, if I keep on saying him backward 10 times(remember he is impacting the minds of muslim men - even more dangerous), I am not achieving anything except for massaging my own ego.
You have made your point. You should thank your stars that you are not in Saudi Arabia where Ms. Hashmi is the assigned shurta. You have the option to pursue life as you want to.
Best Wishes.
#50 Posted by Zeena on January 29, 2006 3:33:22 pm
#49 ZahraJ
Oh,please gimme a break. For you ``Bibi`` is offensive?? Whaaaaaat?? Bibi is a word of respect for females, just like mama or madam or Miss or begum sahiba. Since, when Bibi has become offensive? My servants used to call me ,``Bibi``. Sameway, my brother or other family friends call me,``Bibi``.
When I attended Hashmi`s sermon, my frame of mind was different,b/c i was curious about her real agenda. I attended once and that is last. There is no question of respect or not. It is a question of agreement or disagreement with her views. I didn`t utter a single word of disrespect towards her teachings. rather, i was showing more respect by calling her, Bibi and Dr. Sahiba. And, also, i was not criticising on her attire.
There are so, many cults in the world with their followers or disciples, if, they affect our society in a negative way, then we blame them for brainwashing our society.
Oh,please gimme a break. For you ``Bibi`` is offensive?? Whaaaaaat?? Bibi is a word of respect for females, just like mama or madam or Miss or begum sahiba. Since, when Bibi has become offensive? My servants used to call me ,``Bibi``. Sameway, my brother or other family friends call me,``Bibi``.
When I attended Hashmi`s sermon, my frame of mind was different,b/c i was curious about her real agenda. I attended once and that is last. There is no question of respect or not. It is a question of agreement or disagreement with her views. I didn`t utter a single word of disrespect towards her teachings. rather, i was showing more respect by calling her, Bibi and Dr. Sahiba. And, also, i was not criticising on her attire.
There are so, many cults in the world with their followers or disciples, if, they affect our society in a negative way, then we blame them for brainwashing our society.
#49 Posted by ZahraJ on January 29, 2006 2:55:39 pm
Zeena,
Did you really tell her, ``Bibi .....``? That`s offensive. You must have hurt her sentiments. In my experience, I have sat with a few ulemae` karam and have had detailed discussions on some facets of life. I have not had any religious alim ever take the liberty to comment on my dress. If you want to attend any religious gatherings or sessions in future, I suggest that you attend sessions conducted by men vs. women. You may not like their views, but at least they are less curt than the women :) That`s just a personal experience. It`s your call.
So far, I have read two or three examples here where Ms. Hashmi was able to influence the naive women with her outlook toward life. She can say whatever she wants to. I blame the followers. Every leader has some following. If there is no following, then there ain`t any leadership. Ms. Hashmi must be using some principles of ``emotional intelligence`` to penetrate through the hearts and minds of her audience. Well, she sounds like a smart woman. I am sorry to say that people who have other expectations of her are not that smart. It`s not that she has a hidden agenda. Based on what I have read about her over here, I think her agenda is very clear. I think her extreme black and white messages are absurd and controversial, but you have the option to follow or not to follow. You have the option to attend her sermons or to ignore the invites. Why are you attending such sessions when you have no respect for the person conducting those sessions? That`s silly, in my view.
On a different note, thanks to ``Syriana`` and ``Munich`` for drawing more attention toward the Muslims of the world. If you have not watched the said movies, you must. If you have to pick one over the other, I will say you must watch ``Munich``.
Did you really tell her, ``Bibi .....``? That`s offensive. You must have hurt her sentiments. In my experience, I have sat with a few ulemae` karam and have had detailed discussions on some facets of life. I have not had any religious alim ever take the liberty to comment on my dress. If you want to attend any religious gatherings or sessions in future, I suggest that you attend sessions conducted by men vs. women. You may not like their views, but at least they are less curt than the women :) That`s just a personal experience. It`s your call.
So far, I have read two or three examples here where Ms. Hashmi was able to influence the naive women with her outlook toward life. She can say whatever she wants to. I blame the followers. Every leader has some following. If there is no following, then there ain`t any leadership. Ms. Hashmi must be using some principles of ``emotional intelligence`` to penetrate through the hearts and minds of her audience. Well, she sounds like a smart woman. I am sorry to say that people who have other expectations of her are not that smart. It`s not that she has a hidden agenda. Based on what I have read about her over here, I think her agenda is very clear. I think her extreme black and white messages are absurd and controversial, but you have the option to follow or not to follow. You have the option to attend her sermons or to ignore the invites. Why are you attending such sessions when you have no respect for the person conducting those sessions? That`s silly, in my view.
On a different note, thanks to ``Syriana`` and ``Munich`` for drawing more attention toward the Muslims of the world. If you have not watched the said movies, you must. If you have to pick one over the other, I will say you must watch ``Munich``.
#48 Posted by Zeena on January 29, 2006 12:11:30 pm
ZahraJ#46
Here is my point. I agree with your point of view as well, but, what i say is, i strongly feel Hashmi is going overboard in brainwashing Paki women. Yes, she is regressing their minds to the point that ultimately, it will effect their families as well. All Hashmi is teaching is ANTI AMERICAN propaganda. All she is teaching is anything and everything westernized is anti Islam.
Zahra
Look, I am a very broadminded person. If, i wear hijab or i wear shorts, i, will never teach or impose myself on others to do the samething. Just like Hashmi, I can start imposing my personal choices or teachings upon others. Like say, i call all women and start teaching them, wear shorts, do not wear hijab, do this or do that,b/c it is anti human. No, I will neer do that. I will respect Hashmi`s personal choice, but, what i call ridiculous is, when Hashmi starts imposing herself and trying her best to brainwash others against West.
Why can`t she be open? Why can`t she say, OK, this is your choice. But, what i have seen in her teachings is, she propagates absolute hatred towards westernization. She blames every evil for west. I found her a big bigot, spiritually , religiously abusive, all she is doing is palying with the actual spirit of religion and abusing religion for her own cult.
Let me tell you another interesting point. When i met her, i was wearing T-shirt and jeans. She also pointed out towards my attire. She told me, what you are wearing is, totally against Islam. This kind of dress is not permitted for muslim women. She felt threatened on my presence,b/c i was not wearing what she was wearing.
On , the other end, i did not utter a word on her dress, i did not say, what you are wearing is not permitted or is anti Islam or anti any ism.
Obviously, she was imposing herself on me and i was telling her again and again, Bibi, do what you wish to do as long as you don`t criticise my attire. Thanks
Here is my point. I agree with your point of view as well, but, what i say is, i strongly feel Hashmi is going overboard in brainwashing Paki women. Yes, she is regressing their minds to the point that ultimately, it will effect their families as well. All Hashmi is teaching is ANTI AMERICAN propaganda. All she is teaching is anything and everything westernized is anti Islam.
Zahra
Look, I am a very broadminded person. If, i wear hijab or i wear shorts, i, will never teach or impose myself on others to do the samething. Just like Hashmi, I can start imposing my personal choices or teachings upon others. Like say, i call all women and start teaching them, wear shorts, do not wear hijab, do this or do that,b/c it is anti human. No, I will neer do that. I will respect Hashmi`s personal choice, but, what i call ridiculous is, when Hashmi starts imposing herself and trying her best to brainwash others against West.
Why can`t she be open? Why can`t she say, OK, this is your choice. But, what i have seen in her teachings is, she propagates absolute hatred towards westernization. She blames every evil for west. I found her a big bigot, spiritually , religiously abusive, all she is doing is palying with the actual spirit of religion and abusing religion for her own cult.
Let me tell you another interesting point. When i met her, i was wearing T-shirt and jeans. She also pointed out towards my attire. She told me, what you are wearing is, totally against Islam. This kind of dress is not permitted for muslim women. She felt threatened on my presence,b/c i was not wearing what she was wearing.
On , the other end, i did not utter a word on her dress, i did not say, what you are wearing is not permitted or is anti Islam or anti any ism.
Obviously, she was imposing herself on me and i was telling her again and again, Bibi, do what you wish to do as long as you don`t criticise my attire. Thanks
#47 Posted by rf786 on January 29, 2006 5:22:33 am
Like many other Pakistani women, my wife was also given Dr Hashmi`s cassettes which she wud listen while driving. Listening to one of these cassttes, Dr Hashmi spoke about devil worship in the US and how virgin girls were sacrificed. Having made thius absurd statement, she also attached her cautionary statement that this was told to her by one of her disciples who she has all confidence. After hearing this absolutely outrageous statement, I just cud`nt take it anymore and my wife was quite embarrassed for even hearing this stupid women.
Pseudo-Islamic intellectuals who propagate a particlar viewpoint w/o taking into consideration the veracity of their statements are bound to be exposed, yet will carry great promise for those who wish to find faults with others without any introspection. Farhat Hashmi and her like feed upon the emotional, political and social anxieites of the muslim world. Muslims are looking for enemies to rationalize their state of affairs and blame others for their loss of prestige. Lo and behold, Farhat Hashmi walks in, blaming western ideals for all evils and showing them the road to paradise.
Being professional or not doesnt make much difference if there is not a fair representation of ideas or a fair playing field where women are not oppressed morally, socially or financially which is the case in most of the miuslim states dominated by patriachel socieities. Such traits are carried on to their new homes in western countries and there again cultural fissures are promoting importance of Farhat Hashmi who provides comfort and solace to the parents who migrated with their age old traditions.
Pseudo-Islamic intellectuals who propagate a particlar viewpoint w/o taking into consideration the veracity of their statements are bound to be exposed, yet will carry great promise for those who wish to find faults with others without any introspection. Farhat Hashmi and her like feed upon the emotional, political and social anxieites of the muslim world. Muslims are looking for enemies to rationalize their state of affairs and blame others for their loss of prestige. Lo and behold, Farhat Hashmi walks in, blaming western ideals for all evils and showing them the road to paradise.
Being professional or not doesnt make much difference if there is not a fair representation of ideas or a fair playing field where women are not oppressed morally, socially or financially which is the case in most of the miuslim states dominated by patriachel socieities. Such traits are carried on to their new homes in western countries and there again cultural fissures are promoting importance of Farhat Hashmi who provides comfort and solace to the parents who migrated with their age old traditions.
#46 Posted by ZahraJ on January 28, 2006 9:30:16 pm
Re: # 45
Zeena,
Why is it ridiculous? I still do not think that Farhat`s sermons are causing women to regress. These women are making their own decisions. Lay the blame on them as well. These women have equal responsibility in making or breaking their lives. Farhat ain`t a prophet to start changing people`s lives. One of my aunts loves her. Interestingly, the aunt who loves her has been a professor at a university in Pakistan. Now she has retired and is living in the west. She raves about her. The other aunt who has lived in this country for over 3-4 decades detests her. I just listen to both of them.
I am not willing to believe that professional women who enjoy their careers and have done well otherwise will leave everything aside after hearing Ms. Hashmi or anyone else. There has to be a reason for the move. People change. People evolve. They have to be happy in what they are doing. If this woman is happy and content with her life then who are you or I to criticize them. On the same hand, they have no right to criticize those who do not follow their line of thought. Why can`t we consider this as a change as well? As I told you that the chance that I will ever attend a such session is quite slim since I have a bad tendency of asking questions. And when I do not hear an appealing reason then I lose interest.
I respect your concern for fellow women. I think I would invest that concern elsewhere unless you have too much free energy to give to such people. Some of our women have come a long way, whereas others are living in olden days. My approach is to only associate with those who I can. The rest I do not care much for. I also do not believe in giving out positive energy to people who are not worth my time. That`s my childhood mantra.
I remembered almost a decade ago when I moved from midwest to northeast, I located the local mosque that was more of a social center. The mosque`s attendant, a very respectable lady, was interested in introducing me to a few people of my age group. I told her that I will only like to meet professional women as I cannot associate with others. To this day, I have stayed in contact with those muslim professionals. In my experience, people do respect your wishes if you are reasonable and know how to communicate your true self (what you want). There are some unreasonable creatures as well. I do not want to stereo-type but I think the kind of issues you are raising from your mosque experience, they are mainly to do with petty women. I remembered entering a mosque in MI in my business suit with knee length skirt to open the fast and a Hyderabadi lady(with a despicable accent. I cannot stand them.) jumped at me to critique my garb. I was new to that mosque(in my early 20s. Had never met such kind.), but the mosque attendant always came to me that I should visit and introduce myself to the converts. So I cared less for all these uncouth and illiterate women with petty thinking. And showed up whenever I felt like. Those were early days past my post-graduation. It`s been quite a long time since I have entered a mosque. I guess one of these days, I may land in one of the NY Mosques during the lunch hour to explore the climate :)
Zeena,
Why is it ridiculous? I still do not think that Farhat`s sermons are causing women to regress. These women are making their own decisions. Lay the blame on them as well. These women have equal responsibility in making or breaking their lives. Farhat ain`t a prophet to start changing people`s lives. One of my aunts loves her. Interestingly, the aunt who loves her has been a professor at a university in Pakistan. Now she has retired and is living in the west. She raves about her. The other aunt who has lived in this country for over 3-4 decades detests her. I just listen to both of them.
I am not willing to believe that professional women who enjoy their careers and have done well otherwise will leave everything aside after hearing Ms. Hashmi or anyone else. There has to be a reason for the move. People change. People evolve. They have to be happy in what they are doing. If this woman is happy and content with her life then who are you or I to criticize them. On the same hand, they have no right to criticize those who do not follow their line of thought. Why can`t we consider this as a change as well? As I told you that the chance that I will ever attend a such session is quite slim since I have a bad tendency of asking questions. And when I do not hear an appealing reason then I lose interest.
I respect your concern for fellow women. I think I would invest that concern elsewhere unless you have too much free energy to give to such people. Some of our women have come a long way, whereas others are living in olden days. My approach is to only associate with those who I can. The rest I do not care much for. I also do not believe in giving out positive energy to people who are not worth my time. That`s my childhood mantra.
I remembered almost a decade ago when I moved from midwest to northeast, I located the local mosque that was more of a social center. The mosque`s attendant, a very respectable lady, was interested in introducing me to a few people of my age group. I told her that I will only like to meet professional women as I cannot associate with others. To this day, I have stayed in contact with those muslim professionals. In my experience, people do respect your wishes if you are reasonable and know how to communicate your true self (what you want). There are some unreasonable creatures as well. I do not want to stereo-type but I think the kind of issues you are raising from your mosque experience, they are mainly to do with petty women. I remembered entering a mosque in MI in my business suit with knee length skirt to open the fast and a Hyderabadi lady(with a despicable accent. I cannot stand them.) jumped at me to critique my garb. I was new to that mosque(in my early 20s. Had never met such kind.), but the mosque attendant always came to me that I should visit and introduce myself to the converts. So I cared less for all these uncouth and illiterate women with petty thinking. And showed up whenever I felt like. Those were early days past my post-graduation. It`s been quite a long time since I have entered a mosque. I guess one of these days, I may land in one of the NY Mosques during the lunch hour to explore the climate :)
#45 Posted by Zeena on January 28, 2006 6:36:17 pm
#44 teshah
Exactly, that is a very proto example of how Hashmi and her ilks are imposing their ways on us and how they are creating problems in so, many households?
Let me tell you a similar story about one of my best friend. She was normal lady with three kids, with out wearing hijab . I went to her house this December in Pakistan, I was surprised to see, she started wearing hijab, and not only that she didn`t meet my husband this time,b/c he was (na mehram) for her, and also she stopped seeing her brothers in law(her sister`s husband and her husband`s brothers). As for as i know, they can`t be na-mehram for her,b/c I believe, she can`t marry them. And, I told her that, but, she was not ready to accpt that. She left her job, b/c of same Hashmi`s sermons and used to attend Hashmi`s sermons two to four hours almost daily either through CDs or through Tapes. Isn`t it ridiculous?
Exactly, that is a very proto example of how Hashmi and her ilks are imposing their ways on us and how they are creating problems in so, many households?
Let me tell you a similar story about one of my best friend. She was normal lady with three kids, with out wearing hijab . I went to her house this December in Pakistan, I was surprised to see, she started wearing hijab, and not only that she didn`t meet my husband this time,b/c he was (na mehram) for her, and also she stopped seeing her brothers in law(her sister`s husband and her husband`s brothers). As for as i know, they can`t be na-mehram for her,b/c I believe, she can`t marry them. And, I told her that, but, she was not ready to accpt that. She left her job, b/c of same Hashmi`s sermons and used to attend Hashmi`s sermons two to four hours almost daily either through CDs or through Tapes. Isn`t it ridiculous?
#44 Posted by teshah on January 28, 2006 6:17:20 pm
How this fundo chic virus is affecting family life I came to know when I visited the house of an old colleague and a friend of mine some time ago. I used to visit his home often and was used to be let in straightaway without any fuss. One day when I went there I found a strange behaviour. I found the entrance door locked. My friend came at the door and requested me to wait a bit. He went in and came back soon to let me in. He apologised for making me wait at the enterance and let me know the problem. He started, ``You know one of my daughters who has been working as an engineer at a project of national importance. She has suddenly become a fundo chic, left her job and started observing strict hijab. As you were a `na-mehram` I had to annouce your arrival to keep her out of the way as she was just sitting in our drawing room.`` He took a deep breath and continued, `` My friend, it is a minor problem for us but she has created serious problems for her husband and her in-laws. Her husband came to see me and complained about the problems her hijab has created in their house. He had said that their`s being a joint family the insistence of his wife on observing hijab even from his brothers as `na-mehrams` has created serious problem in their family. I told him that this was your own doing as did you forget that you had wanted a wife with the religious bent of mind. So bughkto now.``
#43 Posted by AhmadBilal on January 28, 2006 6:09:03 pm
Interesting read.
I was in Pakistan recently, and saw Molana JJ on TV. He was trying to convince people that the brain was given to us to understand that we should not use it.
I was in Pakistan recently, and saw Molana JJ on TV. He was trying to convince people that the brain was given to us to understand that we should not use it.
#42 Posted by Zeena on January 28, 2006 5:22:24 pm
#40 ZahraJ
In no way I am wasting my time in attending Hashmi`s sermons. I just did once, at the end I didn`t try to impose myself on her, yes, indeed I asked her few questions and I answered few of her questions on my own terms.
Yes, I believe she was imposing herself on others. When she start criticising our ways of living and starts downplaying us , then she is invading our lives. If, she wears hijab or does anything she likes, we never object. Then why will she do that to us? That is imposing herself on us. And, mind it, this is not only her problem, this is problem with all mullahs.
I used to go to a mosque in Richmond(Virginia). I faced same problem created by Mullahs and their female counterparts. Let me tell you, I used to go there daily for one hour, just to pray in one corner, that was my way of having time for my own self. They started criticising me by pointing out , ``your all head needs to be covered, you cover your head half way, you are not doing sajda in a right way, your ankles should be more towards God knows what, and blah, blah, blah and some people started telling me, you should better wear hijab....... and on and on and on``. At the end, I decided to quit going to mosque.
In no way I am wasting my time in attending Hashmi`s sermons. I just did once, at the end I didn`t try to impose myself on her, yes, indeed I asked her few questions and I answered few of her questions on my own terms.
Yes, I believe she was imposing herself on others. When she start criticising our ways of living and starts downplaying us , then she is invading our lives. If, she wears hijab or does anything she likes, we never object. Then why will she do that to us? That is imposing herself on us. And, mind it, this is not only her problem, this is problem with all mullahs.
I used to go to a mosque in Richmond(Virginia). I faced same problem created by Mullahs and their female counterparts. Let me tell you, I used to go there daily for one hour, just to pray in one corner, that was my way of having time for my own self. They started criticising me by pointing out , ``your all head needs to be covered, you cover your head half way, you are not doing sajda in a right way, your ankles should be more towards God knows what, and blah, blah, blah and some people started telling me, you should better wear hijab....... and on and on and on``. At the end, I decided to quit going to mosque.
#41 Posted by arjun_m on January 28, 2006 1:10:40 pm
manto: what`s up with paki textbooks? WWJD: What would Jinnah do?
Muslim, Christian leaders brainstorm about intolerance
Saldanha said Pakistan has become a Fascist state.``Religion and state are one and that is creating waves of intolerance. Blasphemy and Hudood laws are example.``In the education sector the syllabus contains many things which spread hatred against Christians and Hindus. How can you expect these kids to be tolerant when they grow up? Christian and Hindu communities are not given time on TV, which is sad as this step could have helped to create better understanding among different communities,`` he said.
Muslim, Christian leaders brainstorm about intolerance
Saldanha said Pakistan has become a Fascist state.``Religion and state are one and that is creating waves of intolerance. Blasphemy and Hudood laws are example.``In the education sector the syllabus contains many things which spread hatred against Christians and Hindus. How can you expect these kids to be tolerant when they grow up? Christian and Hindu communities are not given time on TV, which is sad as this step could have helped to create better understanding among different communities,`` he said.
#40 Posted by ZahraJ on January 28, 2006 12:47:55 pm
Re: # 38
You are wasting your time. I suggest you associate with only like-minded (no matter how nonsensical this term may sound) people and forget about Farhat Hashmi and ilks. Just like Farhat ain`t gonna ask you to come and attend her sermon. Similarly, you can take the same approach. Otherwise, it`s an invasion.
I disagree that Ms. Hashmi is imposing herself on other women. This is outrightly wrong. Women(with options - not the financial ones) have the option to attend her semons or to ignore her. Once upon a time, I had attended a technology event where at the end, Mr. Hamza Yousuf was invited. His views were completely opposite to mine. I never tried to convince him. I did ask him a few questions. The response did not make much sense. I guess he became daa`nwaa doal after hearing some loaded questions by a woman :) Since then I have never attended or read anything by him. End of discussion. As a rule, I have stayed away from any religious representatives.
You are wasting your time. I suggest you associate with only like-minded (no matter how nonsensical this term may sound) people and forget about Farhat Hashmi and ilks. Just like Farhat ain`t gonna ask you to come and attend her sermon. Similarly, you can take the same approach. Otherwise, it`s an invasion.
I disagree that Ms. Hashmi is imposing herself on other women. This is outrightly wrong. Women(with options - not the financial ones) have the option to attend her semons or to ignore her. Once upon a time, I had attended a technology event where at the end, Mr. Hamza Yousuf was invited. His views were completely opposite to mine. I never tried to convince him. I did ask him a few questions. The response did not make much sense. I guess he became daa`nwaa doal after hearing some loaded questions by a woman :) Since then I have never attended or read anything by him. End of discussion. As a rule, I have stayed away from any religious representatives.
#39 Posted by arjun_m on January 28, 2006 12:32:54 pm
#34 by Mantolives on January 28, 2006 3:14am PT
Poor boy- get your hopes up.
You mean like you got your hopes up when you posted this
Poor boy- get your hopes up.
You mean like you got your hopes up when you posted this
#38 Posted by Zeena on January 28, 2006 11:04:24 am
#37 ZahraJ
Yes, we did say good bye to each other with smiles and in one piece. Yes, you`re right , majority of Paki women are not that strong and they need some group to be related to, to get that strength. But, absolutely not Hashmi`s camp, her camp is serving them nothing, but, to be more subservient to their male counterparts.
The main problem in Paki society is wrong patriacrhal chains, which need to be loosened up.These are the chains, which are causing oppression of women folks. Hashmi is strengthening these chanis further. So, here lies my answer.
As for as asking women to participate in some social well fair activities for down troden unfortunate elements of a society is not equivalent to imposing our palns on them. Asking is different, than imposing. What Hashmi is doing is, imposing her own cultural plans on them.
Ok, I agree, they are unable to get out and do some social work for the poor elements. But, hey, they can do samething , while sitting in their forewalls and instead of wasting their time in those useless sermons in Hashmi`s club, they can have their own clubs and they can invite less fortunate ones to join them hand in hand for some practical causes.
#37
ZahraJ
This is extremely sad news. You see, this is what their kind of Islam is! They take no seconds to butcher anyone, who is opposite to their ideology. This is barbarism. This is absolutely nOT Islam.
Yes, we did say good bye to each other with smiles and in one piece. Yes, you`re right , majority of Paki women are not that strong and they need some group to be related to, to get that strength. But, absolutely not Hashmi`s camp, her camp is serving them nothing, but, to be more subservient to their male counterparts.
The main problem in Paki society is wrong patriacrhal chains, which need to be loosened up.These are the chains, which are causing oppression of women folks. Hashmi is strengthening these chanis further. So, here lies my answer.
As for as asking women to participate in some social well fair activities for down troden unfortunate elements of a society is not equivalent to imposing our palns on them. Asking is different, than imposing. What Hashmi is doing is, imposing her own cultural plans on them.
Ok, I agree, they are unable to get out and do some social work for the poor elements. But, hey, they can do samething , while sitting in their forewalls and instead of wasting their time in those useless sermons in Hashmi`s club, they can have their own clubs and they can invite less fortunate ones to join them hand in hand for some practical causes.
#37
ZahraJ
This is extremely sad news. You see, this is what their kind of Islam is! They take no seconds to butcher anyone, who is opposite to their ideology. This is barbarism. This is absolutely nOT Islam.
#37 Posted by ZahraJ on January 28, 2006 10:42:03 am
What do you call this?
WORLD AFFAIRS
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2302/stories/20060210000605800.htm
Veil and a warning
RAFIA ZAKARIA
The mysterious death of Samira Munir, a Norwegian politician, in Oslo comes as a chilling deterrent to Muslim women who speak out about the violence against women in their communities in the West.
P.V. SIVAKUMAR
The assimilation sentiment manifests itself in the expatriate Muslim community by the oppressive pressure placed on those that can be most easily controlled, girls and women.
THE battle over headscarves in Europe appears to have claimed its first human casualty. Samira Munir, a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin and the first Muslim woman to support a ban on headscarves in Norwegian schools, died mysteriously after falling on train tracks in suburban Oslo. On November 14, 2005, a Norwegian human rights group, Human Rights Service, reported the news of her death, yet another catastrophe in the blood-smeared landscape of European Islam.
Samira Munir`s death is a chilling deterrent to Muslim women who choose to speak out about the violence in their communities and aggressively seek reform instead of conforming to the religiously ``acceptable`` forms of rights discourse that are tolerated by Muslim communities in the West. Samira Munir was unapologetic about her position and unwilling to buy into the rhetoric of the liberated hijab (headscarf) increasingly bandied about by many Muslims.
For this outspokenness, this political divergence from the much-lauded camp of liberated Muslim women that celebrates the hijab as a voluntary act of faith, Samira Munir was condemned to die under mysterious circumstances. The terror of her last moments is amplified by the ominous statements that she made prior to her death. She received threatening phone calls on a daily basis and was being harassed by Muslim men who accosted her on the streets and threatened to kill her.
The intimidation did not stop there: in interviews to Norwegian newspapers Samira Munir spoke about feeling pressured by the Pakistani Ambassador to Oslo, Shahbaz Shahbaz, who twice summoned her to the Pakistan Embassy. The embassy visits were purportedly arranged to ``discuss her political views``. Samira Munir also said that the Ambassador had repeatedly mentioned the fact that ``she still had her family in Pakistan``. The message implicit in the Ambassador`s reminder of this vulnerability has apparently become clear now.
Her voice was too loud and her commitment to women`s rights simply too threatening to be tolerated, and she was obliterated in the isolation of a suburban Oslo train station. Here was a woman who had lived in Norway for 20 years, a Norwegian citizen and a member of the Oslo City Council. Only Norwegian newspapers reported her death. The Pakistan Ambassador, so concerned about her political views in life, did not make any public statement about her death. The Pakistani community, otherwise so vocal in all matters affecting Pakistani-Norwegians, maintained a macabre silence.
Rumours are afloat that her death may have been a case of suicide, but despite the existence of surveillance cameras in the train station no definitive account of the cause of her death is available. Unwilling to grapple with the complex political issues surrounding her death, most people seem to welcome the assumption that she simply took her own life.
The death of Samira Munir lies at the epicentre of a gaping tension between the religiously conservative Pakistani-Norwegian community opposed to any restraints on cultural practices and the Norwegian state accustomed to treating all things cultural as innately sacred and unworthy of state intervention. In the middle of this chasm lie the women whose interests Samira Munir was attempting to represent, the young Pakistani-Norwegian girls alienated from their parents` culture and prevented from identifying with Norwegian culture. In supporting a ban on the hijab in Norway`s public schools, Samira Munir sought to establish for these girls the choice that many Muslim women who support the hijab tout as their reasons for adopting it. In securing for them a state-sponsored space that would allow them to develop as women unencumbered with cultural and parentally imposed restraints, Samira Munir sought to procure for them the ability to make a choice based on their own beliefs rather than those of their parents.
It is in welcoming state intervention in developing such a space that she was labelled as an enemy of Islam and a threat to the image of solidarity that Norwegian Muslims sought to project to the Norwegian majority.
In the wake of the controversy over headscarves in France, scores of Muslim women have spoken out in defence of the hijab. Indeed, hundreds of Norwegian Muslim women demonstrated in Oslo against implementing the ban. Their remonstrations on behalf of the hijab focus predominantly on two crucial aspects; first the notion that the hijab is a required tenet of Muslim religious practice and second that they chose to wear the hijab of their own volition.
However, the two prongs of the argument represent a problematic logic. Even if the divergence of views on the hijab as a requirement of faith is ignored, can such a requirement be constructed simultaneously as an essential obligation of a practising Muslim and an act of free will? The philosophical underpinnings of this complex inquiry provide only one conclusion, the fact that school-age girls stand vulnerable to becoming pawns in the hands of parents trying desperately to cling to the traditional practices of their past and retain a cultural identity free of Western influence.
Even a cursory analysis of the Norwegian Muslim community presents significant evidence of pervasive anti-integration sentiments typical of European Muslim communities.
The unwelcome communal burden of post-9/11 scrutiny in the guise of anti-terrorism measures has promoted a victimised and beleaguered self-image, deeply suspicious of the Norwegian culture that surrounds it. Religious conservatives within the community frown on assimilation and integration and often paint it as an abandonment of Islam and as the adoption of the wayward ways of the West. In the summer of 2005, an Urdu publication entitled Iblis ki Aulad (Children of Satan) was released within the community by the All Pakistan Muslim Association. The author of the book, allegedly a Pakistani mullah, not only attacks Norwegian ethics and morality but describes all Norwegian children as illegitimate and conceived ``here and there``.
Expectedly, the anti-assimilation sentiment manifests itself in the community by the oppressive pressure placed on those that can be most easily controlled, girls and women. The hijab thus becomes an effective instrument of this control, a convenient means of extending the control exerted by fathers, husbands and brothers in the private sphere into the public sphere of school life. The tension between those that consider the hijab a requirement of faith and those that do not is also increasingly obvious within the Muslim community. Norwegian school officials such as Anne Bech Skogen, the principal of a girls` school in Oslo, report not only an increase in headscarves in girls schools but also fights among Muslim girls in which girls not wearing the hijab are called prostitutes. The tussles in the schoolyard represent an extension of the battles against integration to an arena that should be devoted solely to educational pursuits.
Also caught in this tumultuous current are hundreds of Norwegian-Pakistani girls fleeing forced marriages who have been contacting relief centres pleading for state protection against their families. Like their counterparts in other West European countries, these girls fear for their lives for flouting tradition. According to newspaper reports, the girls, most of them under 18, are often brought to the centres by their teachers in whom they confide. Despite being given new legal identities, new addresses and portable alarms, many report feeling threatened by their parents.
There is good reason for their fear. Months before the mysterious death of Samira Munir, a 20-year-old Pakistani girl named Rahila Iqbal was killed during a trip to Pakistan. In a gruesome set of events, Rahila was lured to Pakistan under the guise of a conciliatory family vacation. There, in rural Punjab, the unwitting Rahila was surreptitiously drugged, then raped and drowned in a staged car accident at the behest of her own family. The murderers included Rahila`s mother, who conspired against her to erase the shame brought upon the family by Rahila`s love marriage. The family members have since been indicted in Norwegian courts and are facing criminal trial.
Rahila`s killing was a crime of honour, fuelled by a desire to erase the existence of a daughter who had chosen to reiterate her own will against that of her family. Against the backdrop of such unabashed commodification of women as emblems of family honour, the issue of hijab becomes problematic and the question of state intervention in ``cultural matters`` even more imperative. Should Western liberal states reconsider their non-intervention policies towards Muslim minorities at the risk of being accused of adopting imperialist and paternalistic attitudes towards them or should the potential for the abuse of the rights of Muslim women like Rahila endorse a proactive attitude towards integration that justifies a ban on headscarves in public schools?
Some avenues to investigating these questions can be found in the articulations of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of the headscarf ban in Turkish educational institutions. In 2005, a court decided that Istanbul University`s refusal to allow a female student, Leyla Hasin, to wear an Islamic headscarf during an examination was not a violation of her human rights. The court quoted a decision from the Supreme Administrative Court in Turkey saying: ``Beyond being a mere innocent practice, wearing the headscarf is in the process of becoming the symbol of a vision that is contrary to the freedoms of women.`` Within hours of the release of the Hasin decision, Muslim groups in Europe issued statements condemning the Islamophobia of the European court. Among them was the extremist Muslim group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which issued a statement that the verdict ``had served to convince Muslim women further that only the unification of Turkey and all Muslim countries under an Islamic Caliphate state would guarantee the protection of the rights and honour of women in the Muslim world``. Other European Muslim publications condemned the ban, accusing the court of ``implementing tyranny`` and ``being unable to deliver justice``.
Such was the vitriol against which Samira Munir raised her voice. She was not alone in being condemned for speaking out against practices she saw as holding women back. Many women championing other causes related to Muslim women have been singled out for intimidation and even assassination. In Iraq, Zeena Al Qushtaini, the owner of Baghdad`s best known pharmacy, was killed for ``working with women`s activists and wearing Western clothes``. Her death followed those of Aquila Al Hashimia, Nisreen Mustafa Al-Burawati and Amal al-Ma`amalachi, all murdered for supporting women`s rights. Yanar Mohammad, the head of the Organisation of Women`s Freedom in Iraq who opposed the replacement of the existing Personal Status Code by Sharia law, has been threatened by the Army of Sahaba (Jaysh Al-Sahaba).
In Afghanistan, five women have been killed in the past year for working for aid organisations that support women`s issues. In Pakistan, Zubeida Begum, a worker for the women`s rights group Aurat Foundation and an active campaigner for women`s right to participate in local elections, was murdered by an unknown person as she slept in her house. In a recent interview, women`s rights activist Amna Buttar of the Asian American Network Against Abuse (AANAA) reported being told by a top Pakistani government official that ``it is extremely easy for us to get someone knocked off even on the streets of New York``, clearly implying that living in the United States was no guarantee for her safety if she continued to speak out against rape and sexual abuse of Pakistani women.
On January 8, a delegation led by Asma Jehangir, the renowned women`s rights activist in Pakistan, was fired on by unknown gunmen, under the watchful eyes of Pakistani paramilitary troops who refused to come to the aid of the activists.
These threats and tragic deaths are indelible marks on the conscience of Muslims everywhere. When Muslim women in the West raise their voices in support of the hijab and proclaim their right to wear it, they must also acknowledge the reality of the oppression faced by those Muslim women who refuse to wear it. The fact that many Muslim women choose to wear the hijab as an independent act of faith does not erase the subjugation perpetrated on other women whose suffering is just as real if not as vocal.
The real causes for Samira Munir`s death remain shrouded in mystery, but the fact that she was singled out for threats and intimidation for acknowledging both of these realities is exceedingly and unarguably clear. It is only in unequivocally endorsing the freedom to oppose the hijab that European Muslims can claim the right to support it.
Rafia Zakaria is a lawyer and member of Asian-American Network Against Abuse of Women.
WORLD AFFAIRS
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2302/stories/20060210000605800.htm
Veil and a warning
RAFIA ZAKARIA
The mysterious death of Samira Munir, a Norwegian politician, in Oslo comes as a chilling deterrent to Muslim women who speak out about the violence against women in their communities in the West.
P.V. SIVAKUMAR
The assimilation sentiment manifests itself in the expatriate Muslim community by the oppressive pressure placed on those that can be most easily controlled, girls and women.
THE battle over headscarves in Europe appears to have claimed its first human casualty. Samira Munir, a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin and the first Muslim woman to support a ban on headscarves in Norwegian schools, died mysteriously after falling on train tracks in suburban Oslo. On November 14, 2005, a Norwegian human rights group, Human Rights Service, reported the news of her death, yet another catastrophe in the blood-smeared landscape of European Islam.
Samira Munir`s death is a chilling deterrent to Muslim women who choose to speak out about the violence in their communities and aggressively seek reform instead of conforming to the religiously ``acceptable`` forms of rights discourse that are tolerated by Muslim communities in the West. Samira Munir was unapologetic about her position and unwilling to buy into the rhetoric of the liberated hijab (headscarf) increasingly bandied about by many Muslims.
For this outspokenness, this political divergence from the much-lauded camp of liberated Muslim women that celebrates the hijab as a voluntary act of faith, Samira Munir was condemned to die under mysterious circumstances. The terror of her last moments is amplified by the ominous statements that she made prior to her death. She received threatening phone calls on a daily basis and was being harassed by Muslim men who accosted her on the streets and threatened to kill her.
The intimidation did not stop there: in interviews to Norwegian newspapers Samira Munir spoke about feeling pressured by the Pakistani Ambassador to Oslo, Shahbaz Shahbaz, who twice summoned her to the Pakistan Embassy. The embassy visits were purportedly arranged to ``discuss her political views``. Samira Munir also said that the Ambassador had repeatedly mentioned the fact that ``she still had her family in Pakistan``. The message implicit in the Ambassador`s reminder of this vulnerability has apparently become clear now.
Her voice was too loud and her commitment to women`s rights simply too threatening to be tolerated, and she was obliterated in the isolation of a suburban Oslo train station. Here was a woman who had lived in Norway for 20 years, a Norwegian citizen and a member of the Oslo City Council. Only Norwegian newspapers reported her death. The Pakistan Ambassador, so concerned about her political views in life, did not make any public statement about her death. The Pakistani community, otherwise so vocal in all matters affecting Pakistani-Norwegians, maintained a macabre silence.
Rumours are afloat that her death may have been a case of suicide, but despite the existence of surveillance cameras in the train station no definitive account of the cause of her death is available. Unwilling to grapple with the complex political issues surrounding her death, most people seem to welcome the assumption that she simply took her own life.
The death of Samira Munir lies at the epicentre of a gaping tension between the religiously conservative Pakistani-Norwegian community opposed to any restraints on cultural practices and the Norwegian state accustomed to treating all things cultural as innately sacred and unworthy of state intervention. In the middle of this chasm lie the women whose interests Samira Munir was attempting to represent, the young Pakistani-Norwegian girls alienated from their parents` culture and prevented from identifying with Norwegian culture. In supporting a ban on the hijab in Norway`s public schools, Samira Munir sought to establish for these girls the choice that many Muslim women who support the hijab tout as their reasons for adopting it. In securing for them a state-sponsored space that would allow them to develop as women unencumbered with cultural and parentally imposed restraints, Samira Munir sought to procure for them the ability to make a choice based on their own beliefs rather than those of their parents.
It is in welcoming state intervention in developing such a space that she was labelled as an enemy of Islam and a threat to the image of solidarity that Norwegian Muslims sought to project to the Norwegian majority.
In the wake of the controversy over headscarves in France, scores of Muslim women have spoken out in defence of the hijab. Indeed, hundreds of Norwegian Muslim women demonstrated in Oslo against implementing the ban. Their remonstrations on behalf of the hijab focus predominantly on two crucial aspects; first the notion that the hijab is a required tenet of Muslim religious practice and second that they chose to wear the hijab of their own volition.
However, the two prongs of the argument represent a problematic logic. Even if the divergence of views on the hijab as a requirement of faith is ignored, can such a requirement be constructed simultaneously as an essential obligation of a practising Muslim and an act of free will? The philosophical underpinnings of this complex inquiry provide only one conclusion, the fact that school-age girls stand vulnerable to becoming pawns in the hands of parents trying desperately to cling to the traditional practices of their past and retain a cultural identity free of Western influence.
Even a cursory analysis of the Norwegian Muslim community presents significant evidence of pervasive anti-integration sentiments typical of European Muslim communities.
The unwelcome communal burden of post-9/11 scrutiny in the guise of anti-terrorism measures has promoted a victimised and beleaguered self-image, deeply suspicious of the Norwegian culture that surrounds it. Religious conservatives within the community frown on assimilation and integration and often paint it as an abandonment of Islam and as the adoption of the wayward ways of the West. In the summer of 2005, an Urdu publication entitled Iblis ki Aulad (Children of Satan) was released within the community by the All Pakistan Muslim Association. The author of the book, allegedly a Pakistani mullah, not only attacks Norwegian ethics and morality but describes all Norwegian children as illegitimate and conceived ``here and there``.
Expectedly, the anti-assimilation sentiment manifests itself in the community by the oppressive pressure placed on those that can be most easily controlled, girls and women. The hijab thus becomes an effective instrument of this control, a convenient means of extending the control exerted by fathers, husbands and brothers in the private sphere into the public sphere of school life. The tension between those that consider the hijab a requirement of faith and those that do not is also increasingly obvious within the Muslim community. Norwegian school officials such as Anne Bech Skogen, the principal of a girls` school in Oslo, report not only an increase in headscarves in girls schools but also fights among Muslim girls in which girls not wearing the hijab are called prostitutes. The tussles in the schoolyard represent an extension of the battles against integration to an arena that should be devoted solely to educational pursuits.
Also caught in this tumultuous current are hundreds of Norwegian-Pakistani girls fleeing forced marriages who have been contacting relief centres pleading for state protection against their families. Like their counterparts in other West European countries, these girls fear for their lives for flouting tradition. According to newspaper reports, the girls, most of them under 18, are often brought to the centres by their teachers in whom they confide. Despite being given new legal identities, new addresses and portable alarms, many report feeling threatened by their parents.
There is good reason for their fear. Months before the mysterious death of Samira Munir, a 20-year-old Pakistani girl named Rahila Iqbal was killed during a trip to Pakistan. In a gruesome set of events, Rahila was lured to Pakistan under the guise of a conciliatory family vacation. There, in rural Punjab, the unwitting Rahila was surreptitiously drugged, then raped and drowned in a staged car accident at the behest of her own family. The murderers included Rahila`s mother, who conspired against her to erase the shame brought upon the family by Rahila`s love marriage. The family members have since been indicted in Norwegian courts and are facing criminal trial.
Rahila`s killing was a crime of honour, fuelled by a desire to erase the existence of a daughter who had chosen to reiterate her own will against that of her family. Against the backdrop of such unabashed commodification of women as emblems of family honour, the issue of hijab becomes problematic and the question of state intervention in ``cultural matters`` even more imperative. Should Western liberal states reconsider their non-intervention policies towards Muslim minorities at the risk of being accused of adopting imperialist and paternalistic attitudes towards them or should the potential for the abuse of the rights of Muslim women like Rahila endorse a proactive attitude towards integration that justifies a ban on headscarves in public schools?
Some avenues to investigating these questions can be found in the articulations of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of the headscarf ban in Turkish educational institutions. In 2005, a court decided that Istanbul University`s refusal to allow a female student, Leyla Hasin, to wear an Islamic headscarf during an examination was not a violation of her human rights. The court quoted a decision from the Supreme Administrative Court in Turkey saying: ``Beyond being a mere innocent practice, wearing the headscarf is in the process of becoming the symbol of a vision that is contrary to the freedoms of women.`` Within hours of the release of the Hasin decision, Muslim groups in Europe issued statements condemning the Islamophobia of the European court. Among them was the extremist Muslim group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which issued a statement that the verdict ``had served to convince Muslim women further that only the unification of Turkey and all Muslim countries under an Islamic Caliphate state would guarantee the protection of the rights and honour of women in the Muslim world``. Other European Muslim publications condemned the ban, accusing the court of ``implementing tyranny`` and ``being unable to deliver justice``.
Such was the vitriol against which Samira Munir raised her voice. She was not alone in being condemned for speaking out against practices she saw as holding women back. Many women championing other causes related to Muslim women have been singled out for intimidation and even assassination. In Iraq, Zeena Al Qushtaini, the owner of Baghdad`s best known pharmacy, was killed for ``working with women`s activists and wearing Western clothes``. Her death followed those of Aquila Al Hashimia, Nisreen Mustafa Al-Burawati and Amal al-Ma`amalachi, all murdered for supporting women`s rights. Yanar Mohammad, the head of the Organisation of Women`s Freedom in Iraq who opposed the replacement of the existing Personal Status Code by Sharia law, has been threatened by the Army of Sahaba (Jaysh Al-Sahaba).
In Afghanistan, five women have been killed in the past year for working for aid organisations that support women`s issues. In Pakistan, Zubeida Begum, a worker for the women`s rights group Aurat Foundation and an active campaigner for women`s right to participate in local elections, was murdered by an unknown person as she slept in her house. In a recent interview, women`s rights activist Amna Buttar of the Asian American Network Against Abuse (AANAA) reported being told by a top Pakistani government official that ``it is extremely easy for us to get someone knocked off even on the streets of New York``, clearly implying that living in the United States was no guarantee for her safety if she continued to speak out against rape and sexual abuse of Pakistani women.
On January 8, a delegation led by Asma Jehangir, the renowned women`s rights activist in Pakistan, was fired on by unknown gunmen, under the watchful eyes of Pakistani paramilitary troops who refused to come to the aid of the activists.
These threats and tragic deaths are indelible marks on the conscience of Muslims everywhere. When Muslim women in the West raise their voices in support of the hijab and proclaim their right to wear it, they must also acknowledge the reality of the oppression faced by those Muslim women who refuse to wear it. The fact that many Muslim women choose to wear the hijab as an independent act of faith does not erase the subjugation perpetrated on other women whose suffering is just as real if not as vocal.
The real causes for Samira Munir`s death remain shrouded in mystery, but the fact that she was singled out for threats and intimidation for acknowledging both of these realities is exceedingly and unarguably clear. It is only in unequivocally endorsing the freedom to oppose the hijab that European Muslims can claim the right to support it.
Rafia Zakaria is a lawyer and member of Asian-American Network Against Abuse of Women.
#36 Posted by ZahraJ on January 28, 2006 10:18:14 am
Re: # 33
Zeena,
Good Lord...It seems that you guys had some hot discussion in that session. I am pleased that you let each other walk away in one piece :) So, did you say each other goodbye in a pleasant manner or did you completely shun each other?
I think you missed my point. You can have all the plans for the downtrodden and weak elements of a society, but you cannot impose your plans on others. I am no fan of Ms. Hashmi. I agree with constantly teaching Ms. Hashmi on what women of the world are upto. By the way, subjugation is a very relative term. It may not mean the same to two individuals.
In my opinion, women like her serve as an emotional strength to many muslim women. I am sure you do realize that all muslim women are not confident and independent enough to pursue non-profit activities. Majority has a suffocating and difficult life. Then the culture puts so much emphasis on home and family to constantly make the women feel guility if they pursue anything outside. As a result, women are left with limited opportunities. The easy alternative is to join clubs like Ms. Hashmi`s and strengthen their internal strength. They need internal strength to cope with life. So, you should give her some credit for providing that support.
Zeena,
Good Lord...It seems that you guys had some hot discussion in that session. I am pleased that you let each other walk away in one piece :) So, did you say each other goodbye in a pleasant manner or did you completely shun each other?
I think you missed my point. You can have all the plans for the downtrodden and weak elements of a society, but you cannot impose your plans on others. I am no fan of Ms. Hashmi. I agree with constantly teaching Ms. Hashmi on what women of the world are upto. By the way, subjugation is a very relative term. It may not mean the same to two individuals.
In my opinion, women like her serve as an emotional strength to many muslim women. I am sure you do realize that all muslim women are not confident and independent enough to pursue non-profit activities. Majority has a suffocating and difficult life. Then the culture puts so much emphasis on home and family to constantly make the women feel guility if they pursue anything outside. As a result, women are left with limited opportunities. The easy alternative is to join clubs like Ms. Hashmi`s and strengthen their internal strength. They need internal strength to cope with life. So, you should give her some credit for providing that support.
#35 Posted by masanamuthu on January 28, 2006 4:44:54 am
#30 arjun:
LOL.. the sooner ``sharia`` gets into Pakistan, the ``better``..
Mantolives:
Give up your pretence, Your country was formed on the basis of ``religion``, and take it to the logical conclusion.. Allow the ``sharia`` to flourish..
remember ``Islamic empire`` was glorious when sharia was in practice (during Mohammad and the four caliphs and under Aurangazeb)
:-))
LOL.. the sooner ``sharia`` gets into Pakistan, the ``better``..
Mantolives:
Give up your pretence, Your country was formed on the basis of ``religion``, and take it to the logical conclusion.. Allow the ``sharia`` to flourish..
remember ``Islamic empire`` was glorious when sharia was in practice (during Mohammad and the four caliphs and under Aurangazeb)
:-))
#34 Posted by MantoLives on January 28, 2006 3:14:28 am
arjunm...
Poor boy- get your hopes up.
PHC will overturn the decision pretty soon.
Poor boy- get your hopes up.
PHC will overturn the decision pretty soon.
#33 Posted by Zeena on January 27, 2006 10:51:13 pm
#20 ZahraJ
What was the conclusion? How did you end the conversation?
Answer:- My conclusion was , Dr.Farahat Hashmi should stop pushing and brain washing Pakistani women towards PseudoIslam, which is not serving any good for Pakistan as a whole nation, rather, her propaganda is helping strengthening chains of patriarchy more and more in a very regressed way.
I ended up conversation by saying one sentence,``Ok, Dr.Hashmi, I am not like you to judge you based on your sermons, but, I have every right to give you light to lead a healthy life with a programme for the down troden Pakistanis, rahter influential ones. I wish you could focus more towards enhancing Pakis women lives in a better direction, so that they will be able to stand on their feet , I wish you could be more like Mother Terreca, like Edhi to serve humanity, rather than to astray humanity.``
Do you think Farhat is brain washing????
Yes, she is brainwashing women based on something that is absolutely not her own , but, based on misinterpretation of Quran by Mullahs(the most ignorant creatures, who are the source of a new religion, called PseudoIslam or Neo Islam) , She didn`t seem to be logical, rather, she was preaching the same old myths in a more narrowminded way. She is not ready to listen to anyone who will ask a logic? She rejects anything which is opposite her sermons. She is easing up th epathway of Mullahs, damaging Islam in a very negative way. God bless her.
#32 digit
Yes, very few are like edhi, i agree, but, Farhat Hashmi poses herself super human muslima. And, in that context, she should follow the pathway of our Prophet(PBUh) in a right way, not the way she is misleading the women masses. Thanks
What was the conclusion? How did you end the conversation?
Answer:- My conclusion was , Dr.Farahat Hashmi should stop pushing and brain washing Pakistani women towards PseudoIslam, which is not serving any good for Pakistan as a whole nation, rather, her propaganda is helping strengthening chains of patriarchy more and more in a very regressed way.
I ended up conversation by saying one sentence,``Ok, Dr.Hashmi, I am not like you to judge you based on your sermons, but, I have every right to give you light to lead a healthy life with a programme for the down troden Pakistanis, rahter influential ones. I wish you could focus more towards enhancing Pakis women lives in a better direction, so that they will be able to stand on their feet , I wish you could be more like Mother Terreca, like Edhi to serve humanity, rather than to astray humanity.``
Do you think Farhat is brain washing????
Yes, she is brainwashing women based on something that is absolutely not her own , but, based on misinterpretation of Quran by Mullahs(the most ignorant creatures, who are the source of a new religion, called PseudoIslam or Neo Islam) , She didn`t seem to be logical, rather, she was preaching the same old myths in a more narrowminded way. She is not ready to listen to anyone who will ask a logic? She rejects anything which is opposite her sermons. She is easing up th epathway of Mullahs, damaging Islam in a very negative way. God bless her.
#32 digit
Yes, very few are like edhi, i agree, but, Farhat Hashmi poses herself super human muslima. And, in that context, she should follow the pathway of our Prophet(PBUh) in a right way, not the way she is misleading the women masses. Thanks
#32 Posted by _digit on January 27, 2006 10:32:51 pm
Zeena,
Quite frankly, it`s a small fraction of people who actually pull an Ehdi and help out the sick and the poor. Although nice in intent, how many people actually do it, and why fault her? Kind of a cheap shot.
Love2Love...it`s called a TV.
Quite frankly, it`s a small fraction of people who actually pull an Ehdi and help out the sick and the poor. Although nice in intent, how many people actually do it, and why fault her? Kind of a cheap shot.
Love2Love...it`s called a TV.
#31 Posted by ZahraJ on January 27, 2006 8:48:58 pm
#20: Zeena, Thank you for a detailed post. What was the conclusion? How did you end the conversation? Do you think Farhat is brain-washing women on something that is her creation? Or is she regurgitating some age old myths? Expecting women to submit is not Farhat`s creative concept. It is in the culture; and to some extent, it is also an interpretation of the religion depending on who is reading the text.
#30 Posted by arjun_m on January 27, 2006 1:29:32 pm
Manto: Sharia comes to Pakiland..
Court orders hand, leg amputation
PESHAWAR (AFP) - A court has ordered the amputation of a mugger’s hand and leg under the country’s strict Islamic laws, officials said Friday.
The sentence passed by a judge in the Peshawar, must now be confirmed by Pakistan’s top Islamic court. The court on Thursday found Ajab Khan, an Afghan, guilty of snatching 300,000 rupees (5,000 dollars) from a Pakistani businessman in Peshawar. It also sentenced him to five years in jail and fined him 30,000 rupees.
“We will challenge the conviction in the Federal Shariat Court,” defence lawyer Abdul Mabud Khattak told AFP, referring to the chief Islamic court in the capital Islamabad. “The conviction order says the accused’s right hand and right leg be amputated under Hudood laws,” Khattak added.
The Hudood Ordinances were introduced in 1979 by military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq and run parallel to Pakistan’s mainstream, British-influenced justice system. Opponents say they are flawed as a legal code because they systematically discriminate against women and minorities.
Pakistani legal analysts said lower courts had handed out such harsh punishments occasionally in the past but superior courts overturned them on appeal.
Court orders hand, leg amputation
PESHAWAR (AFP) - A court has ordered the amputation of a mugger’s hand and leg under the country’s strict Islamic laws, officials said Friday.
The sentence passed by a judge in the Peshawar, must now be confirmed by Pakistan’s top Islamic court. The court on Thursday found Ajab Khan, an Afghan, guilty of snatching 300,000 rupees (5,000 dollars) from a Pakistani businessman in Peshawar. It also sentenced him to five years in jail and fined him 30,000 rupees.
“We will challenge the conviction in the Federal Shariat Court,” defence lawyer Abdul Mabud Khattak told AFP, referring to the chief Islamic court in the capital Islamabad. “The conviction order says the accused’s right hand and right leg be amputated under Hudood laws,” Khattak added.
The Hudood Ordinances were introduced in 1979 by military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq and run parallel to Pakistan’s mainstream, British-influenced justice system. Opponents say they are flawed as a legal code because they systematically discriminate against women and minorities.
Pakistani legal analysts said lower courts had handed out such harsh punishments occasionally in the past but superior courts overturned them on appeal.
#28 Posted by baaghiraja on January 27, 2006 3:02:26 am
Ref:#27
Mantolives.
Zakir, Israr or whomsoever. I believe it is an act of delusion to look for (or more so), discover a so-called ``educated`` preacher/evangelist. After all, what you see as ``insidious, bigoted and ridiculous,`` is calmly explained as being persuasive, outspoken and chrarismatic by some. And not to forget, of course, educated.
Thus, no evangelist/preacher can be better than the other. But I agree, they can be worse.
Rgds,
NfP
Mantolives.
Zakir, Israr or whomsoever. I believe it is an act of delusion to look for (or more so), discover a so-called ``educated`` preacher/evangelist. After all, what you see as ``insidious, bigoted and ridiculous,`` is calmly explained as being persuasive, outspoken and chrarismatic by some. And not to forget, of course, educated.
Thus, no evangelist/preacher can be better than the other. But I agree, they can be worse.
Rgds,
NfP
#27 Posted by MantoLives on January 27, 2006 2:42:40 am
Ballu...
On the contrary ... I find that Dr Zakir Naik is even more insidious, bigoted and ridiculous than Dr Israr Ahmed...
On the contrary ... I find that Dr Zakir Naik is even more insidious, bigoted and ridiculous than Dr Israr Ahmed...
#26 Posted by Ameena on January 27, 2006 12:14:07 am
Mantilives: [apparently he wants us all to look like Irfan Pathan`s parents.]
LOL. Well as long as he dosn`t want us to look like himself. However, seriously, I do think he sounds more educated than the rest.
LOL. Well as long as he dosn`t want us to look like himself. However, seriously, I do think he sounds more educated than the rest.
#25 Posted by ballukhan on January 27, 2006 12:03:33 am
Re: # 24
Israr Ahmed certainly does not have a ``large`` fan following amongst IM-s.....certainly there is no comparison with Dr. Zakir Naik who is better educated and more erudite compared to the Israr Ahmed who is a typical Pakistani mullah..............
Israr Ahmed certainly does not have a ``large`` fan following amongst IM-s.....certainly there is no comparison with Dr. Zakir Naik who is better educated and more erudite compared to the Israr Ahmed who is a typical Pakistani mullah..............
#24 Posted by MantoLives on January 26, 2006 11:36:10 pm
Dr Israr is worse than these ``preachers`` mind you.
He is also a TV preacher... who has his own world view... which includes a non-violent struggle to slowly impose his version of Islam on Pakistan and India... and then make a grand caliphate. He is also pretty active in Indian Muslims for being better Muslims than Pakistanis... apparently he wants us all to look like Irfan Pathan`s parents.
#23 Posted by Ameena on January 26, 2006 10:35:40 pm
I have respect for people like Dr. Israr but none for these fashionable new preachers. This is a timely article NFP, something I am sure you will have a problem with in Pakistani print media.
#22 Posted by ballukhan on January 26, 2006 10:10:18 pm
I think TV is certainly exposing all these Islamists who would like to make OBL or KKK T-Shirts appear chic in societies......................I hope that people like NFP write more about such attempt by the conservatives to radicalize civil societies.
Infact, we must ensure that people STOP giving donations to religious organizations because these organizations try to create havoc within multi-religious and multi-cultural societies.............................
and for Islamic societies these organizations try to gather political clout and support by creating conflict situations external to their societies..................
Infact, we must ensure that people STOP giving donations to religious organizations because these organizations try to create havoc within multi-religious and multi-cultural societies.............................
and for Islamic societies these organizations try to gather political clout and support by creating conflict situations external to their societies..................
#20 Posted by Zeena on January 26, 2006 9:22:53 pm
#11 ZahraJ
Yes, I questioned her with my concerns. I first listened to her point of views, then I gave her my point of view. There was a clear difference between my listening to her opinions, which she labelled as Islamic and mine. She showed me an obvious intolerance and I showed her tolerance and I didn`t use any Islamic reference. I could easily see anger in her eyes for me. She was angry at my questions. I told her that I notice that those who are hijabies think they can do anything and get away in the name of Islam, by doing that they automatically become superior clads, some kind of mominaas.All of them become extremely judgemental and self righteous, the moment they wear hijab and follows Farhat Hashmi`s classes .Her sermon was about suppression of women with out basic concept of humanity. I told her that,`` listen, Dr. Hashmi, we are already good muslims with good Islamic knowledge , we don`t need your useless details of few hours daily, rather, we should spend those hours in different community hospitals or helping those in need, look at the poverty level in Pakistan, what is your agenda on that? I told her, `` It is shame for all of us, more than 85% of Pakistani population is living with out basic needs , below poverty levels. What have you done for them so, far? `` Her answer was again, towards suppression of women, and fearing me with anger of God, if, I will question her again. I told her, listen lady,`` It is easy to sit in an airconditioned room and talking for four hours to rich lazy women. But, it is hard to go out and help those poor ladies in slums.``
FeaturesFrom Daily Times
Farhat Hashmi, the controversial Pakistani Islamic fundamentalist, says those who died in the October 8 Pakistan earthquake were punished by God for their ?immoral activities?. In a weekend interview with a correspondent of the Toronto-based Globe and Mail newspaper, she said, ?The people in the area where the earthquake hit were involved in immoral activities and God has said that he will punish those who do not follow his path.?
Hashmi was immediately criticised by Tarek Fatah, communications director of the Muslim Canadian Congress, who said, ?What sort of a sick mind would suggest that the over 20,000 Pakistani and Kashmiri children who were buried alive in their schools were ?involved in immoral activities???
Yes, I questioned her with my concerns. I first listened to her point of views, then I gave her my point of view. There was a clear difference between my listening to her opinions, which she labelled as Islamic and mine. She showed me an obvious intolerance and I showed her tolerance and I didn`t use any Islamic reference. I could easily see anger in her eyes for me. She was angry at my questions. I told her that I notice that those who are hijabies think they can do anything and get away in the name of Islam, by doing that they automatically become superior clads, some kind of mominaas.All of them become extremely judgemental and self righteous, the moment they wear hijab and follows Farhat Hashmi`s classes .Her sermon was about suppression of women with out basic concept of humanity. I told her that,`` listen, Dr. Hashmi, we are already good muslims with good Islamic knowledge , we don`t need your useless details of few hours daily, rather, we should spend those hours in different community hospitals or helping those in need, look at the poverty level in Pakistan, what is your agenda on that? I told her, `` It is shame for all of us, more than 85% of Pakistani population is living with out basic needs , below poverty levels. What have you done for them so, far? `` Her answer was again, towards suppression of women, and fearing me with anger of God, if, I will question her again. I told her, listen lady,`` It is easy to sit in an airconditioned room and talking for four hours to rich lazy women. But, it is hard to go out and help those poor ladies in slums.``
FeaturesFrom Daily Times
Farhat Hashmi, the controversial Pakistani Islamic fundamentalist, says those who died in the October 8 Pakistan earthquake were punished by God for their ?immoral activities?. In a weekend interview with a correspondent of the Toronto-based Globe and Mail newspaper, she said, ?The people in the area where the earthquake hit were involved in immoral activities and God has said that he will punish those who do not follow his path.?
Hashmi was immediately criticised by Tarek Fatah, communications director of the Muslim Canadian Congress, who said, ?What sort of a sick mind would suggest that the over 20,000 Pakistani and Kashmiri children who were buried alive in their schools were ?involved in immoral activities???
#19 Posted by harimau on January 26, 2006 9:19:51 pm
Ref ZahraJ #11
[By the way, I have never read anyone writing Farhat with an ``e``. I have a few friends with the same first name. They always write it with an ``a`` vs. an ``e``. Is there any difference in the meaning by using an ``e``?]
Try For-Hate with an ``e``!
[By the way, I have never read anyone writing Farhat with an ``e``. I have a few friends with the same first name. They always write it with an ``a`` vs. an ``e``. Is there any difference in the meaning by using an ``e``?]
Try For-Hate with an ``e``!
#18 Posted by Love2love on January 26, 2006 8:21:43 pm
Urstruly
Good point. But how does one go about doing this when Ms. Hashmi has entered their drawing rooms? Don`t tell them to leave because I hardly know of any women being dragged down to inhumanity thru vulgarity in very many drawing rooms, are they?
Cheers.
Good point. But how does one go about doing this when Ms. Hashmi has entered their drawing rooms? Don`t tell them to leave because I hardly know of any women being dragged down to inhumanity thru vulgarity in very many drawing rooms, are they?
Cheers.
#17 Posted by Urstruly on January 26, 2006 12:08:50 pm
Those people who do not like Farhat Hashmi, should turn their TVs off. After all it is the same advice they give to those people who can not tolerate seeing women dragged down to inhumanity thru vulgarity in the name of freedom.
#16 Posted by rf786 on January 26, 2006 5:51:51 am
NFP,
Bravo. Thoroughly enjoyed your article, how about one on the invasion of our cricket team dressing room by Tablighees.
Bravo. Thoroughly enjoyed your article, how about one on the invasion of our cricket team dressing room by Tablighees.
#15 Posted by Aisha_Sarwari on January 26, 2006 4:06:52 am
Darth Vader on helium
LOL
I`m trying to get an interview out of her and its killing me...
Aisha Sarwari
LOL
I`m trying to get an interview out of her and its killing me...
Aisha Sarwari
#14 Posted by patwari on January 26, 2006 1:56:37 am
mantolives#10, I know indian state tv use to have these kinds of programs but i think such religious programs are new thing on private indian channels ....
#13 Posted by theedge on January 25, 2006 10:52:26 pm
NFP:
Your take on what you call ``concocted marketing`` is rather brilliant and yes the `Fundo-Chic` does seem to be a marketing concoction of capitalist forces trying to, as you say, trivialize and dilute radical Islam. But I wonder why you think it will not work in subduing this radicalism like it did the radical left.
All in all an interesting read. But hasn`t Ms. Farhat Hashmi left Pakistan for Canada?
Your take on what you call ``concocted marketing`` is rather brilliant and yes the `Fundo-Chic` does seem to be a marketing concoction of capitalist forces trying to, as you say, trivialize and dilute radical Islam. But I wonder why you think it will not work in subduing this radicalism like it did the radical left.
All in all an interesting read. But hasn`t Ms. Farhat Hashmi left Pakistan for Canada?
#12 Posted by Nadia_Zehra on January 25, 2006 10:49:52 pm
Maazi kay Jharoko.n say:
I hated Farhat Hashmi as when I went to my neighbor`s home aunty jee used to on her tape. Well one think I remebered that contents of her sermons were as of any deniyat speaking mulayiat with stresses on ``Shirk``, ``Allah Tabarak Ta`ala``, ``Hidayat``.
The soft voice coming from our vicinity used to shower the muhalla with noor-e-bismil all around and it used to synchronize sweetness touching chords of heart and creating musements in brains without considering what was she talking about but was very persian as a persian female newscaster over radio.
She is a very ``Shaista speaker``, a voice which carriese comfort and coziness, and which attracts bees and antelopes and lits agarbattis and draws chilmans, chikks.
People became very sacred in assuring ``Allah Hafiz`` and Lafaziat -e- Ehsas -e- Mazhabiat took place on those lips which just barked on street fights but now a silky pundhanney wala scarf had hid all glorious past and ``akkhar mizaji`` but that was shireeni of lipstick and hijabat of muscarra that attracted the scarf clad aunt of 7-8 semi-grown up kids..The scenes of seeing mum type free aunts not sensitive of dupattas and chadar was now under covers of fikr-e-naqab wa niswaniyat wa tareeqat.
It happened very rapidly like an epidemic and narrowed down all thinking abilities of the targetted group of people who are never decision oriented in Pakistan but humble sponges of any religion in the name of Islam.
I hated Farhat Hashmi as when I went to my neighbor`s home aunty jee used to on her tape. Well one think I remebered that contents of her sermons were as of any deniyat speaking mulayiat with stresses on ``Shirk``, ``Allah Tabarak Ta`ala``, ``Hidayat``.
The soft voice coming from our vicinity used to shower the muhalla with noor-e-bismil all around and it used to synchronize sweetness touching chords of heart and creating musements in brains without considering what was she talking about but was very persian as a persian female newscaster over radio.
She is a very ``Shaista speaker``, a voice which carriese comfort and coziness, and which attracts bees and antelopes and lits agarbattis and draws chilmans, chikks.
People became very sacred in assuring ``Allah Hafiz`` and Lafaziat -e- Ehsas -e- Mazhabiat took place on those lips which just barked on street fights but now a silky pundhanney wala scarf had hid all glorious past and ``akkhar mizaji`` but that was shireeni of lipstick and hijabat of muscarra that attracted the scarf clad aunt of 7-8 semi-grown up kids..The scenes of seeing mum type free aunts not sensitive of dupattas and chadar was now under covers of fikr-e-naqab wa niswaniyat wa tareeqat.
It happened very rapidly like an epidemic and narrowed down all thinking abilities of the targetted group of people who are never decision oriented in Pakistan but humble sponges of any religion in the name of Islam.
#11 Posted by ZahraJ on January 25, 2006 10:01:24 pm
Nadeem: You must like Farhat Hashmi very much. You must love her disciples and her style. I say that based on the number of times you have mentioned her on Chowk. By the way, I have never read anyone writing Farhat with an ``e``. I have a few friends with the same first name. They always write it with an ``a`` vs. an ``e``. Is there any difference in the meaning by using an ``e``?
#7
[Once, I came across Farhat Hashmi in Dubai in one of my friend`s home, all I viewed was , she was showing intolerance to any opposition, she was labelling it to opposing Islam.She was acting as if she was a respresentative of GOD on this planet , called earth.And, any type of criticism to Farhat Hashmi was actually criticism to Islam and threat to Islam. That was absurd!!! She was putting fear in our hearts, accusing us of losing our faiths, she hides behind the walls of Islam and continues the oppression of Pakistani women.Farhat Hashmi`s views were not a true understanding of Islam.She claims that Pakistani culture is not compatible with American culture.She is actually being abusive of Pakistani women in her own abasurd ways, which she is wrongfully calling, Islam or in the name of Islam. She is crearting (FATINNAH), ]which will destroy true spirit of Islam. ]
What did you do while she was creating ``fitnaa`h``?
Did you tell her what you thought of her teachings and style?
#7
[Once, I came across Farhat Hashmi in Dubai in one of my friend`s home, all I viewed was , she was showing intolerance to any opposition, she was labelling it to opposing Islam.She was acting as if she was a respresentative of GOD on this planet , called earth.And, any type of criticism to Farhat Hashmi was actually criticism to Islam and threat to Islam. That was absurd!!! She was putting fear in our hearts, accusing us of losing our faiths, she hides behind the walls of Islam and continues the oppression of Pakistani women.Farhat Hashmi`s views were not a true understanding of Islam.She claims that Pakistani culture is not compatible with American culture.She is actually being abusive of Pakistani women in her own abasurd ways, which she is wrongfully calling, Islam or in the name of Islam. She is crearting (FATINNAH), ]which will destroy true spirit of Islam. ]
What did you do while she was creating ``fitnaa`h``?
Did you tell her what you thought of her teachings and style?
#10 Posted by MantoLives on January 25, 2006 9:49:31 pm
Patwari...
Its not dekha dekhi...
Door Darshan and Zee TV have been doing so for as long as I can remember.
NFP,
Excellent critique.
Its not dekha dekhi...
Door Darshan and Zee TV have been doing so for as long as I can remember.
NFP,
Excellent critique.
#9 Posted by patwari on January 25, 2006 8:40:56 pm
One thing u miss out nfp is how daikha daykhee of pak media some private indian channels also have started transmitting religious lectures on hinduism ...
#7 Posted by Zeena on January 25, 2006 8:23:59 pm
Nadeem Paracha
Dear writer
With all due respect,
I must say, you raised a very needed concern of today`s Pakistani society. I met this lady, called Dr. Farhat Hashmi at my friend`s home in Dubai delivering a lecture or sermon for women, exclusively. I discussed with her multidimensional aspects of Pakistani women. My point of view about her was , nothing, but, totally absurd. Following is my view on her teachings............................
Farhat Hashmi is actually transferring the patriarchal culture in a very evlish way, by relating it to Islam and abusrdly abusing the name of religion. Sadly, in Pakistan this patriarchal culture is transferred through the mothers to their sons, b/c , all men are born and raised by their mothers. This patriarchal culture is a real threat to Pakistan, not Islam as a religion. The root cause of real Islam is respect an dlove of humanity.In reality, the main problem does not lie within Islam.Actual problem is with these misinterpretations of Islam, which are being emerged as a new cult, called pseudoIslam, practiced by Farhat Hashmi kind of cult, which is not compatible with basic human rights.We need a metamorphosis to accept the needs of today in the light of real Islamic spirit and to meet the needs of in this time period. Cultural change should be to teach Islam in right ways for all Pakistanis, regardless of gender, and they must avoid from imposing their own regressed and inhumane ways and thoughts upon other innocent citizens in the name of religion.
Once, I came across Farhat Hashmi in Dubai in one of my friend`s home, all I viewed was , she was showing intolerance to any opposition, she was labelling it to opposing Islam.She was acting as if she was a respresentative of GOD on this planet , called earth.And, any type of criticism to Farhat Hashmi was actually criticism to Islam and threat to Islam. That was absurd!!! She was putting fear in our hearts, accusing us of losing our faiths, she hides behind the walls of Islam and continues the oppression of Pakistani women.Farhat Hashmi`s views were not a true understanding of Islam.She claims that Pakistani culture is not compatible with American culture.She is actually being abusive of Pakistani women in her own abasurd ways, which she is wrongfully calling, Islam or in the name of Islam. She is crearting (FATINNAH), which will destroy true spirit of Islam.
The wrongful actions of individuals should be separated from religion and culture to which they come from.
Take care
regards
Zeena
Dear writer
With all due respect,
I must say, you raised a very needed concern of today`s Pakistani society. I met this lady, called Dr. Farhat Hashmi at my friend`s home in Dubai delivering a lecture or sermon for women, exclusively. I discussed with her multidimensional aspects of Pakistani women. My point of view about her was , nothing, but, totally absurd. Following is my view on her teachings............................
Farhat Hashmi is actually transferring the patriarchal culture in a very evlish way, by relating it to Islam and abusrdly abusing the name of religion. Sadly, in Pakistan this patriarchal culture is transferred through the mothers to their sons, b/c , all men are born and raised by their mothers. This patriarchal culture is a real threat to Pakistan, not Islam as a religion. The root cause of real Islam is respect an dlove of humanity.In reality, the main problem does not lie within Islam.Actual problem is with these misinterpretations of Islam, which are being emerged as a new cult, called pseudoIslam, practiced by Farhat Hashmi kind of cult, which is not compatible with basic human rights.We need a metamorphosis to accept the needs of today in the light of real Islamic spirit and to meet the needs of in this time period. Cultural change should be to teach Islam in right ways for all Pakistanis, regardless of gender, and they must avoid from imposing their own regressed and inhumane ways and thoughts upon other innocent citizens in the name of religion.
Once, I came across Farhat Hashmi in Dubai in one of my friend`s home, all I viewed was , she was showing intolerance to any opposition, she was labelling it to opposing Islam.She was acting as if she was a respresentative of GOD on this planet , called earth.And, any type of criticism to Farhat Hashmi was actually criticism to Islam and threat to Islam. That was absurd!!! She was putting fear in our hearts, accusing us of losing our faiths, she hides behind the walls of Islam and continues the oppression of Pakistani women.Farhat Hashmi`s views were not a true understanding of Islam.She claims that Pakistani culture is not compatible with American culture.She is actually being abusive of Pakistani women in her own abasurd ways, which she is wrongfully calling, Islam or in the name of Islam. She is crearting (FATINNAH), which will destroy true spirit of Islam.
The wrongful actions of individuals should be separated from religion and culture to which they come from.
Take care
regards
Zeena
#6 Posted by Love2love on January 25, 2006 8:22:09 pm
I am in agreement with your overall observations which as usual remain insightful, Nadeem. However, must protest when you suggest that the `fundo chic` like the `radical chic` has no social significance. Because isn`t it its social significance that has made you write this article?
#5 Posted by teshah on January 25, 2006 5:48:28 pm
3 by arjun_m
It remnds me a remark of Dr. Israr to a question put to him by a western lady journalist-cum-writer about `Hijab`. He had said ``Hijab is worn by Muslim girls to create (quote in Urdu) `chas`), i.e., to look seductive and tentalizing. Blindfold is no answer. Imagination needs a teeser to flare up.
It remnds me a remark of Dr. Israr to a question put to him by a western lady journalist-cum-writer about `Hijab`. He had said ``Hijab is worn by Muslim girls to create (quote in Urdu) `chas`), i.e., to look seductive and tentalizing. Blindfold is no answer. Imagination needs a teeser to flare up.
#4 Posted by DrDr on January 25, 2006 1:51:08 pm
U`r right Naqsh a full body veil leaves a lot 2 the imagination & hides ugliness.
#3 Posted by arjun_m on January 25, 2006 12:00:07 pm
#2 by Naqshbandi on January 25, 2006 11:27am PT
and therein lies a big secret--one of the hidden reasons for hijab in the first place--because it leaves a lot to the imagination
and the brain is the most important sex organ of them all!
Why don`t YOU wear a blindfold then and leave everything to YOUR imagination? You could be walking down the streets and imagining all the women on the streets naked..or guys, as your preference might be..
and therein lies a big secret--one of the hidden reasons for hijab in the first place--because it leaves a lot to the imagination
and the brain is the most important sex organ of them all!
Why don`t YOU wear a blindfold then and leave everything to YOUR imagination? You could be walking down the streets and imagining all the women on the streets naked..or guys, as your preference might be..
#2 Posted by Naqshbandi on January 25, 2006 11:27:41 am
An interesting observation...though there`s more to being a Muslim than one`s dress code, it is good indicator of a new trend amongst the EDUCATED (usually degree educated) youngsters, particularly in the West; don`t live in pakistan so not sure of it but a general move towards the visible signs of islam is noticable on the TV channels including the satellite ones. Is this a sign of the Islamisation of Pakistani society? Perhaps...
and educated Muslimahs in their designer hijabs and Prada handbags walking down Edgare Road look damn hot as well proving the axiom that when it comes to sexual attraction more is definitely more. the designer hijab is inifinitely sexier than the bikini. and therein lies a big secret--one of the hidden reasons for hijab in the first place--because it leaves a lot to the imagination...and the brain is the most important sex organ of them all!
In all seriousness, this return to the visible signs of being a young muslim/ah in the West is a sign of the confidence and revival of islam in the 21st century. the new islamic revival will take place in Europe, not in the East. Said Nursi, the great Turkish Sufi and religious leader predicted this almost a century ago, that Europe would give birth to a new Islamic golden age...
People like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf...
and educated Muslimahs in their designer hijabs and Prada handbags walking down Edgare Road look damn hot as well proving the axiom that when it comes to sexual attraction more is definitely more. the designer hijab is inifinitely sexier than the bikini. and therein lies a big secret--one of the hidden reasons for hijab in the first place--because it leaves a lot to the imagination...and the brain is the most important sex organ of them all!
In all seriousness, this return to the visible signs of being a young muslim/ah in the West is a sign of the confidence and revival of islam in the 21st century. the new islamic revival will take place in Europe, not in the East. Said Nursi, the great Turkish Sufi and religious leader predicted this almost a century ago, that Europe would give birth to a new Islamic golden age...
People like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf...
#1 Posted by chaltahai on January 25, 2006 11:17:44 am
Are you sure, it is not ``tail evangelists`` ? Good stuff otherwise.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- rabiawsti: #42 well, land reforms predated... There is no ‘honour’
- hamidm2: Re: # 74 masadi mian, "Ahmad... Why Zardari Should Be
- masadi: hamid writes to tahmed"...... Why Zardari Should Be
- masadi: Venga writes "HP, this... There is no ‘honour’
- masadi: Here is an article... There is no ‘honour’
- masadi: HP writes "were large... There is no ‘honour’
- tahmed32: #72 hamidm: i grew... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 70 tahmed, .... so... Why Zardari Should Be
