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

#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.

#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.

Re: # 403

Krishna

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

#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: # 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.

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: # 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 #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: # 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.

... 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!

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.

#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.

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: # 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: # 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: # 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.

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.

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.

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``.

#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?!

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``.

#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.

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?

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 …

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.

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??

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.

#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. :-)

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

#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?

#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?

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.

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.

---

#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

#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!

#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.

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.

#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.

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.

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

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?

#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 ..

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.

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?

#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?

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.

#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.

...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 ...

Re: # 311

Rabid DOG,

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

#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.

Re: # 307

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

Thanks.

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?) :)