Fight Hudood, Protect Women

re: masadi

First of all, sorry for this delayed reply. Secondly, I understand that you are in Pakistan and if, by chance, you are located in Lahore, you are more than welcome to our Lahori Chowk meetings. If you are interested, please get my email address from the Chowk editors.

My only question to your post is:

Do you have any emperical evidence to prove that religion has actually improved the lot of women in Pakistan as far as medical health care practices are concerned?

In a simple sense; has religion in Pakistan ushered in social justice or social injustice as far as the women of Pakistan are concerned? Has religion liberated the women or enslaved them? Does the religion in Pakistan treat the women as co-equals or as inferior to men?

Ciao

Re: # 410

okhla99

Excuse me dear okhla; you, instead of replying to my observation in #406, have started hanky panky. I am least interested in the petitions and affidavits submitted by the petitioner. I am interested only in knowing how the case stands now in the SC.

I am of the view that CJSC had unnecessarily meddled in this case as he had been doing kite-flying in many other cases. It was his this excessively overactive `media circus` which landed him into the predicament he is facing presently.

As regards Mai, `Uski to guddi udde hi udde` whatever is decided by any court as she has attained a sustainable all-win position, thanks to the media and NGO circus.

#411 by khurram

Of-course they did. How dare you mention ``Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) supporting Khula.? They don`t need that stuff.

Give something to them to support their bra-burning Islam bashing suffragette propaganda and they`ll be happy to publish it.

Re #399, ``Can you please send a note to anaa and update them ..``
I did.
And they have removed that para from their website.

Re: # 406

Oye Teshah,

I think you need to read up on the judgments on mukhtaran and get your facts straight.

On 18. March 2005, the Supreme Court had intervened suo moto and had set aside the ruling of the Sharia Court. In the same order the Supreme Court had ruled that the Lahore High Court Judgment would stand and the five acquitted earlier were ordered to be released.

However, on 26 March, 2005 Mukhtaran (petitioner) filed an elaborate Appeal before the Supreme Court which was decided on 28 June 2005.

And no, neither Mukhtaran alone nor the Supreme Court could have resolved the tangle without the abundant legal support available to the petitioner.

Quote ..``Mukhtaran has been represented by panels of lawyers. One such team is headed by Pakistan`s Attorney General, Makhdoom Ali Khan. Another panel is led by Aitzaz Ahsan, a top lawyer and politician belonging to the Pakistan Peoples Party who has been representing Mukhtaran pro bono. Mukhtaran`s cousin and close friend, law student Naseem Ghazlani, is said to be her constant companion in her dealings with lawyers.``..unquote

And if you are really interested, read the petition and the affidavits. You will be amazed.

Re: # 407

Oye Teshah,

You find use of words like ``perverse``, ``abhorrent`` and ``unacceptable`` to be ``nasty language`` ???

Man, you are out of this world.

unless of course, you object to the beering & the fishing.

Re: # 403

Krishna

It was a good retort to themad32, but may I ask why you repeated the abusive epithet about me?

Re: # 405

Mind your language dear okhla. It is very easy to be nasty but I don`t think chowk is a fit place for that.

Re: # 401

okhla99

``That is why the Supreme Court could set aside the judgment as bad in law and not sustainable.``

I don`t think so. Sc had to take up the case suo moto in view of the controversy of jurisdiction between the HC, Multan, and the Shariah Court. No observation of the kind stated above by Okhla has perhaps been made by the SC on the merit of the judgment made by the HC in the case.

Doesn`t all this handling of the Mai`s case from start to end exposes the stupidity and corruption of our judicial system? One head is already rolling and God knows how many more would role.

Re: # 402

Dear Tahmed,

Read the full text of the High Court judgment. After that read #358 carefully. You will find common ``perverse observations and inferences`` in both. The ``logic`` followed by both (not ``identical`` but not ``completely dissimilar`` either and ``common in a few respects``) is abhorrent and appears unacceptable to any rational mind.That is why the Supreme Court could set aside the judgment as bad in law and not susainable.

And of course, the term ``mediocre`` is definitely reserved for people like me , the ``hoi polloi`` of chowk. There is a certain amount of bliss in mediocrity. There are no claims to superior intellect , no imaginary ``institutes`` with imaginary ``students`` and no racing for the imaginary ``nobel prize``. Masadi, BJK, Zeemax etc can kick us around with their sarcasm (often misplaced) but we keep bouncing back to Chowk with interacts these guys find ``irritating``.

BTW, this weekend is going to be fishing & beer.

#399 by ZahraJ

[#398 by khurram

The full bench, consisting of Chief Justice Haziqul Khairi and justices Allama Dr Fida Muhammad Khan and Salahuddin Mirza, observed that there were two precedents — Jameela and Bareera cases — in the life of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) supporting Khula.

Dear Khurram - That`s such a pleasant news! ]

Yes. Such pleasant news! Should a 53 year old pervert with grey pubic hair be allowed to marry a 6 year-old child then? Following the precedent of your ``holy man``?

The more I find out about the inner workings of the Islamic/Paki society, and the inner workings of the Muslim mind, the more I am filled with disgust.

Ugh!

#362 by tahmed32

[#360 teshah dhagha: where in the quran did you read that ``low caste`` woman are ok to rape?]


About Slave girls and what the right hand possesses:



“It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things.” Surah 33:52



Tafsir of this ayat take from Mawdudi’s The Meaning of the Qur’an:

Book 10, page 137, footnote no. 94
“This verse explains why one is permitted to have conjugal relations with one’s slave-girls besides the wedded wives, and there is no restriction on their number. The same thing has also been stated in Surah An-Nisa:3; Al-Mu’minun:6; and Al-Ma’arij:30. In all these verses the slave-girls have been mentioned as a separate class from the wedded wives, and conjugal relations with them have been permitted. Moreover, verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa lays down the number of the wives as four, but neither has Allah fixed the number of the slave-girls in that verse nor made any allusion to their number in the other relevant verses. Here, of course, the Holy Prophet is being addressed and told: ‘It is no more lawful for you to take other women in marriage, or divorce any of the present wives and take another wife in her stead; slave-girls, however, are lawful.’ This shows no restriction has been imposed in respect of slave-girls.``


And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts). Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hand possess,--for (then) they are not to be blamed.” Surah 70:29-30

Tafsir on this ayat refers you to Tafsir of Surah 23:6


“Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess,--for then, they are free from blame;” Surah 23:6

“(1) Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately…..” Meaning of the Qur’an Book 8, page 10, footnote 7.


“Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you…..” Surah 4:24


Tafsir of Mawdudi, Book2, page 112, footnote 44:

“That is, ‘Those women, who became prisoners of war, while their husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties have been broken by the fact that they have come into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women and make them wives, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them.

Unless the captive women are falling over themselves to have sex with the smelly barbarian beardos, one would think that this amounts to sanctioning rape of captive slave (lower status) women.

#okla: read what i wrote carefully first.

you missed the point i was making, so let me repeat it - the judiciary may be constrained by the facts of the case as presented to it by the prosecutor. but the police is not constrained in collecting the necessary evidence.

now do you get it?

and i didnt call you mediocre, so spare me that.

teshah: read the above, and tell me what part you have difficulty understanding.

Re: # 394

Oye Chacha Zee,

Read the full text of the High Court Judgment. Then read #358. You will find common ``perverse observations and inferences`` in both. That is why the Supreme Court could set asid e the judgment as bad in law and not susainable.

Regards.
Your mediocre nephew.

Re: # 387

themad32

You say:

``The woman was ``sentenced`` to this crime by the panchayat in the open - and you claim that there is not enough proof of the rape??``

It was the High Court which said that their was no evidence of rape in this case. It had even passed a stricture against the trial court as to why it sentenced the accused in the case to death in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of the charge of rape against them. If the case had gone to the Shariah Court you, along with the Mai, would also have been sentenced to 80 straps for `Qazf` in case you had failed to provide duly qualified four eye witnesses.

Again you quote me:

``Any how thanks to her alleged rape by the Mastoies all rural women are to day envying her fraud rape. Many of them followed her trick but failed to get Mai like justice``

and allege that this obsevation of mine goes to prove that I condoned rape.

How you concluded that I wonder!

Have you not read the statement of Naseemah of Obrho, allegedly gang raped in Sindh? She pleaded that she should be awarded justice like Mai. And so had been clamouring Dr. Shazia but with no avail. `Yih martabaahe buland jisse mil gaya mil gaya``.

Re: # 398

Dear Khurram - That`s such a pleasant news!

I have been so sad to read that one para that I was getting a bad headache. I even shed a few real tears(and not the crocodile ones that have been attributed to me previously) on the plight of our women in Pakistan.

Can you please send a note to anaa and update them on the latest developments provided they are still applicable after all the hustle bustle in the upper echelons of the legal system in Pakistan?

Buhat Buhat Shukriya. Nawazish.

Regards.

Re #393,
``...bad news when the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that they could not issue “khula” divorces to women who did not have the consent of their husbands. This decision leaves countless women facing abuse helpless and entirely dependent on their husbands..``

This statement is not correct.
A petition has been filed before the Federal Shariat Court to challenge the right of khula without husband`s consent. This right has been there since 1967. From the initial comments, the FSC does not seem sympathetic to the petition.
Perhaps the following news item was misinterpreted.

``LAHORE, Feb 28: A full bench of the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) admitted on Wednesday 12 identical petitions on Khula or a plea by a woman for divorce, for hearing. The bench said the petitions would be heard at the principal seat and provincial branch registries.

A statement issued by the court read the petitions had raised the issue whether court was empowered to dissolve a marriage through Khula without the consent of a husband. The petitions stated that court had no power to dissolve a marriage without consent of a husband.

The bench observed that two Supreme Court judgments in 1945 and 1952 had held that court was not empowered to dissolve the marriage through Khula while another Supreme Court judgment in 1967 ruled that court was empowered to dissolve the marriage without the consent of a husband.

The full bench, consisting of Chief Justice Haziqul Khairi and justices Allama Dr Fida Muhammad Khan and Salahuddin Mirza, observed that there were two precedents — Jameela and Bareera cases — in the life of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) supporting Khula.

Deciding these cases, the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) observed tense relations between the husbands and their wives and ordered the men to divorce their wives against dower or property gifted to them.

The court will also consult religious scholars, lawyers and jurists apart from counsel of federal and provincial governments in the cases.``

Re: # 395

BJK - I suggest you share your heartfelt emotions directly with anaa. I am sure they will appreciate those.

Regards.

Note: And let the uncouth testosterones jump up and down and disintegrate.

... so this hindoo bigot plagiarist is now finding solace in the sympathy of some simplistic naive `nek perveen` type ``Pakistani Sisters``.

#392 by ZahraJ

I salute those great ladies – my Pakistani sisters – who struggle under tremendous odds of the combined powers of a khaki dictatorship, mullah rule, wishy-washy politicians and a very apathetic male AND female population. My darlings, if there is any hope for your country, it is based in you and for all practical purposes, in you alone. Focus on the young, my dears, where there is still the potential of innovative ideas and original thoughts – where the mind has not atrophied – and where there is still the innocence to ask the most basic questions – “what are we all about” – and the ability to ask of your atrocity-makers – “who gave you the right?” – and hopefully someday an ability to say – “I refuse you….I will accept it no more, no more, no more…!”

Keep that hope alive, my sisters – and pass it on to those little dots that blink uncertainly now. Shelter them with your palms, and your bosoms, and your courage, and your compassion – so the light that matters can keep going on and get stronger over time.

The oppressors can wrap all the burqas of the world around you – but the thoughts are your own! They can never make you think their thoughts unless you let them! Hang on to your own thoughts with all your might – and you will remain the independent individual that you were made to be by the greatest Maker of them all!

Even the darkest of the nights must end in the light of the morning. Keep looking and never stop looking – looking for that first ray of light, the harbinger of the unstoppable!

It can not be long now!

#385 by okhla99

That`s why I called you a mediocre, and you`ve just proven it beyond any doubt:

``The Multan bench of the High Court followed the same ``logic `` as Teshah in acquitting the rapists in the Mukhtaran Mai case. ``

So, you`re saying the Multan Bench ruled that Mai was falsely alleging rape for personal gains and acquitted the rapists, because that`s what your friend is saying.

Very sad!!!

[In the weeks following her death, Pakistani women received further bad news when the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that they could not issue “khula” divorces to women who did not have the consent of their husbands. This decision leaves countless women facing abuse helpless and entirely dependent on their husbands. ]

http://4anaa.org/

http://www.4anaa.org/

International Women`s day Message

March 7, 2007

Dear Friends:

Tomorrow International Women’s Day will be commemorated around the world. There will be rallies, talks and protests that will mark the progress made by women in the past year. As ANAA’s President, I am torn between the pride I feel for the courage of Pakistani women who have persevered in their struggle for equality and justice and deep disappointment at the way their struggles have been politically manipulated by the political forces in Pakistan.

In the past year, there was much talk about the Women’s Protection Bill that was passed by both Houses in Pakistan. Reports insisted that this would dramatically alter the status of women in Pakistan. Among other things, it was promised that rape victims would be able to easily get justice in Pakistan. DNA tests would be used to process evidence. As human rights and women’s groups celebrated this Bill, little thought was given to the reality that there is only one DNA lab in the whole of Pakistan and that rape victims are often unable to pay even the bus fare to the police station let alone the cost of DNA analysis for their case. As media reports died down, I fear that the international community has bought the vacuous promises in the Bill and nearly abandoned the fight on behalf of Pakistani women.

As the Pakistani Government was touting its gender sensitivity under the Women’s Protection Bill, the Hasba Bill was passed in the NWFP assembly which established a mohtasib or “moral police”. Since the passage of the Bill, women have routinely been harassed at educational institutions, public buildings and other public spaces. The passage of the Bill presents a severe threat to women in Pakistan,

Just in the past month, Pakistani women faced a severe blow when Zille Huma, female minister in the Punjab Government was assassinated at the hands of a religious zealot. The same man, had threatened to kill other women for not wearing the proper Islamic hijab (not the traditional headcovering or dupatta which she wore) and had not been apprehended because of the interference of various religious leaders. In the weeks following her death, Pakistani women received further bad news when the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that they could not issue “khula” divorces to women who did not have the consent of their husbands. This decision leaves countless women facing abuse helpless and entirely dependent on their husbands.

However, I would not end this letter without also commending my Pakistani sisters for their incredible courage in the face of all this adversity. A few months ago, Pakistani women in Lahore participated in a marathon, despite the opposition of religious parties. Every day, millions of Pakistani women brave discrimination, harassment and an inegalitarian system and continue in their struggle to get education, participate in the workforce and get better lives for their children. We at ANAA would like to salute these women and renew our commitment to raising their voice before Pakistanis and the international community. We urge everyone to join us in our commitment and support the struggles of Pakistani women.



Sincerely,

Amna Buttar

President ANAA

#389

Ama yaar Okhla, don`t try to dodge the question! :)

Have the judges of the Pakistani Supreme Court taken an oath of loyalty to the Pakistani army?

Or not?

If yes, they should follow their ``marching orders``! Case closed!

What is all this brou-haha about, then! Just feel-good stuff and you know it!

the judiciary is helpless before a corrupt executive. dont blame the judges for police misconduct that is allowed to go unchecked by the executive, as clearly happened in this case.

Re: # 386

Judiciary in Pakistan is ``committed`` to upholding the rule of law,..etc etc.

That it is ``independent`` has never been my contention.

A committed judiciary is distinct from an independent judiciary.
However, both are equally capable of abuse or of being abused.
Also, both are capable of dispensing quality justice.

And yes, both contain elements(judges) who provide ``the best justice money can buy``.

okla #385 no one can chase anyone away from chowk. so dont worry on that account. i appreciate where you are coming from, and am all for civilized dialogue.

but what you are seeing here is not mere logic - since teshah knows as well as anyone else what i wrote to him in the post below. no one can even change anyone`s thinking on chowk - mindsets are based on a lifetime of experience, and mere ``logic`` will not change mindsets. in teshah`s mind, there will always be ``upper caste`` and ``lower caste`` people, and yet he will never have a problem calling himself a muslim. in teshah`s mind a woman from a poor family is no better than a cow or a goat, while a wealthy man surrounded by gunmen is to be looked up to.

all one can do is rant a bit on chowk. if it changes someone`s mind on an issue, fine. but i wont hold my breath for that to happen.

teshah #384

You think that you can write #358, where, e.g., you say that ``Any how thanks to her alleged rape by the Mastoies all rural women are to day envying her fraud rape. Many of them followed her trick but failed to get Mai like justice. ``and then claim that ``I never condoned rape of any sex.``?

You say that the court did not find any ``proof``? Who do you think you are fooling? The woman was ``sentenced`` to this crime by the panchayat in the open - and you claim that there is not enough proof of the rape?? All this proves is what you know as well as anyone else - that police in Pakistan can come up with ``witnesses`` who will say whatever the highest bidder wants them to say.

As for ``honor``? You talk about ``honor``? A woman may be raped, but she is dishonored only in the eyes of shameless men who have no clue about honor and whose ``honor`` can be bought for cash.

#385
[Let us not permit our intellects (albeit mediocre) to fall into the same trap.]

I wholeheartedly agree with your ``albeit`` estimate. :)

Regarding the Pakistani Supreme Court, please correct me if I am wrong, but hasn`t every judge there (as well as the chief justice) taken an oath of loyalty to the army? Isn`t that the reason that a few years ago the then chief justice and several judges were forced to resign? Because they refused that oath at the time.

So what kind of charade is this - this claim of ``independence of the judiciary``?

Who is fooling whom?!

#375, 376
Chacha Zee and Tahmed,

The Multan bench of the High Court followed the same ``logic`` as Teshah in acquitting the rapists in the Mukhtaran Mai case. So, the judges there would also qualify as ``mass murderers`` in your opinion.

Once again, flawed logic, skewed arguments, opposing view points need to be countered. The interactors need not be hounded out of Chowk. We can disagree with them, like we can with the High Court. We should tolerate them and try to reason with them and no, this would not amount to ``sitting in their lap``.

After all ``intolerance`` is the hallmark of Jehadi mindsets. Let us not permit our intellects (albeit mediocre) to fall into the same trap.

Re: # 373
themad32

``what is the ``logic`` you see in condoning the rape of a women and bad-mouthing the woman when she protests?``

I never condoned rape of any sex. As regards Mai`s case, as far as I know, her accusation of rape has yet to be proved in any court of law. So far it remains a media fraud with ulterior motive, apparently, of maligning Islam and the Paky male gender. Otherwise what is the honour in publicizing in one`s dishonour by rape (alleged only at that) which has obviously become so gainful especially for Mai, and perhaps for her pimpish panderers.

Jab okhal mein sir diya to moosal se kya darna!!

Okhla and others, please pay attention.

It really does not give this interactor any pleasure when I speak ill of the country of Pakistan or its residents.

It REALLY does not. In fact, it hurts me a lot!

I sincerely believe that we are the same people and what applies to one very much applies to the other, perhaps with different context. And the depravities we witness in one are very much capable of reincarnating in the other in a much shorter time frame - shorter than most realize.

The problem is, yaaran - exactly what the problems have been forever. I don`t see you guys facing up to a whole lot of crappy stuff. Making jihadis into heroes is one such crap, looking away from the acts (hopefully now stopped, though one doubts it) of your own rulers of pumping jihadis and hijacking civilian airlines is another, and building up demagogues - who gave you that segregationist mindset - building those very demagogues up into shining-armored knights - that is the height of hypocrisy.

And if all that were not enough, the worst offense is that you have watched passively while all that outrage took place and continue to do so - so much so that your own intelligensia - which knows better, is more cowed down than a bakree about to be sacrificed!

If you don`t face up to crap - guess what you will forever keep.

CRAP!

That is what makes me say the things I say on the state of the state of Pakistan. Sorry if it comes out sounding crappy.

Zahra,

Agreed mostly, but with a correction: abuse of Ahamdis and abuse of women are not two issues worlds apart (despite your seeming suggestion). Rather, they are somewhat related … in that they underscore how easily and swiftly Islam can be distorted and used against one demographic group or another.

Ullema may band together and call anything Islam as long as it fits their nefarious agenda. Exploitation of Ahmadis and women are but a few examples; and this is only the beginning.

If allowed to go unchecked, this “Islamic law” will turn against non-Muslims, Shiites and other sects within Islam, business community, education system, government bureaucracy, and so on. Group that will benefit most from this exploitation is jamaati-type sunni, male, wahabhi pricks … which explains why they are pushing most vehemently for this “Islamization”. This shariah business aims to marginalize one group after the other ... until the society ends up in the dark ages.

The most interesting aspect is that I had no clue on the current situation of the CJ in Pakistan. I wrote in the heat of the moment without realizing the current state of affairs. Lo and Behold, it turns out that he has been dismissed. Well, that`s Pakistan. In fact, it is completely in line with how things happen in Pakistan. Is that abuse or implementation of power?

Re: # 377

Sattar - Thank you for your explanation. The emphasis is on ``abuse``. I guess in that respect we can draw parallels between anything.

I am not sure it`s worth taking anyone seriously on Chowk regarding their views on abuse of Ahmadis or abuse of women`s rights. Yes, sometimes it`s real annoying when uncouth fellows start barking up the wrong tree. But then you or I have no control on anyone`s mind or their thought process. Why lose sleep? I have quite a few characters on my ignore list so I do not get to read their incoherent and inappropriate nonsense. Some of us do not frequent Chowk to read gibberish and silly interacts from mature men and women.

Hopefully, you had a nice weekend.

Take Care.

yes, indeed
Read the full sentence for details ...

#377 ``abuse of Ahamdis and abuse of women have a lot in common``

really?

Zahraj (#254),

Oh ho bhai … itni si baat …

I was merely correcting Quranic reference on adultery (#127). A few posts later, honorable abu_safwaan sahib starting hurling abuses at me for being an Ahmadi (what’s the connection? … beats me). Similar attitude was adopted by Zeena against kulharree (#157), who had earlier pointed out possibility of mob rule in the name of “Islamic law”…

What’s the connection here? … I myself wonder. Perhaps we should ask abu. My stomach turns at the thought of engaging him in a meaningful discussion. But are you willing to take that chance … ?

Part of the discussion later gravitated towards “limitless rights” of minorities … to which I responded in #253. Who knows … a woman asking for divorce may be considered a tramp clamoring for “limitless rights” under this Islamic law.

So the answer to your question is … “no”. There is nothing in common between Ahmadi movement and women’s rights. However, abuse of Ahamdis and abuse of women have a lot in common … both are justified on basis of “Islamic law”.

And this is just the beginning. No wonder ummah is going to the dogs …

okhla: I am all for opposing viewpoints, but within certain reasonable limits. teshah was adding insult to the very real injury suffered by mukhtaran mai. This is not merely a ``different viewpoint`` - there is no room for discussion or debate when it comes to condoning the harrassment of women.

#371 by okhla99

Abey mediocre !@#$%^ ... mass murderers have their own logic too ... go and sit in their lap as well.

As for ramchandar, he is even a worse nali ka keera than dhotilal_googlemal who are best ignored and to be crushed underfoot if found being too much of a nuisance ..

I do not rate bjkumar in the above category yet .. though surprisingly he is increasingly getting there.

Tahmed Bhai,

We don`t agree with him, his views are contrary to what we find rational and acceptable. But does that make him a ``dangar``? Should people with views contrary to our own be hounded out of Chowk?? A lot of us find BJK to be virulently anti Pakistan/ anti islam/ anti muslims. He is also a confirmed plagiariser. But he has his own entertainment value. Should he be thrown out of Chowk?? What about Masadi?? His rabidness notwithstanding, he follows a different logic and rationality in which he reallybelieves. Should he go too??

Let us not be so intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

Can you not see any difference between #368 & #358?? I can. and therefore I stand for every word of #371.

#371 oklha: i dont see you can lump a man and a dangar together - bjkumar doesnt go around condoning the rape of women like teshah dhagha. what is the ``logic`` you see in condoing the rape of a women and bad-mouthing the woman when she protests??

#366 zeemax: Very well said.

Chacha Zee,

Teshah & BJKumar have their own logic, convoluted though it may be. Your fury should be directed more at Ramchander et al. who do not appear to be capable of rational discussion.

Krishna,

I know what u mean. I am wrong to club those figures with Gandhi. Pl dont read too much into the wrong clubbing. May be my ideas got jammed there. What I exactly meant was this: `Nobody`s perfect`.


Thanks.

Krishna,

I know what u mean. I am wrong to club those figures with Gandhi. Pl dont read too much into the wrong clubbing. May be my ideas got jammed there. What I exactly meant was this: `Nobody`s perfect`.


Thanks.

ref#367
[
Please stop posting the photos of beutiful Pakistani ladies for injuns to drool over .. ]

Dear BJ

You can only post their picture once they have been raped by their brothers. Some of the bhench0ds like teshah will cast aspersions on their rape stories.

bjkumar,

Please stop posting the photos of beutiful Pakistani ladies for injuns to drool over ..

I was wrong to call teshah a munafiq. It is obvious he is a non-Muslim intent upon defaming Islam and Muslims as a pre-determined agenda.

I have never seen a more odious and reprehensible person who blames the victim of a gang-rape witnessed by dozens (who merely refused to give testimony in court due to coercion by the perpetrators) to have had ulterior motives of her own in inviting the act upon herself.

It would be appropriate to wish him (by own efforts or through female surrogates) to also get the opportunity to have the same windfall as the Mai managed to obtain.

#361 Tauheed sahib

Welcome, and hope you did not take it the wrong way, I just could not resist the flair! You know how it is - such special moments are getting sparser and sparser!
:)

#360 teshah dhagha: i know you are there. take your time to get the chaara in your brain working. i`ll be back later to see what you have come up with.

#360 teshah dhagha: type fast. i dont have all evening for a dhagha. get your ass moving.

#360 teshah dhagha: where in the quran did you read that ``low caste`` woman are ok to rape?

bjkumar: much obliged for pointing to the right beena. :-)

Re: # 283

Liar! Who?

Where I said that it was written in Quran? Btw, do you think marrying with anything is a bad thing. Normally, in my view, it would mean extreme devotion to the Quran unless the term is used with some nefarious motives as you are prone to.

teshah: Your dhagha-ness is obvious from this post.

Re: # 286

You Zeemax seem to have gone berserk. You say Mai, the greatest media fraud of our times, had been `given` justice by CJS. What was that justice by the way? Will you elaborate? Any how thanks to her alleged rape by the Mastoies all rural women are to day envying her fraud rape. Many of them followed her trick but failed to get Mai like justice.

I wonder how a low-cast woman of Mirwala, named Mukhtaran, became so famous, ‘honored’ and rich (pretty also now as her pic shows) only because she was ‘dishonored ‘ by allegedly having been raped in compliance with a verdict of the village Panchayat, manifestly to avenge the dishonor of another woman of Mastoi tribe by Mai’s brother.

It was, as the story goes, first a village mullah, then the NGOs and finally the trial Session Court, which blew the matter out of proportion. No wonder the media also stepped in and made the best use of the sex story adding fuel to the fire. The western media gave extra-ordinary importance to the story not because there is dearth of rape stories in their own countries but because of their ulterior motive of vilifying Islam and the Muslim culture, which the Mai and her ‘raped honor’ presented.

As I stated above it was the alleged violation of ‘honour’ of a Mastoi woman, which necessitated the holding of village Punchayat (Peoples’ Court). The Mai and her family seemed to be in a compromising situation and therefore wanted to apologize for the alleged misconduct of Mai’s brother. Now there are two versions about what happened afterwards. Mai’s supporters say, the panchayat decided that as a matter of justice, Mai should be fucked by Mastoies to avenge violation of their ‘honour’ violated by her brother. But according to the other party the Mai was not raped but married (nikahfied) to the brother of the Mastoi woman who was ‘dishonoured’ by Mai’s brother. No independent inquiry having been held in the matter to find facts there are as many stories as many tongues. But as the facts of the case go the proceedings and judgment of the Multan High Court still holds the ground which did not give any credence to the evidence in support of the accusation of rape of Mai. In the circumstances it is sheer injustice if any body sits in judgment over a case when one knows nothing even about the bare facts of the case. As it is such peoples are actually dishonoring Mai by insisting that she was raped when the court says there was no evidence to that effect.

Now what a display of ‘raped honor’ was made in Mirwala when allegedly Mai was being dragged for ‘rape’ before the very eyes of her biraadari including her father and her young brother in compliance with the judgement of the Panchayat. I cannot imagine such a scene even in ‘sex-bazaar’. I can’t believe that people even of the lowest caste can be so devoid of any sense of ‘honor’ that they allow such a thing to happen without any demur. In fact no body stood up as there was perhaps no ground for standing up and it was only the suo moto action taken by the trial court after a number of days that such a halla gulla was raised by NGOs, etc., etc.

As a matter of fact, sex as such, is not a matter falling in the domain of ethics or morals. It is purely a matter of culture. In Shariah if a man accuses somebody of ‘Zina’ (irregular sex with a free person, other than one’s own slave) he is obliged to bring forth four valid eyewitnesses of the crime otherwise he himself becomes liable to ‘Qazaf’ to be condemned as a liar and vilifier and penalized severely and a woman in the same position is liable to be condemned as a self-confessed ‘Zaania’ if she herself alleges to be a victim of rape. It is perhaps why Mai avoided going to the Shariat Court to be judged by Quranic Hadood Laws. That court had recently given a verdict in a rape case that the evidence of the woman, victim of rape in a rape case, is of no consequence unless proved by evidence. God forbid, if this is allowed any whore can blackmail any man.
As regards rape and its consequences in Sharia, the ‘Fatwa’ issued recently by Deoband in case of a rape of a woman by her father-in-law in India is quite pertinent. According to that ‘Fatwa’ it was held that in consequence of her alleged rape the woman has automatically become the wife of her father-in-law. In fact this appears to be the adoption of an old Judaistic law that makes the rapist accept the victim as his wife, apparently to mitigate her dishonour.

It would perhaps be quite pertinent to quote here what the wise man of China, the great Confucius, says about rape. He says, “ If you feel the rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy”. One envies Mukhtaran Mai as she is lucky to have the best of the two, nay, rather three worlds and is so happy having been made so rich and honored because of her alleged rape by Mastoies, setting new values and opening new opportunities for the sex culture in our society.

What prompted me to write this post was actually the award of Maadare Millat Gold Medal to Mai, the raped, by Ms Nilofar Bakhtiar, as it seemed to me a blatant perfidy and insult to the name of Maadare Millat to associate her name with a shameless raped woman so as to present Mai as a role model for our noble women and to usher in Mukhtaran Mai ‘Rape culture’ by glorifying her just to gain some political mileage among women of that type. I say “Why make it a gender issue at all. Even men are prone to be raped and generally they are likely to welcome it unless they are ‘Muttaqi’ like the prophet, Yousaf (PBUH). Even he had escaped attempt of rape by Zulekha only by the help of Allah though admittedly he was going to succumb to it”.

So dear Zeemax beware you can become a sel-confessed liar in terms of Shariah if you accuse someone of zinna and fail to bring forth four qualified eye-witnesses to prove it.

#356 by Folio

[OK, now I got why u r asking this. Ur focus is Gandhi. ]

No, it`s not.

The following statements are interchangeable, and all of them are equivalent for getting the SAME point across:

Given that, would you say that there is any difference between Mother Teresa, for example, and Idi Amin? Or would you say that they are more or less comparable, given that neither of them is perfect?

Given that, would you say that there is any difference between Jesus, for example, and Hitler? Or would you say that they are more or less comparable, given that neither of them is perfect?

Given that, would you say that there is any difference between Buddha, for example, and Pol Pot? Or would you say that they are more or less comparable, given that neither of them is perfect?

See if this helps you get the point.

Let me know if I`m being too difficult to understand.

Krishna,

OK, now I got why u r asking this. Ur focus is Gandhi. My honest opinion whislt we`re preparing for Civils is that we use to joke on Gandhi....many many jokes. On a serious note Gandhi was a politician......

From Hindu-Muslim pov, he tried to synthasise the two warring schisms in Indian politics. In order to save India from partition he said something unpalatable....did even many more unpalatable things(to some section of people).....all his efforts went down the drain. He paid it with his life. Nobody likes him in his home state i.e Gujarat now.

On H-M pov.....it`s got to be that way. It`s a matter providence. Cant feel sorry abt the split milk. I honestly believe that British Indian map is not Bharat Mata. On Gandhi again....he`s destiny of India. We cant roll back history. If there are lessons we shud learn them dispassionately. Honestly, I have mixed feelings abt Gandhi. He was not perfect. He happened to us. He`s eccentric, faddist, naturist, vegatarian, Gujarati, Hindu, Indian, bania, politician*, humanist, prisoner of circumstances and what not.

* If we see the old portraits he donned braided turban & non-Bharwards, Rabaaris dont wear that more so the banias. He played to the gallery as well.

#353 by Folio

I forgot to add:

Given that, would you say that there is any difference between Gandhi, for example, and Pol Pot? Or would you say that they are more or less comparable, given that neither of them is perfect?

#353 by Folio

[Krishna,

Nobody`s perfect in this world, including the religious, historical & political figures. ]

Folio,

I think you are avoiding my question. And I think you know why.

I AGREE with you - nobody is perfect.

Given that, would you say that there is any difference between Gandhi, for example, and Pol Pot?

Re: # 352

Krishna,

Nobody`s perfect in this world, including the religious, historical & political figures.

How come ur American politicians declare their intention to contest the presedential elections in comedy shows?

Eg. Johm McCain declared it in David Letterman show b4 he formally declared it outside in a solemn way.

#351 by Folio

Folio,

I was not commenting on your English at all. :-)

I was just wondering...would the following two sentences convey the same point that you wanted to express:

``Neither Muhammd, Jesus nor Gandhi was perfect.``

and

``Neither Muhammd, Jesus, Gandhi nor Jack the Ripper was perfect.``

Are these two statements equivalent, in your view?

Krishna,

U have to pardon me 4 my poor English. What I meant was...`nobody`s perfect including Rama, Krishna, Muhammed, Jesus & Gandhi`.

P.S: I dont know how I got score 7 in IELTS exam, (7 means high proficiency in English)

#337 by Folio

[Neither Muhammd, Jesus nor Gandhi was perfect.]


Would you say, then, that the statements

``Neither Muhammd, Jesus nor Gandhi was perfect.``

and

``Neither Muhammd, Jesus, Gandhi nor Jack the Ripper was perfect.``

express the same point of view?

Just wondering...

J: Yes, well enough to talk to my chhokras and housemaids. I have not got to address courts or judges in Urdu and I dont see why I should know more tongue; (I knew) Gujerati fairly well.

This debate in Imperial National Assembly is given below not with an intention to assess Jinnah as a politician but to compare what the founder wanted in his Republic (his 11 Aug 1947 address was similar to what was said by Jinnah 37 years b4) and what the current crop of leaders are doing

---

There was a discussion btw Rafiuddin and Mohammed Alibhai Jeenabhai Khojani aka MA Jinnah in 1910 in the precincts of Imperial National Assembly, New Delhi

Rafiuddin: Mr. Jinnah, you claim to represent the Musalmans of Bombay Presidency?

Jinnah: Who doubt that? Do you?

R: I regret that they should be represented by you, who know nothing of Islam or the Prophet (on whom be peace), nor observe any Islamic injuctions?

J: What makes you say so? I knew jolly well far more than you do.

R: You say you do; well, tell me whether you have any pretensions to know Arabic or Persian?

J: WHY SHOULD I KNOW EITHER ARABIC OR PERSIAN? I AM NEITHER AN ARAB NOR A PERSIAN BUT AN INDIAN, AND HAVE THUS NO NEED TO KNOW THE LANGUAUE OF ARABIC OR PERSIAN.

R: Do you know even Urdu?

J: Yes, well enough to talk to my chhokras and housemaids. I have not to got address courts or judges in Urdu and I dont see why I should know more tongue, Gujerati fairly well.

R: But if you dont know Arabic, how can you offer your prayers?

J: PRAY IN ARABIC? WHY SHOULD I? I am not an impertinent sinner that I should be praying constantly to ask forgiveness for my sins? And that apart, surely God will understand me in whichever langauge I pray Him.

R: And what about your dress, food and drink? Are in accordance with the rules of Shariat?

J: WHAT HAS SHARIAT GOT TO WITH THE DRESS? SURELY, THE VARIOUS PEOPLES OF DIFFERENT MUSLIM COUNTRIES, ALL DRESS DIFFERENTLY. EVEN IN INDIA, ALL THE MUSLIMS DON`T DRESS ALIKE. AS FOR FOOD & DRINK, IT`S MORE A MATTER OF PERSONAL TASTE, APPETITE AND DIGESTION RATHER THAN CONVENTION.

R (Looking triumphant at Jinnah) : Look, look Majaraja Bahadur (turning Burdwan) at your Muslim colleagues from Bombay and see what he says an does! HE KNEW NO ARABIC, PERSIAN OR EVEN URDU. HE NEVER PRAYS, AND PAYS NO REGARD TO THE RULES OF SHARIAT IN THE MATTER OF HARaM AND HALAL IN FOOD AND DRINK.

---

Re: # 286

Zeemax - Go easy on whatever you are taking to cause you so much anxiety and aggression. Beyond that, there is no conversation needed.

Thanks.

Re: # 307

bjkumar - I think you have an issue reading between the lines. But that`s ok, you cannot be master of everything :)

Thanks.

#297#bjkumar

Liked the couplets? Thanks. Quite appropriate, isn`t it?

I shall let you know the name of the poet tomorrow. I can`t think of his name right now.
And the complete ghazal.

Samar

Re: # 343

You would be better off asking a nazi to tell the virtues of judaism or a Clan member to deliver a speech on racial equality

Re: # 340 hamidm

These are legends and rituals and symbols associated with Islam. So again...my question remains there.

#340 Hamidm2

Dear sir, you must be commended on your thorough mastery of the details of your religion. Perhaps some people would like to be enlightened what views you hold on death by stoning by mobs – and whether those are staged acts simply carried out to distract your attention from where it really ought to be focused – your foreskin and the trauma that it underwent under the blade.

#334 Hamidm2

[grounds for decapitation]

Heads you win, tails I lose!

Need I remind you that it is YOUR insatiable need for those images that keeps bringing up those half-naked pictures. (Google Zindabaad.)

Perhaps sir, you are entering that stage in life when such pictures and only such pictures can fill in that special need which you have always been aware of ....

But have been too chicken to admit... even to yourself!

Re: # 338

``BTW, do you have any idea of what Islam is all about``

........ of course i do ..... i was circumcised at a very early age and have yet to recover from the trauma of that bloody ritual ........ i `finished` the koran at the age of eleven and then again a year later - the maulvi and his wife received a jora and there were great festivities with halwa for all ...... i can tell you all about the trials and tribulations of the prophet and his band of merry men in mecca, medina and back in mecca ........ i can tell you about abraham, the crazy old man who almost killed his son from hagar the concubine because his wife sarah got jealous (see, i know the fine details) ......... i know i am supposed to avoid contact with women, pigs, ahmedis and hindoos ........ i know all about the five pillars of islam and live in morbid fear of going to hell for not following any of them ........... so what else is there to know ?

........ on the other hand, most hindoos cannot tell hanuman from their first cousin ....... and then they turn around and blame poor george allen for making the same mistake ........

#328, #314 tauheed sahib

The article is by Beena Sarwar – a separate entity from Bina Shah.

Of course, the names sound similar, and one should not read too much into the “honest” mistake.

So let me try to help. (Hope nobody starts accusing me of stalking these ladies!)

This here (below) is Beena Sarwar.



And down below is Ms. Bina Shah. You see, sir, they are different ladies.

Re: # 241

[........i have yet to meet a hindoo who seems to have any idea of what hindooism is all about ........ ]

BTW, do you have any idea of what Islam is all about?

Nobody is infallible in this world...not even Gandhi, Mr. Hamid. I dont hold anybody in awe. I judge ppl objectively...detaching emotions.

Neither Muhammd, Jesus nor Gandhi was perfect.

Re: # 329

`` Experiments on Brahmanchrya (celibacy) were well known`` .................. so now i know origin of the word `charya` ....... it is amazing what you learn on chowk

#328 by tahmed32

I don`t support the religious parties of Pakistan, but I will say one thing. The opposition to the amendment was only on a technical point of rape not being distinguished from consensual sex in the hudood. Not a single person knew what all the fuss was about and everyone was using it for their own purposes including the author. The answer is simple. Rape is the same as any other bodily violation like assault. That`s why Islam does not distinguish between the two. It doesn`t matter if you forcibly insert a knife into the chest or forcibly a penis into the vagina. Result is the same. Lasting damage.

These activists should have asked for correct imposition of the Quranic laws, and not their removal.

Re: # 275

bj,

........ i knew it was just a matter of time before someone dragged poor gandhiji into this discussion - it never fails ! ......... it seems to me that your gandhiji is like our muhammadji - deluded men with feet of clay who pretended to be gods ........... not that it amounts to a hill of dal, but i have a suspicion that mo of mecca was much bit better looking than your prophet .......... let me look around and find a picture so that i can post a fitting reply next time you put up pornography ................... on second thought, forget it - posting pictures of our prophet is grounds for decapitation ..... you have an unfair advantage and all i can do is cry like a woman !

Rabid Paaki DOG,

I gave a more serious reply. Pl read and go back & do what u do to chinkbums.

and now, i have to go.

regards to all on chowk. no scratching and pulling of each other`s hair please.

#323 zeemax: the only ``islamic system`` is the one propagated by the maulvis in their search for more power. islam is about individual responsibility before God to distinguish between right and wrong and to do the right thing - it is not about giving the mullah the usurp control over pakistani society through undemocratic means backed by the physical power.

Folio_idiot,

If there`s some historical figure like u, then it shud be a matter pride to u. Wasnt it?

I don`t understand. Do you mean if I was a historical figure it would be not only ok but a matter of pride for me to explore my nieces` orifices while feigning to test celibacy?

A more serious reply on Gandhi:

Gandhi stopped bonking since he was 35. Experiments on Brahmanchrya (celibacy) were well known.

zeemax #316 sorry, i had to go away from chowk for a minute... :-)

anyway - you can always find things that someone has not done to belittle what he/she has done. if all bina shah does is write this article spelling out the history of oppression under hadood laws - then she has done infinitely more than all the religious parties of pakistan put together who seek the continuation of these ``laws``, oblivious to their vile impact.

This is my reply: #324 by Folio on March 11, 2007 7:16am PT
If there`s some historical figure like u, then it shud be a matter pride to u. Wasnt it?

---

Pak women need to be liberated from clothes. That`s ur msg for Pak women, I guess.

Folio idiot please answer #322 without resorting to ad-hominem ..

//Until and unless there`s an Islamic system, women in Pakistan will not be free like my woman who`s half-naked//

I think this shud be the complete anwer?

If there`s some historical figure like u, then it shud be a matter pride to u. Wasnt it?

#314 by tahmed32

Ok .. tahmed ... since you have chosen not to reply because you can`t, I will answer my own question.

Until and unless there`s an Islamic system, women in Pakistan will not be free. Let these pseudo authors and zahraJ`s do whatever they will. These are poison to the women`s cause, not an assistance.

#321 by Folio

So you admit gandhi was a deranged woman abuser/user like me with the added advantage of committing incest?

Re: # 319

Phew ! We saw u doing something similar to what u are describing to a skimpily dressed Chink. I think that`s the Islamic way. OK, point taken.

#318 by dotty,

What`s your question?

#317 by Folio

Aaha .. so common customs ... I`m sure these common customs compelled the nanga fakir to always latch around with this Manu all the time ... who had nice hips BTW ... would have been nice to snuggle his spindly legs in the clefts that idiot would have found in Manu`s behind ... while the faithful wife washed the slimy feet ... Oh .. ok .. now I know ..

zeemax, tahmed32 and others,re :CJofP

Yesterday YLH said something about refererring and evidence (and quoted a law) etc in a post and did the same in his Ilaag).
I have ssearched but have not found this evidence. Is there any such thing, if so what is it? Or is he just a thorn in Mush`s side to be removed a la beckett the mad chancellor?

Re: # 315

Rabies afflcited rabid DOG,

Bringng social /practices into this in unnecessary. There are common customs among north Indian rajput Hinduwomen and Muslim women for eg. parda/burqa. Hindu & Muslim women in deccan put silver rings to the fingers of their feet. Banglaeshi Muslim women wear Bindi.

Of coure I agree that rabies afflicted DOG like u cant understand these commonalities.

#314 by tahmed32

You haven`t answered the question. Are they just talking about history or are they proposing something new to help the plight of rural women?

#313 by Folio

So kuttey .. Muslims mistreat women and make them wash their feet ? Huh?

#308 zeemax: chowk is a discussion forum, and bina shah has made a contribution in the fight against the harrassment of women from poor families in pakistan writing the above article. zahraj has made a contribution by supporting it. i applaud them for this.

the baigharat men of pakistan who twist islam to condone the harrassment of poor women will no doubt rot in hell once they have lived out their miserable little lives on earth.

Re: # 311

Rabid DOG,

That`s his wife. Spouses serving each other is not slavery.

...couldn`t even walk without having two nieces to goose on either side ..

Look at the fake fraud nanga fakir getting his slimy feet washed by women slave ...

#35 FerozK

Perhaps you should collaborate with Yasser on his long-promised but yet-to-be-delivered book on Gandhiji.

Such a relationship could become highly productive and mutually beneficial - symbiotic!

You could provide him the sheen of acedemic ``respectability`` or whatever passes for that in the land of the Pure - what he craves for!

And he could provide you what appears to be the most sought-after ingredient for success by contemporary authors...

... a bit of cheap publicity built over the ruins of what used to be alive!

#307 by bjkumar re #282 by ZahraJ

Yeah those almond eyes ... guess his nieces inherited those .. or was it the other way around? That old nanga fakir inherited those from his underage nieces whom he used to fingerfuk in bed?

#306 by tahmed32

Not at all. It is good history of all this `drama` .. but has either proposed anything to be done further than having orgasms over reversing a known flawed law?

#282 by ZahraJ on March 10, 2007 10:49pm PT

[ I also see depth in Gandhi Jee`s eyes. In fact, he has nicely shaped almond eyes. Is that common among Indian men?]

My dear, you need to see a bit deeper than the superficial, and remember, that person belonged to a time when it was one country.

zeemax #302 in summary: this article provides an overview of the struggle against oppression and harrasment in pakistan. it clearly identifies the role of zia, the religious parties on the one hand and the struggle of the women of pakistan on the other. and it correctly concludes with It has been a long fight. But it is not over yet.

Do you see a problem with any of this?

#304 by tahmed32

Forget bjkumar ... he`s inconsequential to this discussion. May I have a reply to #302 please?

zeemax #299 i suggest we bring this discussion between you and bjkumar beyond the school playground level. :-)

(i forgot the key word - bjkumar - in the post below.)

zeemax #299 i suggest we bring this discussion beyond the school playground level. :-)

#300 by tahmed32

Can you sum up what the author is saying and what zahraJ is saying?

I need this because I don`t know what`s the point. The hudood ordinance has already been amended a few months ago with regard to rape .. so what next are they proposing?

#298 Tauheed sahib

I agree about the scourge of ``bride burning`` and fetus-killing, although one may disagree about their extent. But please remember, unlike Hudood, these are not state-sanctioned. (Thanks for mentioning these, I have been thinking of penning a piece on related topics and will get around to it on ``one of these days``! :) )

In your second paragraph, you say not much different from what I said - but you prefer different semantics. Semantics do not change the reality.

zeemax: you cant simply wave off what zahraj or the author are saying by calling it ``fashionable``. the fact is that women in pakistan are at the forefront of in the battle against oppression of poor women in pakistan, in the streets, in the courts, and what zahraj and the author are saying reflects the same struggle on chowk.

only a baigharat people would lightly take the oppression of women - whether in the form of hadood laws, or harassment in other forms.

#298 by tahmed32

tahmed .. you have to understand that this liar bjkumar is now desperate after having fallen from his lofty imagined perch to the status of a proven liar and a plagiarist and having become a pariah (with no thanks to me) so all he can do is try to gain attention with arjun-like tactics .. and with that the best he can become is another arjun who`s the most ignored interactor on chowk.

So ... I pity bjkumar ... so should you ...

bjkumar: if pakistani women from poor families suffer under hadood, then indian women from poor families suffer due to ``bride burnings``, and millions of unborn females from middle class families never are allowed to develop beyond the fetus stage.

and the only reality this arjun-like talk of pakistani being refused visas points to is the ill-wishes and spite that too many indian men display on chowk. dont fall to their level, and see the world the way it is - while no doubt there is greater security concern when it comes to travellers from muslim countries, the broader reality is very different from this.

#287
Who is the author?

(You did not write it yourself, by any chance?) :)

#293 by tahmed32

tahmed ... always beware of munafiqs like teshah who try to defame Islam by lies ..

#292 by tahmed32

If you`re a patriot, you would know what I`m saying.

CJs dismissal had nothing to do with the Mukhtaran case. I quoted it just to shame the autor and begum ZehraJ who don`t know diddly squat about what`s really wrong with this country. They`re all shedding crocodile tears because it is fashionable for begmaat.

CJ`s dismissal is about a pending unpublicised case before him about president holding two offices on which he was about to decide ... that`s why all this haste.

#290 Tauheed sahib

I KNEW it will get to you. :)

It is true that the Indians (without being distinguished from the Pakistanis) have been made into caricatures for many past decades in the west. People would not think of India without thinking of serpents, elephants, fakirs, maharajas and so forth. Most of us ``videshis`` have encountered those moments and often resented those - unless those were hilarious.

But dear sir, you KNOW that is not the case any more. Especially in the post-9/11 world, the ``Westerners`` are indeed making more and more of a distinction between the Pakistanis and the Indians - be it in granting visa, in admission to colleges, in differing treatment at airports, in sending out questioning letters, in countless other ways.

All that talk about ``frontline ally`` and other such stuff is perhaps positive for the morale - but does not change the stark reality!

Just like the stark reality stays unchanged for the vast minorities in Pakistan.

And for its women - struggling under the Hudood!

zeemax #283 well caught!! teshah had fired off a toola about islam. :-)

zeemax: what makes you think that the CJ dismissal has anything to do with the mukhtaran mai case?

and, unless you are a mind reader, you are merely making a convenient assumption in saying that zahraj is shedding ``crocodile tears`` over the plight of poor women in pakistan.

#289 by bjkumar

Shut up idiot plagiarist and proven liar.

bjkumar: actually, is the appus of india whose weird accents and obsequious ways are in the source of jokes in the west. pakistanis may be many things, but obsequious little doormats we are not.

#288

[ Power and control are the key perhaps]

There is a difference, though. In case of the Pakistani practice of Islam, it is the LACK OF power, and the lack of control - the utter helplessness and impotence - which is driving this ``introspection``.

For example: how would one feel as a Pakistani when one sees the contrast:

(1) tales of those ``golden days`` of Islam (real or imagined) contrasted with the present day realities.

(2) being treated like a doormat by every power in the world - be it the US, the Russians, the Chinese, and now (more and more) the Indians.

So the present crop of the Ummah takes all the frustrations out on its own people, in the following order:

(a) Beating up on tthe Hindus or Sikhs, where available - but less so - because those creatures are nearly extinct now in the land of the Pure. (Somehow, damaging shrines just does not get that ``We are the Ummah...`` mood going the same way!)

(b) Beating up on the Christians - wherever one could find them - also a shrinking population for understandable reasons.

(c) Beating up on some other helpless minorities - especially the Ahmediyas.

(d) After running out of the above, getting to the more sizeable minorities - for example, the Shias.

(e) Even if one runs out of all of the above, there are always the staple diet available for the Ummah - the fair maidens of the land of the Pure - the ever so willing of the masses - to get mass raped, to drink yellow beverage served at close range, and to willingly accept the other sacrifices necessary for the ``cause of the Ummah``!

If one is a Pakistani khaki, of course, Kya kehne!

There is the whole population handy - any and every Pakistani to pick from - to kick, to rape, to crush, or to generally use like a brush!

Re: # 237

please see

#208 by

---

...

---

on March 9, 2007 12:33pm PT
Re: # 198

O Wheel O Time, greetings friend.

Your #198 is interesting. Interpreted another way are you suggesting that there is a growth of papacy and or brahminism within Islam? Your para 2, indicates that this might be the case.

BY brahminism I mean interpreters of religion and texts associated with it.

This happens with all religions. Esp when they become complex and convoluted. Where every word is debated and interpreted to kingdom come. Hair splitting comes to mind. What was simple, and straight forward is no longer the case. Since everyone wants their flavour on the interpretation. The powerful, use ``learned people`` to reinforce their prejuidices and flavours. The more the number in this group, the greater the convolutions and contortions, and reliance on obscure sources. This then becomes a self-fulfilling cycle.

Would you not agree?


and indeed Wheel o Time`s earlier messages and mine! Power and control are the key perhpas

Dear Pakis,

For a change, enjoy some URDU poetry and try to figure out what and why it laments about you.

Ghulami ko barkat samajhne lage
Asiron ko aisi rihai n de

Khatawar samjhegi duniya tujhe
tu itni jiyada safai n de

Samar

To ZahraJ as well as the author ...

Instead of crying crocodile tears over the plight of rural women, have you raised a voice upon the illegal dismissal of the man who gave THIS rural woman justice .....

...by sending back to jail THESE men ...

..... on a suo-moto action who were freed by the high-court?

I`m sorry. But both of you are just naz nakhreeli begum sahebs whose feigned concern with rural women begins and ends with maasis who sweep your floors crouching in a frog like manner and you shout at them everyday for leaving out that corner under that settee, and then throw some hand-me-down joras their way if they threaten to leave.

ZahraJ,

Instead of his mother spitting on him, his father should have pissed on him. That might have worked!

:~)

#271 by bjkumar

Eff you .. liar and plagiariser ..

#267 by teshah,

Liar !

... Where is it written that a woman can be married to Quran? Stop defaming Islam with lies. Marrying off to Quran is a custom of rural Sindh to protect property transfer out of the family and perhaps would even have the sanction of the ostensibly Quran-loving Sufis who live off handouts of the landed ... but it is nowhere near Islam.

bjkumar - I also see depth in Gandhi Jee`s eyes. In fact, he has nicely shaped almond eyes. Is that common among Indian men?

#280 ZahraJ

Thanks for seeing kindness. I wish and pray the concept evolves in Pakistan, then many of its problems would go away.

Re: # 275

bjkumar - That`s nice portrait of Gandhi Jee. His eyes seem to be full of compassion.

Thanks for sharing.

Note: Probably, Yasser can take a close look at this one :p

Re: # 278

Tahmed - Mills and Boons :) A topic that hovers on Hamidm`s mind every now and then. Either he is into or Khawateen Digest or M&B or Harold Robbins. Daniele Steel and Sydney Sheldon may be too light for him :)

zahraj: what is M&B??

Re: # 274

Dear Qibla Hamidm - You mistook my post. You can also convey your stance by being direct. There is no need to always beat around the bush to make a point. It`s real annoying. See, Mrs Hamidm may withstand that style but the rest of the womenkind do not have to bear that :)

And I am sorry to disappoint that I never ever cried on any nonsense and bull$hit (pardon my farsi) in M&B. By the way, my mother did not let me go near one till I was in my late teens :) I have never developed a taste for that nonsense.

In the end, I do not know if it matters to all women to be good muslimas or christians or hindus or jews.....What matters is to be able to lead a life of one`s choice where options, equal rights, and opportunities are in abundance.

I appreciate your concerns for the womenkind and think that I understand where you are coming from metaphorically. Still, by women crying out loud on the issue of hudood is not going to resolve that issue. That was my initial stance. You cannot change the way Islamic countries function. A man may be the most debauch and characterless creature, but that society will not penalize him for a wrongdoing but will put a poor woman in jail for being raped. That to me requires a huge change in the thinking process of that society. And honestly speaking, proper a$$ whipping of the men in power who continue to let these things happen. There is no application of Islamic law in that case. That in itself is hypocrisy among the Muslims. As a result, the social fabric keeps on getting weak and weaker.

The fact that the law and order system in Pakistan allowed a lunatic to be out, inspite of being a killer of many women (regardless of their outlook towards life) tells you a lot. Well, probably the next Chief Justice of Pakistan needs to be a real woman. Hopefuly, President Musharraf will find another woman leader to come forward and then feed her to the ba$tards.

Just make sure you cover your women well when you visit Pakistan the next time. Your crazy fellow men are no longer human beings. The fanatic ba$tards have taken very ugly shape.

hamidm #274 about the friday night wife beating ritual by drunk husbands? does that come with the turf too?

#274 Hamidm2

Sir, as a token of my appreciation of the delight that you have forever expressed in seeing the fully-clothed pictures of a certain individual who somehow always seems to evoke the very strongest of sentiments in you - I provide you another one for your enjoyment!

For the record, I do believe that that individual would have disapproved of the Hadood laws!

Re: # 270

zahraj,

........... i never claimed to be an enlightened man (even though some devotees say they have seen a halo over my head) and i am perfectly happy being just the way i am - really too old to change ......... in any case, being in the us has nothing to do with enlightenment - just look at jerry falwell, paris hilton and the guys on jackass who were born and raised here .......... and what is wrong with hoor and khawateen digest ?...... they are just as good as mills and boon and that danielle steele stuff that you probably cry over - my mother, god bless her soul, used to read them all the time (and yes, she too cried) ........... and there is nothing wrong with crying - mrs hamidm cried when et wanted to go home, and i cry ever time i see those nasty pictures posted by bjkumar ...........

......... but i do believe that muslim women bear a large part of the blame for their own miserable condition ............ as long as they continue to defend the horrible practices of their faith they deserve what they get - they are like jews on the way to the oven defending nazism .......... if you want to be a good muslima then take your beating like a woman and stop whining ..........

Re: # 270

zahraj,

........... i never claimed to be an enlightened man (even though some devotees say they have seen a halo over my head) and i am perfectly happy being just the way i am - really too old to change ......... in any case, being in the us has nothing to do with enlightenment - just look at jerry falwell, paris hilton and the guys on jackass who were born and raised here .......... and what is wrong with hoor and khawateen digest ?...... they are just as good as mills and boon and that danielle steele stuff that you probably cry over - my mother, god bless her soul, used to read them all the time (and yes, she too cried) ........... and there is nothing wrong with crying - mrs hamidm cried when et wanted to go home, and i cry ever time i see those nasty pictures posted by bjkumar ...........

......... but i do believe that muslim women bear a large part of the blame for their own miserable condition ............ as long as they continue to defend the horrible practices of their faith they deserve what they get - they are like jews on the way to the oven defending nazism .......... if you want to be a good muslima then take your beating like a woman and stop whining ..........

#250 by nasah

Nasah sahib, I used to share the gut-level disgust at the Pakistani khakis – especially the Mushy. But unfortunately, nobody there is any better. They have no honest civilian leaders – they all can only compete in who can bad-mouth India more. Their “liberals” are the worst of the lot – if the chowk site is any example, they are the most gutless individuals in the world – if I were a Pakistani khaki, I would never lose even one second of sleep about any challenge from this segment.

The khakis at least earn their living through using their guns and are upfront about it. And from the Indian perspective, as long as they keep those guns pointed at their own civilians – and their own civilians are busy roughing up their own women – it is likely that they will have less time to “export” those activities. Unfortunate but bitter truth!

Baaki to Bhagwaan maalik hai!

In the end, people accomplish (or fail to do so) only what they REALLY want to accomplish. If the Pakistanis – after sixty years can only produce demagogues, killers, and not a single person who sees the truth for what it is – like the rest of the world does – perhaps it is not meant to happen.

Therefore, kindly do not pay much attention to the Mushy – only the crocodiles can survive in that river full of Piranhas!

We can feel bad for the “persecuted” ladies of Pakistan – but they are approximately fifty percent of the population and barring a few individuals here and there, do not seem to give a hoot – are perhaps quite happy being beaten up, raped, genitally mutilated, and exploited.

You sir, are a good man – but I do not wish to extend that generalization to a whole lot of individuals on the other side.

#266 Zee

Sorry yaar, I should not take out on you what is my anger at what are my very own weaknesses.

Go in peace! In the end, everybody goes the same way.

I hereby add you to my ignore list.

But no hard feelings, my dear!

Re: # 257

Hamidm - Despite the fact that you have been in the US for sometime, none of your interacts reflect an enlightened man. What a disappointment! Your environment does not seem to impact your thinking. On certain boards you talk about Hoor and Khawateen Digest, whereas on others you are trying to score some brownie points in some lame subject area.

Perhaps you have been carrying the baggage from the roots for way too long. I suggest getting rid of it piece by piece and try to be a new man. You may be pleasantly surprised on the developments :)

No, it`s never too late to see the world from a different angle. Please no excuses.

Regards,
Z

Re: # 255

Hamidm - Sorry I have to ignore the flame bait since it did not make much sense. Please grow up :)

Best Wishes

Re: # 242

``Religion is a dependant variable in our society and not the independant determiner.``

A very thought provoking observation indeed, but as Iqbal says:

`He kabhi jaan aur kabhi tasleeme-jaan he zindgi``

Re: # 236

May be this is the main attraction of Islam which rightly treats the woman as sub-human. Ironically she can be married to the Quran but not allowed to enter the Mullah mosque or offer `Namaze-janaazah`, (A ritual prayer for the dead), etc., etc..

#262 by bjkumar

BjKumar ... you convicted and known admitted palgiarist!

Your post does not deserve a response.

Come around without your pre-conceived mis-guided notions and perhaps I will reply.

#260 by tahmed32

[#251 krishna: the premise on which Pakistan ... that Muslims are better people than Hindus, at least as far as it relates to the treatment of minorities?

did you spin this Treatise on the Creation of Pakistan all by yourself or did Pandit Modi Lal Thakeray teach you this? ]


Your argument that my comment was a spin is eminently boneheaded. It follows very logically - according to Jinnah, in the following two scenarios:

1) Muslims living as minorities in a Hindu majority land (undivided India), and

2) Hindus living as minorities in a Muslim majority land (current Pakistan)

minorities would be treated far better in #2. This was the supposed basis of his creation of Pakiland.

According to this argument, Muslims treat minorities better than Hindus.




[also, what are you doing trying to carry on a conversation with an evil muslim?]


It is no doubt that you are a folower of the cult of Islam, and therefore a participant, however blinkered, in the propagation of evil. However, my first comment on your comment #243 was NOT an invitation to a discussion - this is why it was NOT addressed to you. ONLY when you addressed me in reply did I ask you a question back.

Don`t flatter yourself - ANYONE belonging to an evil cult like Islam that has been founded by a monster like Muhammad, has to be a moron in the extreme. There is nothing anyone has to learn from the likes of you other than how to be civil to standard bearers of pure evil.


[you want to be re-incarnated as a newt, maybe? or maybe an albino frog?? ]

Even that would be preferrable to being born into the cult of the pedophile, serial rapist and backstabber.

#263 Tauheed sahib,

[I speak sir for myself AND for mini-me]

Be careful, or you might wake up my minnie-mee! :)

Which is already rather riled up at u-no-hu`s classless reappearance with her two-bit joota-chaater!

bjkumar: I am really concerned about krishna_abcd`s next incarnation. :-(

Like Dr. Evil, I speak sir for myself AND for mini-me!!

Zeemax, How about this request from before?!

You agree to the following:

(1) Stop blowing up people like me and others not of your faith all over the world.

(2) Stop cutting female genitalia, beating the females, raping them in the name of ``honor``, and stoning them, and approving of ``enjoyment`` marriages.

(3) Accept the essential equality of all people - Muslim or non-Muslim.

Do those three things for starters, and then I will start agreeing that Islam CAN BE practiced indeed as a religion of peace - a stance which our very own GWB is so fond of reiterating in every speech!

All the Hadood problems can then be addressed in turn.

(Note: if you agree to the above, you can take u-no-who to do as you please! :)

#260 TAhmed

Need I remind you sir, that you can not speak for ALL Muslims - only for yourself!

You did say EVIL, didn`t you?! :)

#251 krishna: the premise on which Pakistan ... that Muslims are better people than Hindus, at least as far as it relates to the treatment of minorities?

did you spin this Treatise on the Creation of Pakistan all by yourself or did Pandit Modi Lal Thakeray teach you this?

also, what are you doing trying to carry on a conversation with an evil muslim? you want to be re-incarnated as a newt, maybe? or maybe an albino frog??

#258 Zeemax

The USED riff-raff speaks again.

Breaking her silence!

Like breaking wind! :)

Can crap be far behind?!

#257 by hamidm2

Hamidm Mian, I`m glad that eating the flesh of the only animals on earth who eat their own excrement (apart from hindoos) has done you and your off-spring plenty nutritious good ... !

Re: # 252

sattar mian,

`` it is important to realize that persecution of Ahmadis is squarely against teachings of Islam and practices of dear Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). `` ........... good try ! ....... my heart goes out to you and i wish you well ......... but that is exactly what women and pigs have been saying all along and we have yet to recognize women as people and pork chops as halal .........

....... i would be willing to give up fighting for porky`s rights if `they` recognize you and women as regular human beings .........

#250 by nasah

may be this will be the last straw that will break this stupid camel of a man`s back this time.

It should be indeed the last straw. But given the history of this country, I doubt it. It`ll take some more time. It is a vicious blow though.

Re: # 254

zahraj,

you ask: ``Can women be protected by understanding the nuances of Ahmadi movement?``

.... the answer is `yes` ! ........ how? ....... because ahmedis and pigs are in the same category as women as far as good muslims and their laws are concerned ......... once you understand why al-lah mian and his prophet, muhammad mian, hate the ahmedi and poor porky, you will come to understand the woman`s predicament ......... it is really that simple

p.s i apologize to porky for comparing him to women and ahmedis

Re: # 253

Dear Sattar - What is the relation between hudood and ahmadi movement ? Can women be protected by understanding the nuances of Ahmadi movement? I understand that you were responding to KC, but I am curious. Please keep your response succinct.

Regards.

kaalchakra (#209):

“Limitless rights” is a loaded term, so I’ll avoid it.

Issue here is a much simpler one: It should not be a crime for an Ahamdi to consider himself a Muslim, to peacefully practice Islam. Laws that penalize Ahmadis as such are unjust and unfair.

It should be easy to agree on such a simple idea ... without getting into philosophical discussions. No??

Abu #169, 170:

You are suggesting that Ahmadis preaching Islam do “injustice to uneducated masses”. What is the basis of this claim? Was Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) preaching tauheed to “uneducated masses” doing injustice to them?

No one owns Islam. A believer has the right to peacefully preach his faith. Apparently you yourself are forgetting the practice of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh).

I am comfortable with my faith in Islam and see no reason to oppress anyone on any basis. Perhaps that’s the difference between you and me.

You attempt to validate persecution of Ahamdis by suggesting that we don’t live in a perfect world. Well, neither did kuffar of Mecca! Does that make persecution of early Muslims acceptable to you?

Ahmadis believe in Allah Almighty, Quran, prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and all articles of faith prescribed in Quran. A person may come up his own articles of faith … including one about Prophet Issa (pbuh) residing in the sky … and that’s his own choice. However, this person has no right to force his belief on others. Similarly, you or the government of Pakistan have no right to impose their understanding of Islam on Ahamdis.

Ahmadi-Muslim community continues to strive within legal constraints in Pakistan. Draconian laws will get dismantled when the time is right, when Allah wills. However, it is important to realize that persecution of Ahmadis is squarely against teachings of Islam and practices of dear Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

And finally, you can probably try to make your point without hurling abuses at Yasser. It only undermines your own viewpoint.

#247 by tahmed32

[#244 so ``islam is evil and pakistan is doomed.``

this is the recurring delusion beyond which you are incapable of going. a kind of an infinite loop in a java program until someone mercifully presses the break key. take a tea break.]

I`m delusionel, eh?

So you believe that the premise on which Pakistan was built is a true one - that Muslims are better people than Hindus, at least as far as it relates to the treatment of minorities?

Let me know.

``the general (a paid servant of one branch of the executive) fired the Chief Justice of Pakistan yesterday (the head of a separate branch of government whose, in any civilized society, would be untouchable by the executive, let alone a tinpot ruler who violated the sacred trust a nation places on its military to defend the nation, not use it to gain power himself)!! ``(tahmed)

right tahmed -- of course for a prostitute like Mushrraf any hint of celibacy of CJSC Iftikhar Choudry will be a blatant ``misconduct`` -- the crappy dictator is an incorrigible gungadeen -- craps in his khaki pants before the Chastising Cheney -- a farting foreigner -- who chewed him up and spit on him for not servicing his American clients their dollars worth -- but treats his own native politicians and justices like doormats -- may be this will be the last straw that will break this stupid camel of a man`s back this time.

The audacity of a corrupt to the bone criminal sepoy who hijacked an elected government at gunpoint and self-coronated himself as the `president` of the country -- calling the honesty of a first independent CJ of Pakistan -- a ``misconduct``! --

The army man has just committed another hijacking -- this time of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. `Enlightened moderation` my foot -- Musharraf is a shameless imposter.

hasanmahmood (#104, 191):

I cited Quranic references to suggest that punishment of lashes applies to fornication, as well as adultery (#127).

Quranic requirement of having witnesses suggests that in order to be punished, these sexual acts have to be carried out in open view, in an offending manner. What consenting people do in privacy is not punishable by lashes.

zeena (#157):

Your attempt to undermine kulharee’s view by labeling him as a “mirzai” speaks more about you than anything else.

Mantolives (#166):

Right you are. As someone pointed out, majority rule should not become mob rule. This distinction is often lost on fanatics.

zeemax #245 no doubt the hadood laws have resulted in the rape and/or harrassment of women by tens of thousands of women (many at the hands of the thana police itself) whose only ``crime`` is that they are poor and powerless.

what makes me mad is that not one policeman has been charged with anything. no one political leader has called for heads to roll, public executions to take place. this is baigharati and immorality of the highest order. and the religous parties are in cahoots with the rapists themselves with their campaign against the hadood laws.

#244 so ``islam is evil and pakistan is doomed.``

this is the recurring delusion beyond which you are incapable of going. a kind of an infinite loop in a java program until someone mercifully presses the break key. take a tea break.

DOS (1) :
1) Stop hair-splitting. Stick to the article which is a good one in itself. But inadequate for Pak in general.
2) Stop comparing Pak with India or the west. Pak is Pak, land of the pure.
3) Stop loosing heart. Though near, Kayamat ka din has not yet come.
4) Stop shying away from truth. Truth will take hold of you and prick its sharp nails into your eyes.

DOS (2)

1) Get to the real issue. Discuss basics and think of how should Pak go about it. E.g : Will scrapping of Hudood law make any difference?
2) In socio-political terms you can compare Pak with erstwhile Soviet-Union. Either remain PURE and wait for the Kayamat or like China, make way for the pollutants to come in. Resist their entry but don`t close the door, i.e. filter.
3) Pakis are a confused lot. Real patriots must act fast. Clear the smoke and get started.
4) Try to invent your own political system but crush religious fundamentalism at any cost. Remember, they are the carriers of Kayamat. Pak has already stripped it`s shock-absorbers away. Dilly-dallying is meant only for open societies.

Samar

The introduction of hudood ordinance as well as the removal of a part of it now are both actions of the same nature: Both are `dramas`. Both are malafide in their intent, both were never meant to either persecute any crime nor to prevent miscarriage of justice against women. Both were meant for the sole reason of fooling the people and obtaining political gains. My argument is as below:

The hudood defined in Islam with respect to fornication and adultery are moral offenses punishable by the defined process (e.g. four witnesses) and do not include rape. Rape is a criminal offense which is not treated seperately from other criminal offenses such as assault, battery or murder. It was wrong in the first place to lump rape and fornication together because these are NOT the same kind of offenses. It was just shabbily and hurriedly done to enact Zia`s Nizam-e-Mustafa for legitimization of his regime. The `thana` police culture took advantage of it and used it to their own ends towards extortion and/or pleasing local influentials at the village/tehsil level. Still, even though many women were charged and imprisoned under this offense, none was ever found guilty and awarded the prescribed punishment because the judiciary was aware of the flaw. Thus, the root of victimisation lay at the `thana` police level, and not with the law itself which was flawed just as many other laws are flawed, and which are only corrected after having been tested.

As for the recent women`s protection bill, that too is as much of a `drama` as the foregoing. This bill removes rape from hudood and puts it back in the criminal code (tazeer) exactly as it was before. So far so good. But does it `protect` women? Or address the `thana` culture`? All it does is to deprive the police from just `one` lucky windfall of a tool to use for extortion. That`s no big deal. They have plenty of others and are using them.

In the meantime there is a whole Federal Ministry devoted to women and waxing eloquently on their huge achievement. And the Federal Minister (who may even become PM sometime and the author of the bill) is about whom I had alluded to in my article of yore named ``Empty Vessels and all that Jazz``. Her dream had always been a nice Land Cruiser, which I guess has since been achieved many times over.

#243 by tahmed32

[hamidm: no doubt indians (and the secular hindus like nehru in particular) deserve credit for building an orderly society within a framework of laws while in pakistan - well, the general (a paid servant of one branch of the executive) fired the Chief Justice of Pakistan yesterday (the head of a separate branch of government whose, in any civilized society, would be untouchable by the executive, let alone a tinpot ruler who violated the sacred trust a nation places on its military to defend the nation, not use it to gain power himself)!!

your ``scientific research`` that makes you think that hindus are less attached to their religious ritual than muslims is less convincing though. as many hindus show up for khhumb mela as muslims for hajj, both convinced no doubt that this is a short cut to wash away their sins. and there is no denying the simplicity of islamic rituals (related e.g. to birth, death, marriage and everyday prayer) relative to hindu or christian traditions, e.g.

as for maudoodism, like i said, this will be washed away when we have a civilized society in pakistan. if there was no military interference in pakistan, the lack of ground roots support for maudoodism would be exposed (as it routinely is when these rascals are trashed in elections by the pakistani people every time). ]


Pakistan was built upon a false premise, a lie - which is that Muslims are better people than Hindus.

This is the logic that said that a Muslim minority in an undivided Hindu majority India would be mistreated, therefore the necessity for Pakistan, but a Hindu minority in Pakistan would be treated much better by the majority Muslims.

Other than being an absurd logic in itself, it flies in the face of available factual historic evidence - a brief perusal of the court documents of the Islamic rulers in India over the ages exhibits abundantly how the Hindus were mistreated over the centuries under Muslim rule.


A nation based on a lie is doomed at birth. As is a religion based on lies.

hamidm: no doubt indians (and the secular hindus like nehru in particular) deserve credit for building an orderly society within a framework of laws while in pakistan - well, the general (a paid servant of one branch of the executive) fired the Chief Justice of Pakistan yesterday (the head of a separate branch of government whose, in any civilized society, would be untouchable by the executive, let alone a tinpot ruler who violated the sacred trust a nation places on its military to defend the nation, not use it to gain power himself)!!

your ``scientific research`` that makes you think that hindus are less attached to their religious ritual than muslims is less convincing though. as many hindus show up for khhumb mela as muslims for hajj, both convinced no doubt that this is a short cut to wash away their sins. and there is no denying the simplicity of islamic rituals (related e.g. to birth, death, marriage and everyday prayer) relative to hindu or christian traditions, e.g.

as for maudoodism, like i said, this will be washed away when we have a civilized society in pakistan. if there was no military interference in pakistan, the lack of ground roots support for maudoodism would be exposed (as it routinely is when these rascals are trashed in elections by the pakistani people every time).

Feroz writes <<< It is a facile argument to suggest that rapes go unpunished in United States and so we should not bother about the conviction rates of rape crimes in Pakistan. Women are raped and the rapes might go unpunished in the United States, but the women do have right of justice and the due process of the law in the United States and at the very least, they are not victimized on the basis on religion and are not treated as third class citizens on the basis of a religiously created apartheid of social, economic and political disenfranchisments. >>>

Ignoring the jibber jabber of your long post that is totally devoid of facts but relies on moralizing in the usual Western elite`s hypocritical sloganeering manner, try to deal with what I had written as fact. It is a very potent argument on my part when I suggest that even in the absence of Hudood Laws in the US, the results produced as shown by victimization data of women, are much grander than any that the Hudood Laws have produced in Pakistan. You would also claim that African American males have due-process in America when as fact they are disproportionately incarcerated and punished in that system. Further any and all data are missing from your article. Show me that maternal mortality in Pakistan has religious cause and then I will show you other third world countries where similar numbers are found in the absence of hudood laws. How will you prove me worng? You can`t because your thinking is sterotypically circumscribed in favor of the Western model of domination and misery generation and then distraction by using slogans.

IF the slogan of de jure ``due process`` is all you care about and not the results, and then using them you want to obfuscate from the real issues that affect Pakistani women things like poverty, healthcare, maternal mortality and their related results in the form of status in the economy and the home, then you my patheticlly ignorant friend are quite foolish. The real reasons behind a crime are not ``religion`` but has to do with the wider social structure, the power to assign labels and the distribution of resources, these are what affect women`s status and distractions that are offered as explanation by devious illiterates. Religion is a dependant variable in our society and not the independant determiner. The problems of women and the problems of men in our society are much greater than the Hudood ordinances, and I still stand by my claim that those who shout and wail against those are merely part of a cat and mouse game of distraction from the real issues...

Re: # 240

tahmed,

........ you are missing an important point ..... hindooism might be riddled with more ptimitive superstitions than islam, but the horrible hindoos don`t base their constitution on those superstitions ........ whereas our constitution is the koran - the book that you worship ....... ask any muslim and he will tell you that without any hesitation - sure, some will throw in the bukhari and shafi and a little bit of hambal and malik, but by and large all agree that we must follow the book ......

....... on the other hand, other than the silly hindoo scholars on chowk and one or two rather strange brahmins, i have yet to meet a hindoo who seems to have any idea of what hindooism is all about ........ and i know a lot of hindoos - too many, because mrs hamidm is convinced they have been instrumental in my headlong plunge towards hell ........ after many years of ardous research over many gins and tonics, i have reached the conclusion that there is no such thing as hindooism - nobody in their right mind would worship a steak instead of eating it ..........

......... i think islam is in a league by itself when it comes to practicing primitive superstitions ......... but, you can save us all by displacing bukhari and maudoodi ........

kaalchakra #232 I am glad you agree then that hinduism is in fact even more riddled with primitive superstitions than islam. lets take a step forward from here.

these superstitions stem from the same primitive tribal culture as sectariansim whereby goats seek security in numbers by affiliating themselves with one group (shia, sunni, ahmedi in islam e.g., or hindu-muslim communalism in india, or islam-west fanaticism that exists in pakistan or the middle east). so, the root of the problem is (drum-roll): primitive cultures. and, to twist the saying, you can take a man out of his primitive culture, but you cant take the primitive culture out of the man. and that is why you have educated babus on chowk getting their jollies by throwing mud at muslims and islam (as in case of indians on chowk) or by throwing mud at other muslims sects or the west (as in case of pakistanis on chowk).

With these encouraging and uplifting thoughts, I end this post with best regards. :-)

#235 by - - -...- - - on March 10, 2007 1:21am PT

[Is a type of Brahminism on the rise in Islam and amongst Muslims? …The internal consistency is vanishing from within Islam itself, which requires multiple interpretation based on hair splitting meanings of words and phrases and contexts etc.]

Brahminism, as you describe here, refers to an absence of conflict – not through the recitation of peaceful shlokas, or through promptly leaving any scenes of conflict upon the first signs of conflict, but it refers to the forever occurring conflict within the self. Such conflict is a permanent state of being, and the present day status of the great thought process of what is generally understood as “Islam” has evolved in – and continues to evolve in – even as many in the world (with the clear exception of a few wizened souls on this web-site (not I)) – fail to appreciate its internal consistency being the source of its strength. Such consistency is especially unique because of its all-absorbing nature – as well as its ability to permanently retain in its embrace all that it absorbs. You may have a point about man feeling the need for power and control – but the way you explain it, perhaps these “true” Brahmins of the world, now just emerging on the world stage and making their presence well-known and understood (or, as some would say here, misunderstood) – will be someday seen in their full glory as a mere natural extension of the thought-process initiated in 600 BC! I must admit that this is a completely new way of looking at things – one may disagree whether the world at large is fully ready for these up-and-coming Brahmins – but it does put them in a different light.

[A religion is born every day. An interpretation is created every day. And internal consistency vanishes into thin air for the external observer.]

Sometimes, along with the observers!

#226 by kaalchakra on March 9, 2007 8:03pm PT

The crux of the matter is that the cutest cuts are those which carry to the core of the crap with considerable kindness.

Re:235

[...A parallel here for Islam - Buddhim is like Islam, which then broke into many schools and many interpretations. Both negate orthodoxy of one form or the other. Extremely simple in their beginnings. They became complex over time, and both esoteric and nebulous over a period of time. ....]

You are describing the typical evolutionary cycle for all major religions. Every religion starts out simple, with a simple message and a simple set of rituals. Early Islam, Vedic hinduism, early christianity or early buddhism were all simple messages. As time goes by, the message splinters into multiple entities. The question is why does this happen?

The main reason is that religion can give you a mental crutch, perhaps a social structure, but it cannot protect you from uncertainty. Consider the Taliban for instance. They felt that they were doing God`s work, and were paragons of virtue. Yet, God didnt stop them from getting thrown out in less than a month in Afghanistan. For all their piety, they are stuck to hiding in mountains and making suicide attacks. So what was all that piety for? Why didnt God help them? If God cannot protect his most ardent believers, why should the rest of us even bother? Decades from now, the Afghans will realize that all that praying and shoving women into burqas led to didly squat difference in their own lives. If at that time, someone offers a new interpretation or a new message, they will listen. That is how religious message s become diffuse - uncertainty is the root cause of people`s disillusion with the existing message.

re: masadi # 58

Those who cry and wail against the Hudood ordinances do realize that they are unequal partners in a society that is based on the notions of an Islamic equality. In a country claimed to be created on the very basis of Islam, it begs the question why there has never been any criteria practiced, which would have identified the nation as Islamic. The women of Pakistan have suffered under the grab of religion, because though the religion of their birth gives the right of justice, the Hudood laws were never created to give justice to women as much as they were to created to legitimize the political ambitions of one man.

In a society, where the women are denied their rights; denied the due process of the law; treated as sub-human chatel; killed in the name of honor by a society that has no honor and is too stupid to realize that there is no honor in murder, the calls of the victim against the trespasses of injustice are never a distraction. Hudood laws are not the distraction, because they are the REAL ISSUE that is enslaving half of the Pakistani population and when the women of Pakistan - its mothers, wives and sisters are being killed and raise a voice, common sense and basic human decency suggests that we should listen to their cries. To suggest that the wails against the Hudood laws are distraction is tantamount to suggest that the person about to be murdered should not resist his/her own murder and when an issue, such as Hudood laws, divides the society and within that society creates more evil in order to stop an evil and when civil society is being brutalized on the basis of a law, the critism of that law is not a distraction but a clarion call to the society`s very own sense of conscience.

The critism Hudood Ordinances do not take attention away from the real issues affecting women in Pakistan, but rather focuses the attention on the REAL ISSUE facing the women in Pakistan, which is the abuse of religion politically to socially victimize the women in Pakistan. It beggers the believe that a person such as yourself, taught to understand social issues and societies, would be so blind to the issues that are tearing the Pakistani society apart and for a sociologist to claim that Hudood laws are distraction, implies that s/he does not understand the reason behind the real issues affecting the society itself. Every issue in Pakistan that affects and effects women traces its genesis to how that religion is used and misused and abused to perpetuate and prolong a sexist-gender discrimination that seeks to politically, economically and socially annihilate the women of Pakistan.

Women are denied healthcare on the basis of religion, for example in NWFP, because male doctors should not treat female patients say the religious reasonings and since there is a lack of qualified female doctors to cater to the need, women end up being denied basic medical facilities and treatment. The end result is more maternal mortality. Women are told that their rightful place is in the home and they should not venture out into the company of men to earn a wage and using religion to deny them their economic rights, the women are made destitute and this is what forces them into poverty and not the machinations of an elitest west and its corporate interests. Women are discouraged to attend educational institutions in Pakistan because of gender segregation and then claims are made, but never fulfilled, to provide them with an equality opportunity to gain an education alongside of the males. When women are forced to ``marry the Quran``, it is not the western lackeys and their corporate mentors who keep alive this barbaric system of fedualism in Pakistan. When women are disfigured with incidents of acid throwings, it is not the mentality of western imperialistic and capitalistic neo-colonialism that inspires acts of acid throwing but the on accepted notions of ``honor`` based on a society`s religious-feudal sense.

Every issue that has discriminated against women in Pakistan or has offered a reason to do so, can be traced to religion and when the real issue, itself, is religion it is an ignorant statement to suggest that it is only a distraction from the real issue itself! When religion is used politically and socially to deny the women healthcare; to deny them education and keeps them in a perpetual state of poverty and when laws are passed on the basis of religion to institute injustice and the society starts to fray socially and politically as the result of its own religious follies, then issues which originate from it are not a distraction but a matter of societal concern and should be openly voiced and debated and not ignored because they are not an issue worthy to be discussed.

It is a facile argument to suggest that rapes go unpunished in United States and so we should not bother about the conviction rates of rape crimes in Pakistan. Women are raped and the rapes might go unpunished in the United States, but the women do have right of justice and the due process of the law in the United States and at the very least, they are not victimized on the basis on religion and are not treated as third class citizens on the basis of a religiously created apartheid of social, economic and political disenfranchisments.

As Pakistani citizens, concerned about the problems confronting our nation, we should not worry too much about the crime or the law and order situation in the United States and debate their failures compartive to our own failures. The argument is not that women are raped in the United States or their rapes are not solved, but why are women raped in Pakistan and more importantly, why are their rapes not punished in Pakistan. The question is not what the Americans are doing or not doing in the United States but what we Pakistanis are doing or not doing in Pakistan. A rape victim does not care of about geographical location of their rape as much as they care about the availbility of justice to address the wrong done to their human dignity and when we start to talk about perpherical issues surrounding the commission of a crime but not the REAL REASONS behind a crime, that my dear professor is the real distraction!

Ciao

#234 Wheel O Time,

that phrase you use in 234 and earlier (which bulleya aka Romair went gaga over, and so did TAHMED32) ``within their own respective contexts `` is the key.

However, I go back to your earlier post, and mine, and ask Is a type of Brahminism on the rise in Islam and amongst Muslims? You did suggest that this was the case.

The internal consistency is vanishing from within Islam itself, which requires multiple interpretation based on hair splitting meanings of words and phrases and contexts etc.

My point, is mono-belief by itself, will in the long run lead to its own demise - the natural equilibrium is always monism. That is the nature of religion perse (not belief in god). Belief in god is a mono concept. But the interpretations given to god are many fold (will be - even in christianty, Islam you see this with sects - how are these sects different from the saivaite, visnavaites, sakti bhakta, shiahs, sunnis, catholics, protestants, luthereans etc). Power and control is the key. Man feels the need for these and there is a desperation to have a hold over your fellow beings. Thus the many interpretation, sects etc.
But the belief in god is personal over arching concept.

A parallel here for Islam - Buddhim is like Islam, which then broke into many schools and many interpretations. Both negate orthodoxy of one form or the other. Extremely simple in their beginnings. They became complex over time, and both esoteric and nebulous over a period of time.

A religion is born every day. An interpretation is created every day. And internal consistency vanishes into thin air for the external observer.

The natural human condition is monobelief in god, but Monistic in its external appearence. It is this which needs to be understood. A failure to understand this leads to more troubles in the name of religion.

ranjit

Both elephant-headed Gods and the bomb-strapping young men/women are more meaningful within their own respective contexts of Hinduism and Islam than they are outside of their respective contexts. More than beauty, absurdity lies in the eyes of the beholder

Anyways, that`s all for now. Good night everyone.

Re:kaalchakra

[..If worshipping a God carrying the trunk of an elephant and riding a mouse does not appear absurd, then what will?!......]

Well, how about strapping a bomb on your body, blowing up innocent people and yourself, hoping someone up in heaven takes notice and eventually getting to have sex with 72 virgins? I suppose all that makes supreme sense. My dear sir, all religions are theaters of the absurd. It is mankind`s pathetic attempts to control its fate after death. Thats all there is to it - a fear of death. Take away death and every religion, especially Islam, will fall flat on its face.

Islam and its cousin Christianity are both quantity oriented religions. It is all about head count for them. 1. Make it very easy to join 2. Entice people or use violence to get them to sign up 3. Make sure, there is supreme pressure against leaving the faith. God only knows what is the benefit of adding millions of people to their faith, but somehow muslims and christians are obsessed with adding new people to their faith. Eastern faiths like hinduism, buddhism or confucianism do not care about head count. It is your own journey - you come alone and you die alone.

At the end of the day, people want to live their life in peace. Islam and Christianity just do not let people live their life in peace. Both these religions are responsible for 99% of religious violence in the past 2000 years, mainly due to their expansionist ambitions for adding headcount. Thankfully the goras have managed to bottle up christianity and convert it into a benign faith that is barely recognizable from the past. The muslims have been unsuccessful, except the Turks, who have shoved Islam under the carpet. No wonder, the Turks are the only muslims who are successful and happy. Otherwise just look at the muslim world today - a bunch of pathetic losers obsessed with mindless violence and sexual repression. If this is the miserable way to get to heaven or God, screw heaven and screw God. Who needs any of it?

tahmed32

Many of the lunacies of Hinduism have been and indeed are lunacies anyway one looks at them. That is not the case with Islam. If one accepts the broad framework of Islam, then almost all of its practices (no matter how unacceptable they are to outsiders) make pretty good sense. That is because Islam has far greater internal consistency than Hinduism does (granted Islam has its own sects and inter-sect conflicts). Hinduism almost decries any emphasis on internal consistency. So much more than Islam, Hinduism can defintely come across as the theatre of the absurd.

(If worshipping a God carrying the trunk of an elephant and riding a mouse does not appear absurd, then what will?!)

#228 by bulleya

“.......due to this abstraction and decentralization, people can find their own comfort zone in islam..........they don`t have to follow any traditions, leaders, fatwas, scholars etc.......i don`t follow any islamic scholar.......i read them and accept some views and discard others.....i have been to a mosque, once or twice in the past ten years..............i spend a lot of time studying islam, on my own hours.....and am interested in getting a higher academic qualifiction in some area of islam.....many scholars would declare me non-muslim and a heretic, if they were to listen to my views........yet i am as much a muslim as the next guy......”

Brilliant Guy! You nailed it. This is the greatest strength of Islam – you define your comfort zone and there is no religious hierarchy who can tell you differently. This allows you to define your own relationship with God with no interference from anybody.

Problem arises when the community, the mosque, the village, the school, the state tries to interfere in that relationship. So that is the apparatus that has to be gotten rid off. Individual God – Secular State.

#226 kaalchakra: also, while i was (in #187 below) differentiating between those muslims who followed rituals and those who followed the spirit of islam - hinduism is far more given to such rituals. so, if ``practicing, believing muslims`` (per your definition) are raving lunatics, then i wonder what you would call the hundreds of millions of your own co-religionists!!

#226 kaalchakra: actually i have found more ``irrational lunatics`` from among hindus (some practicing, some not, whatever) on chowk than among muslims. When the earthquake took place in pakistan, some of your esteemed fellow-hindus were expressed their joy on chowk. When the recent samjhota express blast took place, your rational fellow-hindus were expressing joy again. some extreme cases seemed to be clinically ill with their obsession in trying with pakistan - e.g arjun, jay have nothing to say other than their joy at every real life misfortune they believe falls on them.

but ....dont let me detract from your deep thoughts. :-)

kaalchakra #226: ``For all its supposed ``lunacies`` if we made an attempt to see Islam with the eyes of a believing Muslim, we might appreciate why the religion never stops appealing to so many people no matter what the rest of mankind might think of it.``

....you will see very very few people convert out of islam......including women, about whom the general impression happens to be that they are persecuted in islam.......you will see quite a few people converting into islam.........even today, it is the fastest growing religion in europe and in north america......much of it is due to immigration and high birth rates of muslims.....but much of it is due to conversions, as well.....the whole demographics of european countries are starting to change, based on this......

......the reason for the above is quite simple, and is what i have been trying to articulate here for a while........islam is written in abstracts, because the quran is in abstracts........secondly, no one has religious authority in islam.......

......you have seen it on this site......when one person tries to throw his views and his, ``scholars``` views into an islamic debate, others can and do just tell him to get lost.....and vice versa........

.......due to this abstraction and decentralization, people can find their own comfort zone in islam..........they don`t have to follow any traditions, leaders, fatwas, scholars etc.......i don`t follow any islamic scholar.......i read them and accept some views and discard others.....i have been to a mosque, once or twice in the past ten years..............i spend a lot of time studying islam, on my own hours.....and am interested in getting a higher academic qualifiction in some area of islam.....many scholars would declare me non-muslim and a heretic, if they were to listen to my views........yet i am as much a muslim as the next guy......

.........islam is, thus, a very loosely defined abstract religion, with no religious hierarchy.....which is why it appeals to so many people.........what has however happened is that powerful religious hierarchies have made their place in islamic societies through extra-religious means......some of it is due to force, others have done it through politics, some through pressure tactics etc........and they have, then used that authority to force their own views onto others.........this, of course, is against the essence of islam.......

Re: # 204

``Lastly though, if they had to declare Ahmadi as non Muslim, they have to clearly define what a Muslim is according to the legislature (I don’t know if they ever did that).``

Allah has defined it in His Quran as under:

Aayat 14, soorae hujraat (49) mein Allah farmata he:
``Kaha ganwaron (Arab Awam) ne kih imaan laae ham. Keh nah iman laae tum lekin kaho `Musalman` yehni maghloob hue ham aur abhi nahin daakhil hua iman biich tumhare dilonN meiN aur agar farmanbardari karo allah aur rasool uske ki nahin kam dega tumhaare amloN se kuchh. Tehqiq allah bakhshne wala mehrban he.``

Ghalban yahi wajah he kih ham momin nahiN musalman kehlate heiN kionkih mullah ki khatme nabuwat ke bahd to ham mullah ke maghloob ho kar musalman dar musalman ho chuke heiN aur ghaliban isi lie hamen khatme nubuwat ka halaf nama dakhal karna parhta he jo yih sabit karta he kih ab ham Allah, nabi ya uski aal ke nahin mullah ke farmanbardar hein. Sach aakhan te bhambarh machda.

Is Pakiland mein to sab `Hafi Muslaman` hein. Asli musalman to sub is Halfistan se baahir rehte hein.

I don`t know...there is a tendency among non-Muslims and among some liberated and liberal Muslims to consider practising, believing Muslims to be nothing short of irrational lunatics, violent unthinking barbarians given to ludicrous delusions, products - we appear to be sure - of genetic disorders. In the past I myself might have sympathized with some of those views.

IMHO now, that is a most unfortunate and myopic view. It is based on a complete unwillingness to appreciate Islam`s ability to provide a strong, internally self-consistent, ambitious and powerful alternative worldview - alternative to the Western/democratic or Indian/pluralistic worldviews. For all its supposed ``lunacies`` if we made an attempt to see Islam with the eyes of a believing Muslim, we might appreciate why the religion never stops appealing to so many people no matter what the rest of mankind might think of it.

Even its most `insane` aspects have solid reasons behind them, reasons refined and honed over a thousand years of a very vigorous history. We might want to undersand those reasons, and THEN depending upon our own individual preferences either accept them or reject them.

I personally find Islam absolutely fascinating. It is not for me. But I can understand that it can be for others. And these people don`t have to be crazy, or robotic, or irretrievably evil.

Re: # 223
ooops keyboard and olde age...

I could hammer the heck out of zeemax if I knew who he was for he is a zealot
If I knew the identity of zeemax I would hammer him since he is a zealot
I know who zeemax is and since he is a zealot I should hammer him


and ofcourse should invest in a decent pair of reading glasses.

p.s zeemax - you were just used as an example no offense meant.....(T)

#209 by kaalchakra

``The Constitution would have clauses like no law can be passed which violates freedom of religion.``

``The Constitution should have clauses like no law can be passed which violates the intent/spirit of Islam.``

Very good point! But intent/spirit of Islam is violated if e.g. Abu Sufyan converts from Sunni Islam to Qadiyani. He becomes an apostate and is handed a death sentence. But on the other hand Abu Sufyan is a hero if he converts Christians in America to the fold of Islam. But it gets more convoluted – Qadianis believe they are Muslims so they are not converting.

Sorry – it ain’t gonna work! Both are mutually exclusive.

Re: # 209

O Wheel of Time, the subtle differences, nay nuances of could, would and should are shrouded in mystery.

for example

I could hammer the heck out of zeemax if I knew who he was for he is a zealot
If I know the identify of zeemax would hammer him since he is a zealot
I know who zeemax is and since he is a zealot I should hammer him

are disctintly different in meaning.

However, if they change to

we would hammer the zealots if we can identify them
we should hammer the zealots if we can identify them
we could hammer the zealots if we can identify them

the differences are so miniscule, that they would stretch the patience. Would and should are similar, but subtly different, could is totally different here.

You Wheel O time are a great one for throwing a small pebble and waiting for the ripples to run into tsunamis (how I hate this word). Sometimes, such subtlity violates the senses and makes one to do what arjuna did ala bhisma, only make it more painful!

kal ke munh mein ram ram ;)
what he means is muslims are normal (i.e. human like all others)..ergo the message needs to be questioned.

ref#220

Please read it as

Kabira teri jhopari, hai gul-katiyan ke pass
Jo kare ge so bharen-ge tu ko bhayo udaas.

ref#218

Dear Tahmed

Once I got rid of Mullahs, I don`t go to any priest any more.

Like Kabir I have reconciled with my predicament.

Kabira teri jhopari, kai gul-katiyan ke pass
Jo kare ge so bharen-ge tu ko bhayo udaas.

ramchandar:
permit me: most of the times Señor Kaalchakra is employing a sorta socratic ironic mode so what you read in his posts is not what it means. His posts are nice, clean, little setups and most of the time he gets away with it. If you really wanna see his take on Islam, read posts he wrote under his another moniker: Ralph

ramchander: and what is the message your religious priests give you? it is obvious from the stupid muslim-obsessed posts of hindus like you.

Dear Kaal

Many muslim listen to their relegious men to know about their relegion. It is quite normal activity.

Problem is with message and idol of Mohammad (pbuh).

Problem is with message of Jihad = sex + violence.

My dear brorther in your humane stupor you gloss over these points.

zeemax: dont play Allah. that`s blasphemous.

Raw_Dust,

Like someone said ... we`re only loitering around on the sands before the ocean. Kaalchakra goes a bit further than that.

I don`t blame you. You do not know, and do not understand. Perhaps you will, or perhaps you won`t. I do not know. I just hope you will.

to support #213, here is a gem from a certain country`s constitution:

``Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;

And whereas it is the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order

Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people;

Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed;

Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;``

kaalchakra:
don`t mix up things here. by generically stating ``democracy``, you gave zeemax so much excitement, he is ready to go down on you.

Please, also distinguish that when you talk of ``democracy``, you are talking about a muslim-democracy that subjects the will of the people to the will of Allah, i.e., Islamofascism.

A standard off-the shelf democracy, liberal-democratic one, DONOT have any dilemmas regarding Minorities. Minorities are not defined in terms of limitations on their basic rights compared to Majority. No way.

To preclude misunderstanding....``terrible and horrendous`` for existing systems, not in any absolute sense.

Zee, nameless one....what can I say?! I will be back soon...thanks :)

#209 by kaalchakra

Haha ... Now you`re being merciless ...

#206 by dotty,

Why`re you trivializing Kaal? I have never seen him ONCE changing his position or loading it. Like what he just said about Sufiism, he`s alway said that and has been castigated for it but this is one person who KNOWS Islam being a non-Muslim ... with all its warts and stuff .. and I fully agree with him. So please let him state his position in his own way without hinderance about what other just cannot see ....

Tehsinabbasi

True, any democracy must institute protections for minorities, but these protections can never be limitless. Hence, you will increasingly find many hitherto `proud` democracies awaken to the realization that offering minorities practical blank checks is a terrible and horrendous idea.

Ending discrimination against Ahmedis (or anyone else) is a noble goal. However, before that can happen, we might have to do a lot more thinking beyond traditional (leftist) argumentation.

For instance, there may be a need to convince ourselves (and then others ) whether the following two are fundamentally different statements, or are they practically the same? Or can one or both of these suggestions be implemented simultaneously, and how?:

``The Constitution would have clauses like no law can be passed which violates freedom of religion.``

``The Constitution should have clauses like no law can be passed which violates the intent/spirit of Islam.``

---

beej, abu sahib, brothers, please, you guys are going way over my head. Thanks, anyways :)

Re: # 198

O Wheel O Time, greetings friend.

Your #198 is interesting. Interpreted another way are you suggesting that there is a growth of papacy and or brahminism within Islam? Your para 2, indicates that this might be the case.

BY brahminism I mean interpreters of religion and texts associated with it.

This happens with all religions. Esp when they become complex and convoluted. Where every word is debated and interpreted to kingdom come. Hair splitting comes to mind. What was simple, and straight forward is no longer the case. Since everyone wants their flavour on the interpretation. The powerful, use ``learned people`` to reinforce their prejuidices and flavours. The more the number in this group, the greater the convolutions and contortions, and reliance on obscure sources. This then becomes a self-fulfilling cycle.

Would you not agree?

#199 by abu_safwaan

My friend, Kaalchakra is one in a few million. You`ll be lucky if you can nearly approach the depth of his mind.

Thank you Kaalchakra ... for keeping the `faith` in `reason` alive. Both are not mutually exclusive as you and only you know.

Re: # 199 abu_safman I would be careful with my friend Wheel-o-Time. A very good logician, and man with clear mind no cobwebs. Often, though he is known to be loaded, and what is simple is very complex indeed.

Your bigoted statement, or preamble, show your contorted mind, distorted beyond the wildest imaginations of the people here.

Your statement could of course start with `` why cannot all muslim be as rational as him.....``.....now that would be so seriously below the belt that it would extreemely painful.

Ratonal thought requires you to think of people as human beings, and not associate them with a tag (apart from a name that is). That you do otherwise, indicates a lack of rationality on your part.

Or as BJKumar sayeth Kaal EATS vegetables - especially around here - with a LOT of relish!

Re: # 204

Abassi Sahib, please give a little more credit to Pakistanis. I don’t think that they care what other people believe in or practice. Do you think that Pakistanis have that much free time on their hand that they need to classify people’s beliefs? Only a handful of piggish thugs (aka Molvis) have made classifying people into one category or another. An average Pakistani is happy with Ahmadis being Ahmadis and could care less how one worships or not, and how many prophests one believes in. It’s only the jokers that came from one stupid place (Deoband) that have made Islam their business. An average Pakistani is more worried about the price of medicine than the status of some dead dude.

Sunni Brigade vs Ahmedi defenders

Gentlemen we need to set some sort of basis, ground rules for your arguments. This is basic civics or constitutional basis for any republic. Democracy means majority rule, but it can degenerate into mob rule – the founders of Republicanism realized this over 2000 years ago and adopted appropriate measures against such an eventuality.

Lets say it passes a law that all Ahmadis are hereby required to convert to Sunni wahabbism and those who don’t will be expelled to Raiwind. What is there to prevent them from implementing such an outrage. It is the constitution which has to prevent this from happening whereby laws are made by such an assembly which violate the rights of minorities, we have the constitution to protect them. The Constitution would have clauses like no law can be passed which violates freedom of religion. The Supreme Court thus becomes the arbiter, the protector of the constitution. For it to effectively carry out this function it has to have the prestige, the moral authority, the support of the media and all other institutions of government who would not allow either the legislature or the executive to ever ignore this authority.

The problem in Pakistan has always been and continues to remain:

- Supreme Court does not have the power to fulfill its responsibility. The minute the interest of the President is threatened they better pack their bags. This is prevented in America by life time tenure for Supreme Court justices.
- Constitution is suspended, amended, abrogated – so we don’t know which side is up.

Lastly though, if they had to declare Ahmadi as non Muslim, they have to clearly define what a Muslim is according to the legislature (I don’t know if they ever did that).

#202 Yaar, it is a little different from the way you understood it.

Kaal EATS vegetables - especially around here - with a LOT of relish!

Hamidm2 does too - except he can not hold back his loud, satisfied smacking sounds!

Different styles, that`s all.

Re: # 200
Hmm..vegetables ehh...well hamidm will try anything at this point to get some sanity..but i won`t hold my breath..budha buhatt dheett hayy!

hamidm: One correction to your post: the farhat hashmi pagan rituals are attended by the burqa clad goats of jamaat-e-islami that demonstrate for the continued oppression via hadood laws of women from poor families. not women like asma jehangir who fight against this oppression against overwhelming odds (the government, the mullahs, the paindoo babus).

While it is sadly true that the books of mullah maudoodi and bokhari, i am not interested in selling any ideas myself (if i was, i wouldnt waste time on website with a tiny membership of the usual suspects). historical currents will defeat them more surely than any amount of arguments or discussions.

Thus: maudoodi and bokhari may have defeated the Quran by replacing the latters message with their own - but they cannot defeat the tides of history. Rising literacy rates and influences from the outside world will defeat maudoodism and bokhariism just as surely as the rising sun chases dracula back into the hole he crept out of. So, 20 years from now you can look back and say: ``Verily, tahmed spake the truth!!!`` :-)

#199

Yaar, the matter has been crystal clear for a while! It is because he is a ``vegetarian``!

Except for extremely rare occasions, of course! :)

Re: # 198

Why can`t all hindus be as rational as him, come to think of it world would be a better place if most humans were of his mindset. Thank you Good Sir!

Bulleya

There are very few religious systems wherein the words of one or a few individuals have the force of law (papacy perhaps), or where some members supposedly carry greater divine importance than others (brahminism perhaps, and of course, Sufism which is lilttle more than a form of Hinduism with Arabic labeling).

In interpreting their religion, Muslims appear to be fairly normal people. Many listen to religious scholars because they believe that to be the rational, more efficient approach to understading religious texts. Many others assign a halo effect to religious scholars and see something divine about them. Those who politically disagree with the interpretations of these scholars question the judgement of those who listen to the latter. All fairly commonplace.

If there is anything unusually wrong with Muslims, then I fail to see it.

samar1982

Don`t know if there is any misunderstanding or not, but Ballukhan is an Indian, and a phenomenal one at that. (The only worse faux paux would be to assume nassah ji and faruk to be Pakistanis!)

kaalchakra #193: ``Muslims do not listen to their scholars and maulanas because they believe in some divine religious hierarchy.....``

....actually many do.....many are unaware of the concepts of islam and think that certain individuals actually do have authorities to pass fatwas etc......

``They give the opinions of these scholars greater weightage because the latter focus on and devote their entire lives to learning about and from the Quran, Muhammad, and his companions.``

....as i said earlier, there is nothing wrong with giving someone`s opinion importance.....anyone who wants to do so, can go ahead and do so......what i am stating is that no one`s opinion is binding......at least according to islam........

for example, if someone likes listening to me and thinks i am some sort of a scholar on islam, they can do so till pigs fly.....they can become my disciple, etc..........however islam does not allow my opinion to be binding on anyone......if someone voluntarily wants to accept it, well and good........but anyone can voluntarily reject it also........

`` unless the Quran itself mandates that irrespective of age, education, or mental and moral history, every Muslim`s individual understanding of the book remains and must be accepted by others as equally valid.``

...quran does not mandate this........however, the quran does not mandate the opposite either......i.e. such and such individual has an authority to interpret and enforce his/her interpretations of the quran on others.........

...according to islam, no one`s interpretations of the quran are law......none can be forced onto others.......islam does not describe any such mechanism..........

#185#ballukhan

Aaina hata loge to kya chehra bhi badal jaega ?
Aankhon se chhup jaega magar dil main nazar Aaega

Kis-kis ko bhagaoge mian? Hoodbhai ko, Irfan Husain ko, Najam Sethi ko, Asma bee ko...? Kis-kis ko?

Kya Pak par aapko bilkul rahem naheen aata?

Still, I think, it is futile to fight just against Hudood Law. Pakis must immediately start a revolutionary struggle for complete overhaul of the constitution incorporating equality, democracy and secularism as its fundamental principles. Religion, like a wolf, will eat your country away, thanks to the stinking wounds inflicted by the terrorists.

Samar

Re: # 190
Yes the women that should be respected are hamidm`s daughters who share ``Ice Cream`` with random boys in the privacy of their cars on prom nite, which he is very proud of. Really barayy mian no one is going to take away your visit visa if u try to grow some respect but then again it might be just a tad late for that.

Bulleya

Are you being fair to Muslims? Muslims do not listen to their scholars and maulanas because they believe in some divine religious hierarchy.

They give the opinions of these scholars greater weightage because the latter focus on and devote their entire lives to learning about and from the Quran, Muhammad, and his companions.

That is the only logical thing to do, unless the Quran itself mandates that irrespective of age, education, or mental and moral history, every Muslim`s individual understanding of the book remains and must be accepted by others as equally valid.

#191 why is god so interested about sex amongst two consenting adults? What are the Hudood laws for a boy that was raped by 6 horny pathans. Does the boy also needs to produce male witnesses or does the deepened hole in his anus is good enough.
Why do women have to produce 4 witnesses. I can only imagine if one the four happens to be a pathan blind cleric, that mistakes the woman for a boys behind. I am sure Allah the merciful has some provisions in the appendix of Quran and Hadith-tul-Jahalia.

Urstruly, thank you for pointing out the verse. However, you are again proving my point by using stoning as an example. First of all the verse you have provided is (in my opinion) for people engaged in fornacation on a cointinous or habitual basis. For others, Allah also said

``And upon those of your women who commit fornication, call in as witnesses four people among yourselves to testify over them; if they testify [to their ill-ways], confine them to their homes till death overtakes them or God formulates another way for them. (4:15).

So there might be different punishments based on other factors. As far as stoning is concerned, it is nowhere in Quran as you have mentioned yourself and once again, if it is not in Quran then please make sure that you use the word hadith and make sure that people know thee difference.
Abu sahab, the reason why I completely ignore Ahadith is not because I dont respect Huzoor(PBUH). As a matter of fact I respect him more than anything. However, I have seen people get away from true Islam because they start holding these ahadith more important than the word of Allah. For example, I have seen people argue over how to perform vuzu, when in Quran, the way is present (yes in Quran - it is given). So people should not care whether the water has to flow over the ears etc but just read Quran and follow it. Inshallah you will get all your answers. You also point to the people who have done PHDs on this subject. Do you think they are better muslims then you and me just because they read works from other people like them. I truly believe that if you and I read Quran (I am certainly NOT implying that you don`t) we will understand our religion as good as (if not better than) those so-called scholars.
To prove my point, look at all these mullahs who show that they know more about Islam than anyone. Have you ever seen anyone who does not have a beard? Where in Quran does it say that you have to have a beard to be a good muslim. They look at every clean shaved person with disdain. Now isn`t it because they forget what the Quran teaches them about equlity and love,

``O mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another. Truly, the most honored of you in God`s sight is the greatest of you in piety. God is All-Knowing, All Aware (49:13) ``

but rather hold other WEAK sayings more important like

(1) Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said ``I have no connection with one who shaves, shouts and tears his clothing eg. in grief or affication.``
- Reported by Abu Darda (R.A.) in Muslim, Hadith no. 501

Now can you imagine Huzoor who never uttered a bad word for anyone even when he was being humiliated and tortured would say something like this.

This is what I mean when I say the mullahs have no position in our lives and people should start reading Quran rather than asking these mullahs questions.

Re: # 187

tahmed,

........ i have told you many times that i really admire your valiant efforts to reinterpret tha koran and present a kinder/gentler version of islam ............. but until your interpretation outsells maulana maudoodi`s tafseer - which, as i understand it, is the gold standard - your well intentioned efforts remain futile and quixotic ............. anyway, if i ever decide to convert back to islam after i revert back to hindooism, i will accept you as my prophet ............ keep up the good work

...... as for these women who don the hijab, stop shaving their legs, attend farhat hashmi lectures and then run out and ask for equal rights, i have no sympathy for them .......... they deserve to be admonished, left alone in their sleeping-places and beaten ......

How does Hudood Ordinance take the following Quranic verse and interpret it.
Verse is from Chapter 4 which is dedicated to Women... Al-Nisa.
Alrrijalu qawwamoona AAala alnnisa-i bima faddala Allahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabima anfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatun hafithatun lilghaybi bima hafitha Allahu waallatee takhafoona nushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunna fee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakum fala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna Allaha kana AAaliyyan kabeeran

Translation

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

RE: #156 zeena,
``Do you think we should have hudood ordinance in Pakistan? If yes , why?
If, no why? Thanks ``

I already answered this in post #65,
``For the record, I do not support the Hudood Ordinance becuase I do not support criminalization of consensual sex. ``

hamidm #154 i don`t think it is possible for a woman to be a practicing muslim and then turn around and ask for eqaul rights

That is correct - per the maulvi definition of a ``practicing muslim``, and for the maulvi ``practice`` means saying namaaz, roza, haj, chanting magic phrases in arabic, and treating women as cooks and sex slaves.

This is incorrect if you chose a more common sense defintion of a ``practicing muslim`` - the one who does what the Quran says is the reason God created man (to learn about God`s creation, in other words to educate himself and seeks to extend his knowledge) and the criteria the Quran says on which all humans will be judged by God - namely to use his God-given faculties to distinguish between right and wrong and to do the right thing. So, yes - it is indeed possible for a woman to be a practicing muslim and turn around and ask for equal right. Indeed, this is the duty of any individual if he/she considers himself to be a muslim!!

In Pakistan today, there is fortunately such individuals are increasing in number every day. Asma Jehangir - maligned and ridiculed by maulvis and the run-of-the-mill paindoo pakistani babu - is a shining example of a true muslim woman, e.g. As opposed to those burqa clad goats the jamaat-e-islaami sends down to demonstrate on their behalf for the continued oppression of poor women under hadood laws.

here is the real pakistan of the elite. (Note: the PIA jet which is also one of the many not allowed to fly outides of Asia and Africa)! Extremely good image, very westernised, and modern. I wonder what everyone is crying about!

Abey Ramchandar ki aulad......bhag ja yahan se........

All bout the hudood!

Dear Abu_safwaan

I tried camel`s moot as recomended by Mohammad (pbuh0 for 30 years. Voh bhi rass nahi aya.

Kya kare dil ko koi moot bhaata nahi.

Re: # 181

aajj gaoo mata ka moot mayasarr nahii aaya shayad..jabhii subha subha bhindiyoon ka mood kharabb hayy

ref#155

Dear ChachaJan Hamidm

You forget the sex slaves which Mohammad (pbuh) had.

I seriously think Freethinker should go and research what type of aphrodisiac Mohammad(pbuh) used.

His life is perfect example. He realy felt the entry into woman of every age.

Mohammad ( pbuh ) = sex + violence + imperialism + slavery of infidels & women.

Ofcourse I said ``there might not be...`` despite claims to the contrary... I have no qualms in admitting that I was underestimated the said country.

So Yasser going to some phoren country where there is no GPRS/Internet is a big fat lie :-)) But we knew that already didn`t we Yasser?

Would you please refrain from sharing freudian issues you have with female members of your family. Some of us want to have a good lunch.

Re: # 176

woww you figured all-0-that out on ur own? mommy would be very proud today paandani...good job!

#174...

Aww... so you didn`t get a job and stayed on as a toilet cleaner in the US? And thanks for verifying another truth.... most ``Ahmadi Assylum seekers`` in the west are actuallY Sunni pagans like you who otherwise hate Ahmadis... but would wholeheartedly play the Ahmadi card for immigration...

That reminds me... last year... a friend of my father`s ... a gentleman who was otherwise a staunch Sunni muslim met my father and took a detailed interview taking notes on Ahmadi religion... apparently he was interested in Canadian immigration more than Ahmadi religion.

aww.. harish mian, were you victimised by me too?

Re: # 171

Awwwww ..hurt are we? Didnt mean to make u cry lil man..i m sowwiiieee. But u should have thought about it before u stepped in arenas where prerequisite is an IQ of 10 or higher, u obviosuly is well short of that. Truth is some of us tried our utmost but couldnt get a job, we begged and we cried and played the mirzayi victim card as much as we could but it still came down to that GPA. And the stink you are feeling is from the BO, try using a deodrant, u aint a hindoo so its not against ur religion to take a bath once in a while.

#171 by Yasser

Who victimised you now and how? I will fight for your rights... I promise for a suitable fee

Here comes the ambulance chaser!!!

Masadi,

How would you feel if someone responded in kind and said ``Typical illiterate comment from someone who believes in reinterpreting books of fairy tales ... rationally.`` I won`t though... for many reasons - including my regard for the eternal rational principles laid down by the Holy Quran.. but why make personal attacks...

Is exploitation of women through Hudood Ordinance merely a ``ghost``? I don`t distinguish between Mullahs like you and other Mullahs. Is Hudood Ordinance Quranic? Is it Islamic? If it is not... then you should be equally bothered by abuse of your book...

Nadia,

Who victimised you now and how? I will fight for your rights... I promise for a suitable fee.


Abu Safwaan....

Some of us are not dependent on small mercies by others and can do well in our own country. Some of us don`t harbor the desire to settle abroad and take education as an experience rather than a ticket to settling down somewhere else... but it is not about me...
it is about you... You maybe right about taking huge dumps though. No wonder where ever you interact, one can feel the stink from a mile away.

For the millionth time now, i think state shouldn`t and mustn`t be prejudice. No one should be persecuted because of what they believe in, in the PERFECT WORLD!. We don`t live in a perfect world, we live in a world where if you don`t institutionally ban qadiyanis from luring people to qadiyaniyat by selling it as islam then you are doing great injustice to the uneducated, naive masses. If qadiyanis would have propogated their insanity as qadiyaniyat then they wouldnt be in this mess. Its not against the law to propogate christianity, hinduism or any other religion but if christians would try to sell christianity as Islam then someone would have to step up and say, ``I THINK YOU ARE LYING SIR``. If the argument is that qadiyaniyat is Islam then we will ask for proof of mirza`s prophethood which i know is pet-peeve at this point. So i dunno what will please you morons.

This noble statement that democracy is not majority but its for all people. Ahh i don`t think anyone consulted the 7 million muslims when they passed the draconian patriot act. democracy by desiggn is the government of majority, you can sugar coat it to the umpteenth degree but at the end of the day, there will be a public holiday on 25th december because its a christian majority country and not on EID. Qadiyanis were declared non-muslims by a constituent assembly, if its not rubbing you the right way, then follow the discourse that is provided by the law. why should rules change all of a sudden? I don`t quite understand what the argument is quite frankly. we love democracy but we dont like the constitution it should be changed, OK! Should it change because sattariya and sabundani are not happy with it or should it change because thats what ``All the people of pakistan `` want. And who is this ``All People`` anyway? And are we going to make sure that every single one of the 160 million is on board and happy and satisfied and if thats not possible then what do we do? We take the majority`s opinion maybe? ahha.. and majority is still not HOT about Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani, so lets try and put pressure by seling ur product where its not banned. West is a good place, you have all the freedom here, propogate qadiyaniyat and become a force to reckon with and then Pakistan would have to listen, but the caveat is that Qadiyaniyat is an anda (egg) which is ganda, and people usually opt for saaf anda as its obvious with the popularity of real Islam in west where the playin field is levelled, so we are back at square one, you have a flawed product and you are pissed of at the consumer for not buying it. I believe the medical term is Insanity.

Yasser latif Sabundani,

Before I can indulge you in a serious conversation, I would like to understand why in the world would u put up a mug shot especially when you look like a dwarf? I have taken dumps bigger than u, for all intent and purpose you look like a malnutrition weakling and its not a good representation of pakistaniat, besides it just screams low-self esteem “my parents didn’t love me..look at me, love me”. Do you really think anyone gives a rats ass about ur supposed concern, would the newspapers give a shit and a half about what you have to say about taqi usmani? Like the editors of newspapers in Pakistan were eagerly waiting what Mr. sabundani has to say about taqi usmani, get over yourself man, your dog doesn’t give a shit about ur opinion, aim lower next time. Your problem is that you seem to give too much importance to your own opinion, no one else however could care less. You go out of ur way to enlighten us with ur worldly travels between bhoraywala and mian chunnoo and how is it our fault that after your f-1 expired no one would give u an H-1? If your GPA had been in even lower 2’s maybe just maybe you wouldn’t be this bitter. Keep in mind that its my remittances to the motherland that ensure your paycheck so I would rather you just say thank you and move on to the next poor illiterate sap you are about to loot in the name of law.

I have more respect for sattar and other qadiyanis who are at least man enough to stand by their delusions; you bucked, because your low-self esteem forces you to belong. But you are still bitter because no one takes u seriously still, and they won’t mostly because like I said before, you look like a dwarf its hard to look at you and then pay attemtion at the same time at what you have to say, they are immersed in ur comical features, its not fair I know but then again if you maybe try to be less annoying all the freaking time maybe the world would take a liking, I still wouldn’t hold my breath.

Well Zeena, I don`t defend them either. But they - by their own acknowledgement- are non-believers and not believing Ahmadis per se. What they say is clearly a reaction to freaks on the loose like untruly and others.

Sattar,

The hypocrisy in the actions of these fools is self evident. No point arguing with people who resort to abuses instead of proving their point logically... something untruly and abu safwan can never do.

The issue is one of constitutional (and fundamental human) rights which are denied to Ahmadis. They don`t have answer to this.

It is this ridiculous notion that majority rule = democracy is what is the problem. Democracy is rule of all the people... not some of the people or most of the people. It means that all permanent minorities get some constitutional safeguards ... which protect them against tyranny of the majority. We got an entire country on this principle. And now they want to pass off majority rule as democracy.

#164 Mantolives sahib

Excuse me, and what about Verizon and kulharee(abusive mirzaiis) who abuse our Prophet(PBUH) on daily basis?

Howcome they now are talking about Hudood ordinance and pretending to be Muslims?

These two guys abuse me with all the filth they can......and still claim to be champions of humanity and for women rights on this article............

So Untruly and the Abu Safwan (the Ummayad founder of the Sunni Pagan faith??) could not back their assertions with facts and have resorted to abuse against minorities... taking upon themselves (even though they are frikkin expat losers living off the crumbs of the same people they call Kufaar) the mantle of speaking on the behalf of Pakistanis....

God save Pakistan and indeed Islam from Pagans like Untruly and Abu Safwan.

#161
Verizon sahib

You are talking about Muslims , Islam and coming up all clean....wawawa.

Do you know hudood ordinance is for women rights?

Look @ this post by you............Is this your humanity is?

{{{{[[[#10 by Verizon on March 7, 2007 2:57pm PT
Zeena I had a dream in which Muhammad asked me to ask you to marry him. Now go and open a thread or two, on blasphemy, after that go fuck yourself...better yet wait for ``the`` holy arab man to do the honors. And yes please do copy and paste this on bukbuk and your ilog. ]]]

#100 by abu_safwaan

“Oh so you werent interested in what Islam really has to say …..I can make an attempt to defend my religion which is Quran and the sunnah of the prophet PBUH.”

Islam really has to say? According to who? You, me, another chowkie who is equally uninformed about Islam, but is resolute in its defence. That is precisely what I am not looking for. I just want to know that when a code which Sharia Law is, is put together its main purpose is to promote welfare and provide justice for the population. My question remains what are the remedies that the code provides, not what in your judgment Islam provides. Ease up! Defender of the faith, question is academic not political.

This is why hudood law should be retired and civil law should be enacted. No need to exact rape and thuggery in the name of Allah. Muslim world should learn from the great civilisations before them and in front of them. Civil liberties, ACLU and other fine ideas and organizations exist... but alas muslim world is opiumed out in its own superiority over the weak and pissed off at its own inferiority against the pwerful.

Manto writes <<< so who died and made you the judge of what is good and what is bad for women? I find this a very ironical statement indeed. Yes religion is focus here, abuse of religion and support of that abuse by people like you >>>

A typical illiterate response that I had expected from one more interested in ``hero worship`` than human rights or social causes. Judges of what is good and bad are not made, it is not a question of authority but of the facts, of public issues and you don`t need to know more than high school math to determine what is affecting society. Regarding my ``abuse`` of religion, your mullah friends say the same when I ask them to rationally consider the Quran and understand it using the objective world, otherwise no book, revelation or otherwise can offer them any guidance as to the state of reality and their condition. You, just like them want to fight ghosts and distract using nonsense issues that are mere tools to obfuscate the larger issues that you and the mullah in your mutual illiteracy have no clue about...

#93 by Urstruly

Well every article, every book that I have come across mentions abolition of slavery and the abolitionist movement as one of the main reasons for the civil war. The North was not slave free, but abolished slavery during the previous 50 years, and it was in New York that the largest number of slaves were emancipated. But lets not quibble about that. Do you think that the creation of Liberia as an independent state for the settlement of ex slaves which occurred in the 1820s by whites was insignificant?

The abolitionists felt very strongly that not only was slavery bad, inhuman and degrading to the slave, but it was equally bad for the slave owner and the whole society in general. Some advocated repatriation while others wanted emancipation.

“In one of the most celebrated passages in Democracy in America Tocqueville contrasted the two sections:

`. . . this truth [of the superiority of free labor] was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.
Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-deserted fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.
From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.`

However overstated the contrast, however mistaken in detail, Tocqueville`s discussion offers several crucial insights. One is that the effect of slavery upon the master was as profound as upon the slave. Another is that the market more profoundly shaped the white Northerner than his southern counterpart:

`The influence of slavery . . . affects the character of the master and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio the character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic, but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two states. The white inhabitant of Ohio, obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the chief aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry, and ever varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path that fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a cultivator with the same indifference, and supports with equal constancy the fatigues and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.
But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor but all the undertakings that labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man; money has lost a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes to gain turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery prevents the whites not only from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.`

This is what happens when a good, shiny, protinized and vitaminized hair is split! It begins appearing like Bhootni`s hair.

Where there is no equality between men, you are discussing fair treatment for women. This is called mock theatre. Thoroughly nonsense but comical posts. Really, Pak society has become such an entertainment that the world finds it impossible to bypass. At least the Arab world and Iranians are openly obscurantist societies, so don`t look clownish and absurd.

First try to replace your constitution with some secular one (at least for names of Arab/persian origin) then talk about Hudood law. Perhaps you won`t find anything to write about then.

Samar

kulharee # 120

There is no question of Shia and sunni here. Hudood ordinance is made by some convoluted minds ..........

You being non muslim Mirzaii are trying to divert this whole topic in to shia and sunni sects......Very cruel

All shias and sunnis are Muslims and they are together in this struggle again hudood ordinance. All my shia relatives and shia family friends are struggling along with sunnis to get rid of this Hudood ordinance.

[[[Now these abusive chowk mirzaiis are using another tactics of dividing sunnis and shias by calling sunnis as equivalent to mirzais and secluding shiaas.

Well, I won`t let you abusive chowk mirzaais play this card of divide and rule.

Let me make it very very clear on this open forum.............

Shias and Sunnis are both Muslims. And I do not believe in any sect in Islam, neither did our Prophet(PBUH) divide Muslims in to sunnis or shias, HE(PBUH) only called them Muslims.

So, Do not come up with this new dirty trick to segregate Muslims..........]]]

khurram sahib

You sound more reasonable than most of the interactors. Let me ask you a simple question.

Do you think we should have hudood ordinance in Pakistan? If yes , why?
If, no why? Thanks


[[#117 by Kulharee on March 8, 2007 1:20pm PT
Re: # 114

Truly Sahib, with all due respect, that’s exactly the point I was also trying to raise. Quran is a metaphysically written guide for muslims (according to our beliefs, a word of God) and each and every verse needs to be taken in the context it was revealed (according to my Islamic teaching). What has gone on is that it has been given in the hands of Jahil Molvis that have twisted and turned into whatever form that suits them. That’s all. What you accuse me of doing is what is being practiced pretty much as a standrad operating procedure by your Molvis.]]

Kulharee sahib
You have to decide whether you are Non Muslim mirzaii or Muslim? Look @ this Hypocrisy in your post here........

Plus how will you protect Pakisni women`s honor , when you yourself have abused me online and still is abusing daily on Un plugged?

Aren`t you the same Kulharee who insults our last Prophet(PBUH) on daily basis along with your best Mirzaii friend Verizon? Aren`t you the same kulharee who uses extremely derogatory words for our Prophet(PBUH) on un plugged?

Aren`t you the same Kulharee who insults Quranic Verses daily on Un Plugged?

And to be a Muslim you have to abide by the following.

[[1:-Muslim believes and respects Prophet Mohd(PBUH). He/she will never ever utter any word of disrespect or any derogatory word or insults for HIM(PBUH).

2:-Muslim believes Prophet Mohd(PBUH) as the last prophet of all.

3:-Muslim if confused about some issue will always try to resolve it with the help of Quran and with the help of VALID hadiths( a guidance from our Prophet(PBUH), NULLIFYING invalid hadiths to clear all chaos.

4:-Muslim is free to ask questions about Quran , about Islam`s teachings and also about Prophet(PBUH)`s ways of life WITHOUT disrespecting or insulting Prophet(PBUH)`s personal life and HIS ways.

5:-There is a MAJOR difference between being INQUISITIVE maintaining decency, manners and certain class
AND
6:-being KNIVING , BLASPHEMOUS, PROFANE, ill mannered, abuser, devilish, evilish, INDECENT, rude, crude, back stabber, shameless, without feeling remorse for one`s actions, without feeling guilt for name calling , with out feeling guilt with dirty language, without feeling respect for anything in this world.

Kulharee sahib you and your best friend verizon.......

You are not Muslim, you are Mirzai. Why? b/c you have NULLIFIED #1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

You have certainly showed # 6 online behavior along with your other Mirzai brothers as your support group to INSULT our Prophet(PBUH) by calling HIM(PBUH) names, by showing HIS cartoons, by disrespecting HIS actions, by using extremely DEROGATORY words for our Prophet(PBUH) ,

You and your supporting Non-Muslim Mirzais are unable to interact without insulting other interactors. You and your support group harass others whoever does not agree with your POV`s.

Well, you and your support groups have called me whore, bitch, shit, prostitute, how much money I will take to meet you guys in NYC.

Honestly, such abuse did not hurt me at all. That showed your disturbed state of mind.

But, yes when you insult my Prophet(PBUH) and commit BLASPHEMY THAT hurts a lot. I wish the kind of GARBAGE you spread online come back exactly on your life and face...................Wait and see.......
As you sow so shall you reap , What you do that comes back to you.............................
what goes around , comes around.

I have always supported mirzais genuinely online and offline. Even here on chowk I have never insulted your prophet(Mirza Gulam A) and always took a lead for their support, for their recognition as a minority group.
While you, mirzais were busy calling me names, insulting my Prophet(PBUH), I never crossed my limits and never ever insulted your Prophet.

You have shown your real colors by insulting our Prophet(PBUH) and now coming up all clean like Chameleons with new colors.

You have shown extremely narrow minded , pea minded approach towards committing this extremely derogatory act of blasphemy against our Prophet(PBUH)...............

I never QUESTIONED Mirza Gulam Ahmed`s teachings. B/c I do believe with all the honesty of my heart that everyone has the right to adopt and practice one`s own choice of beliefs without insulting other`s beliefs.

I never INSULTED YOUR Prophet and never committed blasphemy even in my pure thoughts. I rather prayed for your forgiveness and for your chaotic mental health from God(Almighty) to guide you.

I am a truly modern, open minded, open hearted person who respect other`s religious figures , who doesn`t

And, now you are coming all clean and innocent...........Wow!!!

I will not lower down myself to your level, but, I will always stand up for true belief, for the respect of my Prophet(PBUH)...................

InshAllaH ]]]]


Kulharee sahib

You are now coming up all clean....wow...
Hypocrisy .....

this is what happens when men start wearing briefs instead of boxers


..... i just can`t believe this nonsense about women and equal rights ! ........do you think these women asked for equal rights and other such nonsense ? ....... if they had they would have been soundly slapped and sent to bed without any pudding :

Khadijah
Sawda
Aisha
Hafsa
Zaynab
Umm Salama
Zaynab bint Jahsh
Juwayriya
Ramlah
Safiyya
Maymuna
Maria

......... that`s when men were men and the sheep ran scared

have you ever seen a pig in a mosque ?

......... i don`t think it is possible for a woman to be a practicing muslim and then turn around and ask for eqaul rights - it is almost like being a pig and asking to be let into a mosque ....... i know, i know - the poor pig cannot help it if he has a cloven hoof and, besides, i don`t think he wants to go near a mullah with a yellow towel on his head who smells worse than his cousin porky ......... maybe i should have said it is like insisting on being an ahmedi - like sattar mian - and then insisting on being treated like a human being in an islamic country .......

kaalchakra #128: ``in other words, telling people that they have a direct and unfettered link to God may not be much better, in practical terms, than asking them to listen to scholars/mullahs``

...i am not debating what is correct or incorrect in general.......

i am simply debating and pointing out what islam dictates to be correct and incorrect, in terms of interpreting the quran........islam implements, in fact demands, a direct link of a muslim with God......it completely removes the clergy as a go between.......in fact, in islam there is no clergy....no religious hierarchy and no church, i.e. no mosque...........mosques in islam are more community centers than anything else, which include(d) lodging, prayers, discussions etc......

and any muslim can lead the largest congregation of prayers......if tomorrow you become a muslim, according to islam, you can go lead the prayers in mecca`s holiest mosque, a second after converting........you need not get a fatwa from anyone........

........the above is what islam states......it maybe right, it maybe wrong.......it is for some people and not for others.......that is a different debate.......but, within islam, no one muslim`s word creates any more weight than any other`s........

the above is also why, despite all their efforts, the clergy in islam has never been able to establish power at the levels that clergies in various other religions were able to do......i.e. any muslim can and is supposed to have a direct link with God..........no need to go through what urstruly says or what taqi usmani or anyone else says.........

abu_safwan #124: ``What urstruly is saying that once some injunction becomes a law of the land and according to him there can be a consensus amongst the great majority of pakistan than issues can be resolved. It all comes back to giving people the right to decide what they want for themselves. Why can`t we all agree on this basic principle?``

......you are mixing two things......i am not talking about laws of the land.....i am talking about religious interpretations.......who has a right to do them.....and do others have a right to reject them.......

......if something becomes a law of the land, it is followed due to its legal context, not due to its religious context......if a country`s population agrees that such and such should be a punishment for rape, that is fine........that is their business.........however, if taqi usmani says that such and such should be the punishment, because he feels he has higher religiouss authority, then according to islam at least, that is not allowed........

......if people want a quran-based society then the way to do so is to allow every citizen to interpret the quran and vote on its interpretation and then make the laws........in which taqi usmani`s views would be equivalent to yours and mine........the correct way is not to form a council of islamic ideology of a few individuals or a shariah court of a few individuals and then assume their injunctions and interpretations of the quran are final.......

.........in any society the job of the court is to apply the laws created and accepted by the society and passed through its representatives........it is not the job of the courts to come of with the religious laws or to apply the laws that a handful of, ``scholars`` have agreed upon.........

......that is my whole point...........so in terms of religious interpretations, taqi usmani and anyone else has one vote, as do you and i.........as should any, ``scholar`` - fake, real or otherwise.......

... teshah, you are asking very blunt questions. It must be making him blush.

Remember, Urstruly is the man who keeps his gaze lowered in order to avoid evil. Indeed he makes the ummah proud ...

Re: # 109

``and let a party of believers witness their chastisement``.

May be the same people who witnessed them, the fuckers, enjoy their operation? That presence perhaps did not require any orders?
Btw, is watching zinna in operation, `Maaroof` or `Nahi`, in Quranic terms?

Tradition says a Qazi had punished a witness of Zinna by ordering gorging out of his eyes as he failed to act on `Amr-bil-Maaroof` while watching zinna in all its manifestations and penetrations.

abu_safwaan #101 i agree fully with what you say, and your points concerning the socio-economic issues are very well made, and the concluding para. provides the solution to all thes problems succinctly: If we can have free and fair elections then parliament can debate and decide what form of hudood or lack of it, it wants.

No man, or group of men, can claim to have special knowledge of what God wants (and those that do for any reason are vehemently condemned in the Quran), or to have special concern for the Supreme National Interest.

While providing the broader picture quite eloquently, I dont think your post answers the specific question I had, so let me attempt an answer: I think the maulvis are opposing removal of the Hadood Ordinance because this Ordinance takes away one pillar on which a formal Priesthood gains a constitutional share in power in the same way as the military has managed (so far successfully) to get a constitutional share in power.

Never mind that a priesthood is abhorent in the Quran, which reserves its most resounding condemnation of anyone with pretensions to having special knowledge in religious matters. Never mind that a priesthood turns Pakistanis into a slave nation, lacking the power to amend laws that people around the world now possess. Never mind that tens of thousands of women from poor families have been ravaged and imprisoned under the guise of these laws. This is what makes the hadood ordinance an insult to islam and a slap on the face of the people of Pakistan.

Urstruly: Thanks for taking the time to try and answer the simple question I had. My question was much more basic than what you seemed to have in mind, and I hope the above attempt at answering it will give you a better idea of what I mean.

Re: # 99

Since you are charging certain people of rape without producing four witnesses do not you youself become guilty of `Qazf` under the Hadood Laws?

Re #144:

You started out by declaring Ahamdis as “equal citizens”. Now that your real views have become clear, you are telling me to “forget about Pakistan”. This switch in your tone is very revealing … it says a lot about your hypocrisy.

+++

Moving on ...

I highlighted parallels between your position and that of kuffar in Mecca (posts #137, 141) … based on what you wrote. You may call it laughable, but this parallel remains obvious.

Regarding prophethood: I’ve based my views on Quran and ahadith. You are entitled to your view ... it’s alright by me. I fail to see your point here.

I’d be a Bahai if I wanted to be one. However my faith rests with Quran and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I am not sure why this is a problem for you.

You have rambled on and on ... unable to articulate your position. Think through your views before getting too excited.

+++

This is besides the point, but since you raised the issue - You are misinformed about Mirza Sahib and Ahmadi-Muslims. I wonder where you are getting your information from. Along the same lines, there are plenty of web-sites that spew hatred against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Muslims. Be careful about what you read and believe.

Re: # 95

So you mean `Taazir` is a punishment under the secular law. But why should one be punished at all when Islamic (supposed to be God`s) law does not hold one guilty? Does not Quranic Allah hold those as `Faasiqeen`, `Munaafiqeen` and what not who judge people under the laws other than those laid down by Him?

Re #139 & 144,
I do realize that, given the condition of the ummah, any democracy,secular or religious will quickly deteriorate into something worse.

But for the future, religious democracy is just as much as an option as secular democracy.

The parliament doesn`t derive its authority from a religious text. It comes from the Constitution, which is a contract among all comunities, muslim & non-muslim.

Re: # 141

here u go with ur crying again....``sunnis stole my candy......tsk tsk tsk``. Your insinuation that there is a parallel between the followers of Mirza ghulam ahmed qadiyani and Muslims in Arabia is laughable. I told u before, finality of the Prophet-hood which ends Muhammad PBUH is a basic creed of our faith. Why can`t u guys be like bahai`s, if you have lost ur mind and you have then at least check urself in the institution. Forget about pakistan, you have all the freedom in the world to propogate Qadiyaniyat here in west, how come Christian science monitor or any other publication mentions you as a phenomenon, rather they list that 34,000 muslims every year comes within the folds of OUR religion just in USA.

No one is letting you do anything Pakistan, who is stopping you from propogating here in states? what do you have to show for it. Fact of the matter is that Mirza first claimed that he was getting revelation from Allah swt, when people asked what is that revelation, any surahs or anything he had made some cocka mimi bullshit which became a laughing stock, then he said oh i was mistaking i m not a prophet i m actually messiah, that obviosuly couldnt fly either, then he said ohh can i at least be a reviver then? which is what his son now believes in the lahori group. You see there is just too much material here for comedy for anyone to take this character seriously. Your problem is not mullahs or sunnis, its the stupidity which is at the core of the message of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani. You are barking at the wrong tree sattariyaa

khurram (#138),

Judging by ummah’s tendencies, it would indeed be Islamofascism. Simply review #140 from a ``custodian of faith`` for a glimpse.

I think Raw_Dust is on to something here ...

#129

lol.......EXCELLENT.

Abu,

How can Ahmadis be equal citizens if they are not allowed to peacefully preach their faith? There is a name for it. It’s called second-class citizens.

But get this ...

Your response matches the one given by kuffar to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions. Kuffar mainly wanted Muslims to stop preaching their faith in Islam … or to continue being persecuted. Parallels here are amazing.

You criticize Ahamdis by claiming that ”no one plays by the rules”. Whose rules are you talking about? Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) play by the rules? Was he (pbuh) also not being ``nice`` when he proclaimed belief in One God?

How is an Ahmadi claiming to be a Muslim not being nice?

Do you see your hypocrisy?

Re: # 137
Let me say this for the record. They shouldnt be persecuted for being qadiyanis, they should be equal citizens, in return they should not propogate qadiyaniyat with the label of Islam. But the problem is that noone plays by the rules. If you guys had it wouldn`t have come to that. This law was passed in 1973, in case u dodnt remember pakistan came in to existance in 1947 so we were patient for quite sometime with ur antics. This happened because you guys werent being nice, let it be a lesson for future, play nice nice and u`ll be treated fairly.

No it is fascist because a parliament is supposed to derive the authority of governing people (muslim and nonmuslim) on the basis of a religious document. On top of that, it is a horrid assertion to advocate a medieval text to be adopted by the premium law making body of a State.

Re #136, ``The modern day Caliphate or Islamofascism in other words.``

It is only fascist if it treats non-mulims unequally or violates their basic rights.

Abu (#131)

Ummah may consider Ahmadis non-Muslims … that’s their choice. However, making it a crime for an Ahmadi to practice Islam is beneath dignity.

You seem to think that persecuting others is alright as long as it is done “legally”.

Incidentally, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and early Muslims too were persecuted for their faith in Islam. Your reasoning leads one to conclude that this persecution was justified as it was carried out within confines of then-existing laws and codes.

+++

“98% Muslims” should believe whatever makes sense to them. Issue here is this majority forcing its beliefs on others. This is where ummah’s hateful attitude, and your support for this attitude, become evident.

+++

And BTW, I too believe in Khatam-e-Nabuwat, since it is mentioned in Quran! Ahem, ahem.

Rest of your post is hateful, senseless rambling … and is best ignored.

``There is also the modernist view, not practiced anywhere, that authority remains with each believer but is voluntarily delegated to elected representatives i.e. a parliament.``

The modern day Caliphate or Islamofascism in other words.

Re: # 132

Jang or Jung - It`s not about who to blame. It`s about who to assign the responsibility of decipherng the convoluted religious myths, disgusting cultural practices, and abhorrable results. And you will realize that it`s a huge undertaking :)

Re: # 115

Urstruly - Let`s stick to my earlier question. Can you provide some quotations from the Quran on rape and its penalty? What should be done when rape is hidden under the garb of adultery? Where`s the fine line? Sorry you could not read the underlying sarcasm in my previous post. You cannot be blamed for your misunderstanding since you are doing an exceptionally great job in further convoluting the concept. By the way, you should fire the clergyman who is teaching your innocent mind all these things. He is not doing a good job. Stay away from their company!

Re #128,
``Do you consider the Quran (+something) the final arbiter of what a Muslim should do. If so, then Quran (+something) cannot be made subject to individual-level interpretation``

There is always interpretation. Even a `literal` reading (if possible) is human interpretation.
The real question is who has the authority to interpret? When collective decisions are required authority is needed. This problem is not unique to Islam.

Different communities have come up with different solutions for this. Authority has been vested in an institution - e.g. the Catholic Church. Or a hereditary leader - e.g. the Aga Khan.

The traditional Sunni solution has been to vest the authority in an informal group of scholars, legtimized by public approval, and enforced by the state. It is not a clearly defined process.

There is also the modernist view, not practiced anywhere, that authority remains with each believer but is voluntarily delegated to elected representatives i.e. a parliament.

looks like most interactors here have accepted and agree that islamic justice is flawed. the fight is about who to blame..quoran, hadith, 1973 constitution or the mirzais.

Re: # 130

As a matter of principle i don`t discuss religion and politics with morons but i`ll indulge u nevertheless. If according to your point of view a law is unfair, unjust and draconian then there is a process available in civilized world. That process is again a democratic one. Problem with you qadiyanis is that you are hoping and praying for qadiyani martial law dictator who can negate and nullify the law of the land by the stroke of his pen, because democracy doesnt suit u one bit. That ain`t happenin however.

Bhaii rayeyy aamaa(popular opinion) hamwarr karoo..loggon koo apnayy mazhabb parr qayill karoo daleel sayy..yeahii aykk tareeqa hayy, wohh honna nahii kyonkayy, jahil sayy jahil muslaman bhii khatm-e-nabowat kayy mamlayy mein wazayh hay.

Your annoyance and beef is with 98% majority of Muslim ummah. How come they have declared you as NON_Muslims when you ARE infact NON-Muslims? there is no resolution for this except that u see a head doctor, its too late for mirza kyonkayy wohh jahanum raseed hoa, but there is still hope for u, provided that u get ur head out of ur arse, which is again a tall task but Allama iqbal marhoom farma gayeyy heinn...paywasta reh shajar sayy umeed-e-bahar rakh.

Abu, there are several weaknesses in your arguments …

#106: What “100% Pakistanis believe” is irrelevant here. It does not support your views in any sensible manner. For example, majority of world population believes that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an imposter. So where does this reasoning lead you?

(On a different note: A person`s belief is his business. However imprisoning an Ahmadi for considering himself a Muslim is unfair and unjust.)

#110: You are overlooking the issue of recorded ahadith contradicting Quran. Islamic viewpoint should render such ahadith as erroneous.

#124: A law made through democratic process does not necessarily make this law just and fair. For example, discrimination against African-Americans was unjust and unfair, regardless of popular support it once enjoyed.

Re: # 127

ohh aaayyaa aykk or mirzayii aayyaa....hahahahahaha..yarr yeahh mirzayii bhii ajeeb maqlooq hayy. Koii baatt karayy na karayy..koii moonhh lagayeyy naa lagayeyy..inkoo badtameez bachoon kii tarahh beachh mein zaroor koodna hayy..Abbaayy khabeesoon.. we are discussin Islam here, its like discussing beef with hindooss..whither away in ur delusions. So have u guys decided yet whether Mirza was Prophet, Messiah or Reviver, yet? Or maybe he was donald duck?

Bulleya

Religious interpretationism is a hopelessly slope.

Do you consider the Quran (+something) the final arbiter of what a Muslim should do. If so, then Quran (+something) cannot be made subject to individual-level interpretation.

(in other words, telling people that they have a direct and unfettered link to God may not be much better, in practical terms, than asking them to listen to scholars/mullahs)

A few clarifications are in order:

Quranic verses Urstruly posted (#109) apply to fornication as well as adultery. Following is translation from Yusuf Ali …

”The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.” (24:2).

Here’s some more on adultery/fornication …

According to Quran 4:25, half of full punishment is prescribed for slave women (half of 100 lashes is 50 lashes, but half of “death” is not possible.)

Urstruly, nice try … but you are misquoting Quran.

Re #118: Issue of Issa-ibne-Marriam too has been discussed over centuries. And your ullema’s verdict is that he resides above clouds, in flesh and blood, and will one day descend down to earth!

Need I say more?

Re: # 125

Abu Safwaan has answered your contention adequately.

urstruly #123: ``The answer is that while you and me are sitting here arguing over nothing this guy has been instrumental in constitutional ammendments and formulating and establishing laws in the country. He didn`t just write books or post blogs on the internet he actually did something that has influenced generations in Paksitan.``

....you are not answering the question.....i never asked you what this guy did or didn`t do......i simply asked you what if someone does not agree with your defintions of who is a pragmitist islamically and who isn`t......are they still bound to listen to taqi usmani and his interpretations of the quran, according to islam?......

......there are many individuals who have been instrumental in making constitutional amendments and formulating laws and in influencing generations in pakistan.......do you follow all of them?.........were all of them great men whose interpretations of law and religion we are bound to follow?........certainly this cannot be used as a creiteria for forcing others to follow anything taqi usmani or anyone else says on islam.......

........as i have pointed out to you, islam does not give any muslim the right to force their personal interpretations of islam onto others, through any mechanism......taqi usmani may be the greatest guy in the world....but he does not have the right to force his views onto others.......it is upto the others to follow his interpretations or reject them........

Re: # 122

I think you are confusing the issues here. When something becomes a law of the land and in my opinion it must thru democratic process then it`s not ``To you your religion and to me mine``, if we are champions of laws and democracy thru out the world then lets give the same respect to Muslim countries. What urstruly is saying that once some injunction becomes a law of the land and according to him there can be a consensus amongst the great majority of pakistan than issues can be resolved. It all comes back to giving people the right to decide what they want for themselves. Why can`t we all agree on this basic principle?

Re: # 122

``This guy is no idealist but a true pragmatist...``

.......according to whose definition......what if someone considers him not to be a pragmitist......what if someone excercises their islamic right and considers anything he writes to be useless?..... ``



Most of your post is akin to urdu saying ``itraaz brai itraaz`` or in Punjabi which translates into ``picking bones from certain part of anatomy``, but since I have sometime at hand today I will answer it.

The answer is that while you and me are sitting here arguing over nothing this guy has been instrumental in constitutional ammendments and formulating and establishing laws in the country. He didn`t just write books or post blogs on the internet he actually did something that has influenced generations in Paksitan. But you or anyone can argue that Roman Empire never existed but would it change anything. So Pahleez...

Urstruly #119: ``This guy is no idealist but a true pragmatist...``

.......according to whose definition......what if someone considers him not to be a pragmitist......what if someone excercises their islamic right and considers anything he writes to be useless?.....

.....as i pointed out earlier, if you want to argue issues within an islamic domain, you need to understand that islam does not allow any human, any organization, any group etc the authority to force their views, their fatwas etc. onto other muslims.......there is, in fact, in islam, a direct relation between each individual and God........to the best of my knowledge the quran does not state that we must follow taqi usmani or his interpretations and ideas (or anyone else`s for that matter)......

......on the other hand, if you are impressed by him, then you have a right to follow him.......however you do not have a right to force him onto other muslims in any form or manner, be it through a shariah court or through a revolution or through a political movement......

.......you can, however, try to convince anyone you want that taqi usmani is a great guy and everyone should listen to his religious ideas and interpretations of islam and views on shariah........i.e. you can preach it........after that, it is upto other muslims to decide whether they listen to taqi`s ideas or not.......

.....within an islamic context, it is indeed a great sin to try to force one`s interpretations of religion onto others........it is also a sin to given anyone any authority based on religion........every muslim, according to islam is equal in front of God.......

Re: # 120

Taqi Usmani is not a sole decider, however, because of his position and knowledge he is only more visible. At ideological level Dr. Mohammad Hamidullah has contributed immensely towards formulation of several laws and he was not even a Paksitani. Horror of horrors he was a Frenchman. Dr, Yusuf Goraiya is another prominent name. So what if there is opposition to Islamic law or to those who are trying to re-establish them; every man lives by an ideology and sometimes or most ofetn idolgies collide. I do not see it as a moral handicap.

There is absolutely no ideology in world to which everybody unanimously agrees to. Do you have one?

Re: # 119

Truly Sahib, who made that idiot the sole decider for what law to be implemented in Pakistan? Do you in all honesty believe that Shias will want to be ruled under your version of “Islamic” law? I mean really. When this same guy is on the record saying that Ahmadis are wajib-al-Qatl, what stops him from asking for Shias to be wajib-al-Qatl, since he is on the Wahabi payroll, and hated like worse than a dog in Iran. If you care, I can show you some references.

Re: # 116

Your contention is not entirely true. I would recommend you to read Mufti Mohammad Taqi Usmani`s book titled ``Pakistan maiN Nifaaz-e-Shariat ke Tiqazay or Masail``. This guy is no idealist but a true pragmatist since he was one of the main architects of Islamization not only during Zia but also Bhutto`s time. So he talks in terms of actual constitutional clauses and articles of law.

For a layman his argument is this:

In Pakistan about 80% of population is Sunni among which 99% subscribe to the jurispridence of Imam Abu Hanifa -regardless of whether one is deobandi, brelvi, or ahl-e-hadith. About 15% population is Shia who subscribe to the jurisprudence of Immam Jafar Sadiq. The shia and sunni fiqah is almost 90% compatible, whereas differences exist only in the matters of doctrine which has nothing to do with law. The most contentious issue between Shia and sunni could have been the method and rate of collection of Zakat, which was resolved in Zia era, other issues are minor. Hence he sees no problem establishing a uniform code of justice and law with in Pakistan with minor exemptions given to shias. As a matter of principle, non-Muslims are exempt from Muslim law hence they can have their secular jurisprudence.

Re: # 117

``Quran is a metaphysically written guide for muslims (according to our beliefs, a word of God) and each and every verse needs to be taken in the context it was revealed ``

I was of this opinion once, when I had no education and I was a jahil. But as I studied it became clear that Qura`n itself establishes the criteria of when its verses should be taken literally, figuratively, or as an eternal guidance. These issues were debated about 1400 years, consensus emrged, and laws were established. The laws remained in practice in Muslim world until most of it succumbed to Western colnialism. It is not something that we or ``corrupt mullah` are trying to create out of nothing in this day.

Re: # 114

Truly Sahib, with all due respect, that’s exactly the point I was also trying to raise. Quran is a metaphysically written guide for muslims (according to our beliefs, a word of God) and each and every verse needs to be taken in the context it was revealed (according to my Islamic teaching). What has gone on is that it has been given in the hands of Jahil Molvis that have twisted and turned into whatever form that suits them. That’s all. What you accuse me of doing is what is being practiced pretty much as a standrad operating procedure by your Molvis.

......it is pretty much impossible to implement any kind of shariah, without use of force.......for the simple reason that there are as many interpretations of the quran as there are muslims.......islam, having outlawed the clergy let out a genie, which despite the efforts of the clergy cannot be put back in.........

.....due to this, whichever faction of the clergy can gain political power or street power in any area will implement its own shariah........while in another area, the implementation will be completely different........as will be the behavior of muslims.......the behavior and rules regarding religion are completely different in saudi arabia and in turkey......though both have overwhelmingly muslim populations.........

.....if urstruly takes control, shariah will be one thing, if hamidm2 takes over it will be something other, and if take over it will be a third thing.......the outlawing of a clergy is, in my opinion, one of the biggest achievement of islam as a religion.......it allows me to study the religion on my own, sitting in a barnes and noble, if i want.........while totally disregarding anything said by anyone claiming to be part of a clergy........

.......the other problem in shariah is that quran is quite difficult to interpret on direct issues.......quran talks in abstracts.....it tells stories etc.....the few details it goes into are expressed strictly in the timeframe the quran arrived........there is, thus, no frame of reference, based on which to interpret the quran syntactically..........

......for example, the following part of a verse describes the timings of a fast: ``.....You may eat and drink until the white thread of light becomes distinguishable from the dark thread of night at dawn. Then, you shall fast until sunset........[2:187]``

........now suppose someone is living on the north pole.....if they start following the above instructions syntactically, rather than abstractly, they will die..........for the simple reasons that the north pole receives 24 hours of sunlight during certain time and 24 of darkness during certain time........someone could start fasting and never be able to break the fast, as the sun will never set, thereby, starving to death........

.....what if there is a moon colony someday.....or if there is a colony in another solar system..........what if there is no sun there........how will people fast........etc. etc....

.....the other interpretation, at an abstract level, would be that islam asks muslims to fast for a certain amount of time.....that amount of time would be equivalent to the amount of time the sun is (was?) up and down during the days in saudi arabia, circa 6th century....let`s say around 11 hours plus/minus seasonal changes......so every muslim, whether on the north pole or space colony in the delta quadrant (someday) or in chicago, should fast for a certain amount of time, based on that, regardless of whether there is a sun or not, or whether it is setting or not.........

.......the former definition is a literal syntactic interpretation, which will prefer people dying on the north pole (or maybe even in norway) and will not allow them to eat at all for weeks.......the later is an abstract interpretation, which takes into account the time the quran arrived and the current situation..........the former is based on syntax, the later is based on common sense........

Re: # 111

My sister in Islam;

I do not know why you are so angry but punishment of rape is very clear. Even one case of rape was prosecuted by Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself.

As in Zina the rape is prosecuted and perpetrator is punished by either Hadd or Ta`azir Punishment:

Hadd

Perpetrator is given Hadd of 100 lashes if he is single or stonned to death fulfilling either of two conditions:

1. He confesses (given three occassions to recant)
2. Four adult male witnesses or three adult male witnesses an two female witnesses of good reputation saw the incident with their own eyes in an unhidered view.

Taazir

If neither condition 1 or 2 as listed above is met but charge is proven by forensic, or by the testimony of less than four witnesses, the perpetrator is given a sentence as chosen by the society - which could be from community service (just kidding) to less than 100 lashes in public, fine, exile, and incarceration or a combination thereof.

Re: # 112

This is partly true. The verses about the standard and number of witnesses, the verses about slander and libel accusing chaste women 9and men), which form the basis of Islamic law of Qazzaf were revealed after the incidenct. I do not remember the chronology of the punishment verses even though they appear in the 2nd verse of the chapter.

But on the other hand the verses about the prohibition of fornication and adultery (in Chapter The Women (4)) were revealed very early in the Medinite period. Since at that time there was no Islamic state appratus established hence the prohibition was just a moral prohibition.

Even though when Quranic laws were being revealed, the Qura`n repeatedly told Muslims as ``what is done is done`` (in these very words) but at that time munafiqs like yourself would go to new belivers and made fun of them by saying ``Lo ji abb tau aap bhi haraami ho gayay``. I see that the tradition of those munafiqs continue to this day.

Re: # 108

You said something intelligent which is rare from your ilk so ill respond. Islamic punishments are not one size fits all. We have precedence that HUD is applied after a court case. Arguments are heard and then the judge decides, the scenario that you are illustrating wil definitly land the rich man in hot-waters if there was an honest qazi with a good understanding of Shariah. Habitual thieves and people that are stealing as a last resort to put food on the table for a dying offspring will definitly be treated differently.

Re: # 109

Truly Sahib, is it true that the Surah 24 was revealed when Ayisha was suspected of having a romantic fling with some young guy?

Re: # 109

Urstruly - This is about fornication. What about rape? Can you also research something on rape from the holy text? On second thoughts, it may have something to do with Eve being the one who led Adam to a different destiny. As a result, it may not be a man`s fault to be involved in a rape. He must have been seduced by the woman to rape her. Ironically, in many cases of this hudood fiasco, women ended up being in a prison. Here, the destiny of Eves led them to disaster. And the men were left to find someone else to seduce. This is an endless cycle. I guess something needs to be done to ``end`` this vicious cycle.

Re: # 104

Hassan Bhai,

I am just curious, and let me say at the outset that weak ahadiths are arent proof for anyone but Hadith is subject that people do PHD`s in from accredated universities. You can`t say with a sweeping statement that ALL Hadith is false or even that there isn`t any Hadith that is from Prophet PBUH without a shadow of doubt. There is an established consensus amongst scholars of all school of thought ahl-e-sunnah wal jammah more commonly known as sunnis as well as shias that the Hadith that are ``SAHI`` are as good as Quran. And the reason is that we didn`t recieve Quran in videotape where prophet Muhammad (PBUH) narrated the whole of Quran himslef. It reached us thru the same companions that we seem to be eager to doubt when it comes to sahi hadith. If Zaid bin sabit (RAW) or Uthman (RAW) were liars and fabricators and they just made up hadith at their whim than how are we sure that they didn`t mess with Quran? Because Quran has a surah that says Allah swt will preserve it? who compiled that Surah? And if they were such evil people, would they not have inserted a surah Quran saying that all hadith is true as well. The logic is flawed if you deny ALL hadith, you are accepting verses of Quran from the same people but when they tell you that Prophet PBUH said that, you have doubts? I am not defending any one particular hadith because i am not educated enough to say which one is sahi-mutafiqun-allayh and which one isnt, i am just talking about a principle here

Re: # 104


The Light 24:02

``(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement. ``

The context (in this chapter and in The Women Ch:4) makes it clear that punishment of 100 stripes at an open public place is reserved for single fornicators.

As far as the punishment for adultery i.e. stonning is concerned, it comes from Mosaic Law from Torah, which Holy Prophet (pbuh) revalidated for his ummah with a little ammendment of establishing strict rules for standard and number of witnesses.

Re: # 106

I just asked you how is stealing related to unemployment and you get all upset? That`s not nice. Now go and tell your molvi that assuming there is unemployment and the richest man in the town steals, would he have his hands spared because there is unemployment? If that’s the king of logic your Islam is, then shove it up dog’s behind, it is better there than in people’s throats. And yeah, Mirza Sahib was imposter.

Re: # 105

I said they are ``SUPPOSED`` to be. They are not! thats my point. They are hypocrites just like the religious ones

Re: # 103

I don`t know nuthing about anything, one thing i do know is that 100% of Pakistanis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani was an imposter, liar and a loony-toon and that all mirzais are nagging lil biatches, we are discussin Islam here lil man, i don`t discuss religion and politics with Krishna Mirthuyuiretrafwapulayalan because i dont have respect for people who are moronic enough to bow dow to monkeys and elephants, with the same token i have no ineterest in having a serious conversation with human beings that think that anyone can recieve messages from the Almighty and if you ask them to furnish proof they get irritated, we should just take their word for it! Go sell crazy somewhere else kullooo.

Re: # 101

I don`t understand how the PPP are the are the ``flag barriers of modernity and progressiveness in Pakistan``, when it was Daddy Bhutto who set the ball rolling wrt the islamization of Pakistan. Churayl did not do shit to repeal the fascist laws imposed by Zina Owl Hack.

URSTRULY - you said
``The Hadd punishment comes from Qura`n and Hadith and it is stonning to death of adulterers and 100 lashes for single fornicators``

Please dont EVER say that stoning/lashing is from Qura`n. IQuran does not talk about stoning or lashes. Your Ahadiths might. So your words should be

``The Hadd punishment comes from Hadith and it is stonning to death of adulterers and 100 lashes for single fornicators``

You might be a genius because you listen to all the maulvis and you are probably one, but dont combine Quran and Hadith for this. Your weak ahadith might be talking about 100 lashes and stoning to death. If Quran talks about that then please give references before you start using Quran and Hadith in the same sentence.
This is exactly what the maulvis do that when they dont find anything to support their arguments in Quran they take refuge in Ahadith and then use ``Quran and hadith`` in the same sentence to misguide people in thinking that it is the same thing. It is Not. Quran is the word of God which has never been changed. Ahadith were told by a man (the greatest man ever - but Huzoor PBUH was still a man) which were distorted and changed by people like you and me. If you can say with certainty that Ahadith were never changed like Quran never was, I would believe your blind faith in Ahadith. Until then use ONLY QURAN as a reference when you are trying to make a point. Stop using words ``QURAN/HADITH`` together. Either qoute Quran or qoute Hadith.

Re: # 101

Abu Safwaan, how is stealing in anyway remotely connected to unemployment? It must be some knucklehead moron to have come up with that condition. You shouldn’t listen to that Molvi. His logic is as shallow as a puddle of dog piss.

And this mantra about letting people decide what works for them is also another way of deflecting attention, because Bengalis decided that wanted it their way (good on them), and now if you seriously want people to decide what they want, you will have Republic of Baluchistan yesterday, and Sindhudesh today. One thing most Pakistanis want is to send Islam back to where it came from. Only a handful of Saudi financed mullahs want to make it appear as if every Pakistani wants Islam. Most sensible Pakistanis want to live in peace, and have their religion be as their personal matter, and that’s what they really want.

Dear Masadi -

[Issues affecting women, given the numbers, and refer to the miniscuel number out of the over 80 million women in Pakistan, given by the author, are not the Hudood laws but issues like maternal mortality, poverty, lack of health care etc. ]

There is a little problem here. One can only worry about the issues of healthcare, poverty and maternal mortality (should be under healthcare) as long as the women are alive and breathing in fresh air and not behind the bars. Some of the women in hudood cases are penalized for delivering a baby out of wedlock. I guess they should have buried the child or killed him/her and at least be able to raise concerns on the healthcare or poverty issues ??? Does that sound reasonable? I think you are living on some other planet.

Please spare us the constant critique on the West. It`s not because of the West that we have hudood ordinance in Pakistan or killing of a woman leader while she was in public, listening to their issues or gang rapes in Pakistan. Does this society even sound cultured from any angle?

You need to wake up from your repetitive focus on ``elites`` and ``western critique``. I guess it is time for some introspection. Once you conduct that, please do share the results.

Tahmed Sahib,

Let me attempt to answer your quandary. Everyone, the one’s opposing it as well as the one’s who are for it, both are pandering to their pressure groups. There is immense mistrust between the two parties. If the “enlightened” really cared about women rights they wouldn`t have have widely known and established abusers in their executive councils. I listed Makhdoom Amin Faheem as an example in my earlier post, I can list several more. I agree the situation isn’t any better on the supposed “religious” side either. Now to your question why are religious parties so vehemently against this? For the same reason “enlightened” one’s are for it. Both have extremists in their ranks. MMA always wants to keep this impression that they are safeguarding Islam, however cosmetic and shallow the issue might be. Actually they prefer that kind, because its easier to sell.

PPP on the other hand are the flag barriers of modernity and progressiveness in Pakistan, while marrying their own sisters and daughters to Quran, just to make sure that the ancestral estate remains intact. Do you really think that The wadeyras and jageerdars of PPP in interior sindh treat their women any better? Generally Women are as oppressed in constituencies where PPP gets elected from as they are in MMA’s constituency. Huddod Ordinance is not a divine document, it’s a man made ordinance that was formulated and imposed by military dictator primarily just so he can sell himself as Amirul-momineen. Just because it has Arabic in it doesn’t mean all of it is “Wahi” from Allah swt. My humble opinion is that women in Pakistan are as oppressed today as they were before. You don’t free people from oppression by passing laws that are not going to be implemented anyways, you free them by making them a stake-holder and that’s something that the Army of Pakistan isn’t willing to do because that would mean they would have to share the pie and they are just not used to sharing at this point in time. I have no problem scraping hudood ordinance all together. In humble opinion its a non-issue. There was lewdness, prostitution etc. present in the society while huddood ordinance was in effect. And there will be oppressed women after Hudood Ordinance is history. My problem is clean drinking water, employment, justice, health care and education. Omer (RAW) suspended HUD when there was famine. Are we in any better situation now? I heard a scholar say once that the spirit of “Qatay-Yad” (chopping of the hands for stealing) is that the unemployment must be 0%, only then u can chop off hands of thieves. There must be opportunities available for all who desire to earn a living and then if someone resorts to stealing you can apply hud.

This is all irrelevant however, my personal contention is that let the people of Pakistan decide what and how they want to govern their lives. If we can have free and fair elections then parliament can debate and decide what form of hudood or lack of it, it wants. Its over-simplifying the situation but anything else just doesn’t represent what people of Pakistan wants and that’s what it should be about. But that’s reaching for stars and beyond.

Re: # 74

Oh so you werent interested in what Islam really has to say, you were merely looking to point out the flaws in pakistan`s mullah interpertation of the shariah and hence reach the conclusion Islam itself must be flawed. My bad. I am not here to defend Pakistani rulers least of all the opportunistc thugs in uniform. I can make an attempt to defend my religion which is Quran and the sunnah of the prophet PBUH. Prerequisite for that dialogue however is that you arrive with an open mind rather than preconcieved notions and despise.

Re: # 97

The situation that you describe is improbable but not impossible. For example, in case of Mukhtaran mai case it is possible that more than four reputable witnesses could not have stopped the gang rape of Mukhtaran in public for fear of their own life or potential threat to their own household.

The fouji thugs were careful enough not to let the case registered under hadud ordinance and did not let the case prosecuted under Shariat court in order to save themselves from the embarassment in front of their foreign masters just in case court had given the verdict of stonning to death to perpetrators. The case was prosecuted in a special fuaji supervised Anti-Terrorism Court - WTF. Had the perpetrators of attrocity to Mukhtaran Mai stonned to death no man would have ever dared to rape another woman in pakistan for several decades to come. The munafiqs in in Pakistan who present Mukhtaran Mai as poster child of what is wrong with Pakistan would not approve any method that prevent such attrocities to repeat themselves because if such measures are taken it will only hinder their own little ways of dil pishori.

CORRECTION: In #95

Under Islamic law, and Federal Shariat Court has upheld verdict in many cases in the past - The out of wedlock pregnancy or birth is not a cognizable or prosecutable offence. I regret the error.

Re: # 95

Is there any punishment for those 4 reputable male witnesses for letting the rape go on?

Re: # 94

Oye iblees mirzai. Catching the train is a good excuse to disappear. Where are you posting these messages from - from your tonga enroute railway station?

Re: # 92

I still do not understand your question but let me try.

The requirement of four witnesses applies to a very specific circumstance and not upon every occassion when a man and woman are caught, accused, or reported having sex. Suppose a couple is caught, accused, or reported having illicit sex then court prosecutes the case based on evidence. The evidence is of four types or a combination of the four:

1. Human witnesses
- A minimum of two witnesses are required

2. Circumstantial evidence
- this alone is not enough; evidence # 1, 3, 4 must corroborate.

3. Forensic evidence
- that includes medical reports, DNA, video etc.

4. Pregnancy.
- Pregnancy out of wedlock

Based on the type of evidence available the prosecution can recommend two types of punishment:

1. Hadd
2. Ta`azir

Hadd:

The Hadd punishment comes from Qura`n and Hadith and it is stonning to death of adulterers and 100 lashes for single fornicators. But Hadd punishment is ONLY applicable when four adult male Muslims of good reputation must have seen the act of penetration through their own eyes. If this condition is not met the Punishment is addressed by Ta`azir.


Ta`azir;

Ta`azir is an arbitrary punishment chosen by the society, which must be less in severity than Hadd.


There are some exceptions to the above rule too. For eaxmple, neither hadd nor ta`azir is applicable when a spouse accuses other of infidelity and have no evidence to prove their case. The issue is resoved through a procedure called L`aan, which results in the separation of the couple by court.

Untruly has shut up finally on his erroneous claims...

Now... I am too far out of my station to respond in detail... but this is a letter I have sent to all newspapers of Pakistan a few minutes ago...


Dear Sir,

I note with distress that Taqi Usmani, a former Shariat Appellate Bench judge, has taken to referring to himself as Supreme Court Justice Grand Mufti Taqi Usmani in public appearances.

The Shariat Appellate Bench is constituted - under article 203 F of the Constitution- of three Supreme Court Judges and 2 Alims. Please note that Taqi Usmani was appointed to Shariat Appellate Bench by General Zia as an Alim Judge. He was never appointed to the Supreme Court Bench which requires -under Section 177 of the Constitution - 15 years of High Court practice or 5 years of experience as a Judge of the High Court.

While one cannot comment on his claim to the post of Grand Mufti, the Supreme Court of Pakistan must stop Taqi Usmani from calling himself a Supreme Court Justice, which he was never eligible to be.

Yours sincerely,

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Re: # 83

`` The American Civil War was fought for the abolition of slavery, and the blacks were only peripheral to the contest.``

As a historian you should know better. The American Civil War was NOT fought to abolish slavery. The core reason is that Abraham Lincoln intiated an unconstitutional aggression upon the citizens of United States to supress the scessionists in the Southern states. What really takes the cake is the fact that, at that time US constitution did recognize the right of any state to seprate itself from the union. The issue of slavery was brought into this equation for two reasons:

1. Abe had to justify his unconstitutional war, so what better to give it a moral dimension, just as they give their justification to Iraq war (as if not having democracy is a moral shortcoming of a nation). In those days British philosophers had just realized that ``slavery` was a bad thing and idea had become fad in Europe at the time when in rest of the world they were colonizing and subjugating countries after countries. Funny that no philosopher ever considerd that s an abomination.

2. Slavery was the backbone of Southern economy. Becuse of the reason cited above European capitalists were having hard time competing with Southerners while miscreant philosphers were breathing on the back of their necks inciting unruly subalterns.

#90 urstruly: and on that other point, I am not sure how much more specific I can be, but let me try.

In one of your earlier posts you had written that the requirement of 4-witnesses was never applied in practice. I had then said, that if that was the case, why are the religious parties so insistent in retaining these laws? That is the question I had posed to you for which I still have no answer.

#90 urstruly: You wave aside the glaring oppression of women from poor families under hadood laws that I pointed out by reducing it to a simple ``law is not applied uniformly``!! Resort to such legalistic arguments indicates how blind you are to the evil these laws have done in Pakistan.

Re: # 84

I did not understand your question on bioth occassions. Could you be more specific.

In your 82 you have listed a whole bunch of people upon whom hadud law has not been applied in your opinion. I hope you are not making an argument that since law is not applied uniformly therefore there is reason for it to be abolished. If this is your argument then it is not the failure of the law you should be talking about but the implementation and application of the law - which are two distinct animals. hence I do not understand your questions.

....speaking of taqi usmani.........he sits on the shariah boards of islamic banking for quite a few western banks and middle eastern banks........all these banks are getting into islamic banking and one of the requirements of such a bank is a shariah board which declares transactions to be kosher.......

taqi usmani sits on the shariah boards of hsbc, islamic bank of britain, abu dhabi islamic bank and many more........if he gets paid for all this, he must have made quite a fortune.....on the other hand, if he is doing it out of the goodness of heart to spread islamic banking, then i don`t see any ethical conflict........

Re #71, bulleya
``in the end, if a community/group wants rights, it has to fight for it on its own ........led by the more affluent amongst their own communities..``

Don`t you think you are describing Beena, WAF, Asma Jahangir et al ? If you think all they do is hold marathons, then you are mistaken.

Re #82, tahmed
``how many landlords, how many military officers, how many rich businessmen, how many maulvis, how many pedophiles, how many women from wealthy families, how many tribal sardars, how many red-light district visitors (I could go on) have been jailed under this law??? zero. zilch``

Well, how many of them were jailed for murder, theft, embezzlement or any other crime? Hudood or no Hudood, the poor will always suffer disproportionately.
For context, please see posts #49 & 65.

#75 by Mantolives

You see – you just caught me violating my own rules. I hate it, when others make invalid assumptions. You are right! I should have known better, yes Zia had already dissolved assemblies at the time. But that was peripheral to my argument. What I wanted to know was, what are the remedies provided in the law as written.

Re: # 80 Khurram

``The Hudood Ordinance does not deal with the procedure of arrests, FIR or any such thing.
What it did was criminalize consensual sex.``

You are absolutely correct. It is not the law but the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that addresses the issues like procedures of arrests, FIR, collecting and documenting evidence by police, and methods of prosecution by the court. At least you are honest about your disapproval of Hadud Laws for the reason that you do not consider consensual sex as a cognizable offence. I respect your integrity even though I do not agree with your reasons. Most others lack that integrity.

tehsinabbassi #83: ``O Man! In one phrase you just discarded the sacrifices of a whole generation. The American Civil War was fought for the abolition of slavery, and the blacks were only peripheral to the contest.``

....i was refering to the later struggles of martin luther king etc.......

...having said that, there is quite a bit of debate about the real motivations of the us civil war....i think it is quite simplistic to say that a whole generation sacrificied to free slaves.....i think a lot of political and economic factors were involved, in which slaves may well have been a similar shuttlecock as women are in political issues in pakistan.....even after the civil war, only slavery ended.......barely any rights were given to the blacks....apparently the whole generation which sacrificied was not too interested in giving too many rights to the freed slaves.....a case of limited moral corrections....

.....blacks received full rights only after the civil rights movement, in which no doubt a lot of whites participated.......however, the leadership and the leading lights were, themselves, black........

#81 urstruly: you have ignored my question about why the maulvis have opposed removal of the hadood ordinance tooth and nail if, per your own post, the 4-witness provision has not been applied. Read my post #82 below and have some fear of God, if common sense is not enough.

#71 by bulleya

“blacks fought for their rights on their own and eventually got them”

O Man! In one phrase you just discarded the sacrifices of a whole generation. The American Civil War was fought for the abolition of slavery, and the blacks were only peripheral to the contest. This war split the nation, friends, neighbors, even brothers, with each side resolute in its commitment to its cause. You have stories of friends hugging each other before pledging that they would not waver to kill the other on the battlefield. A nation fought for its conscience, their belief in virtue, in justice and finally in redemption.

#80 nonsense. if it criminalized consensual sex outside marriage, how many landlords, how many military officers, how many rich businessmen, how many maulvis, how many pedophiles, how many women from wealthy families, how many tribal sardars, how many red-light district visitors (I could go on) have been jailed under this law??? zero. zilch. The vast majority is women from poor families!!


You and the rest of your kind in pakistan - foremost among them the pagan priests (maulvis) who have done their best to prolong this satanic law, as well as these badmaash maulvis - may escape justice in the Pakistan (where the law applies only to those without means), but will not escape God`s justice.

Re: # 79

You are still incorrect. But lets assume that you are correct, then why and how would that invalidate what Taqi Usmani is saying in my #39 and #42. All your uchchal kood can result is in me proving wrong that Taqi Usmani was a judge of Supreme Court.


Here is what Taqi Usmani said both in Urdu and in english in #39 & #42:

``The fact of the matter is that I myself have been directly hearing cases registered under Hudood Ordinance, first as a Judge of Federal Shariah Court and then for 17 years as a member of Shariah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court.``