To Western Women
Acerbic Jazbati April 23, 2000
#82 Posted by zeemax on April 26, 2000 9:46:05 am
Reply #: 59 hamidm
[the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded;]
These are indeed Allah`s words. Has anyone pondered upon the meaning of ``guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded ``?
This has been my experience. Women have an unexplainable sixth sense - I would even venture to say a third eye - which can see beyond what our masculine homo-sapien brothers can`t see. And women do protect men from evils the men cannot decipher or fathom. That role of women starts with mothers right after giving birth when the baby can`t speak but the mother knows from their cry if the infant has a colic stomachache or is thirsty or has just wet his nappy. They just know. That role continues in the form of sisters, wives and daughters. They will always know a little bit more than their men, and guard them against the unseen.
I believe men and women were bracketed in the gender category by an error during evolution. I believe women are actually a higher species ahead one step in evolution while men are closer to apes. Consequently, I believe women are not the female of the homo-sapiens; thus the resulting battle of the sexes with women having better brains while men having more brawn and the tug-of-war continues.
As we know, evolution proceeds by increasing brain and reducing brawn. The onus of survival of the species has shifted from muscular strength to mind-power. That`s where women are ahead of us. Allah`s words of keeping them subdued (beating)perhaps meant keeping that error of evolution contained though I can`t reconcile with the concept of wife-beating regardless of the scriptures. Is it that Allah meant there was an inherent ``Shaitan`` inside women because of their superior mind ? Which should be contained ? I don`t know. What I know is that what a woman wants .. a woman gets! By hook or by crook! Perhaps Allah had meant to balance women`s superior mind with men`s superior brawn; however unfair it may be; in order to correct that error of nature.
These are radical thoughts, but that`s why Chowk is there. Forgive me if I have offended anyone`s sensibilities. I can provide biological proof of the foregoing theory if anyone`s interested.
Rgds.
[the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded;]
These are indeed Allah`s words. Has anyone pondered upon the meaning of ``guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded ``?
This has been my experience. Women have an unexplainable sixth sense - I would even venture to say a third eye - which can see beyond what our masculine homo-sapien brothers can`t see. And women do protect men from evils the men cannot decipher or fathom. That role of women starts with mothers right after giving birth when the baby can`t speak but the mother knows from their cry if the infant has a colic stomachache or is thirsty or has just wet his nappy. They just know. That role continues in the form of sisters, wives and daughters. They will always know a little bit more than their men, and guard them against the unseen.
I believe men and women were bracketed in the gender category by an error during evolution. I believe women are actually a higher species ahead one step in evolution while men are closer to apes. Consequently, I believe women are not the female of the homo-sapiens; thus the resulting battle of the sexes with women having better brains while men having more brawn and the tug-of-war continues.
As we know, evolution proceeds by increasing brain and reducing brawn. The onus of survival of the species has shifted from muscular strength to mind-power. That`s where women are ahead of us. Allah`s words of keeping them subdued (beating)perhaps meant keeping that error of evolution contained though I can`t reconcile with the concept of wife-beating regardless of the scriptures. Is it that Allah meant there was an inherent ``Shaitan`` inside women because of their superior mind ? Which should be contained ? I don`t know. What I know is that what a woman wants .. a woman gets! By hook or by crook! Perhaps Allah had meant to balance women`s superior mind with men`s superior brawn; however unfair it may be; in order to correct that error of nature.
These are radical thoughts, but that`s why Chowk is there. Forgive me if I have offended anyone`s sensibilities. I can provide biological proof of the foregoing theory if anyone`s interested.
Rgds.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#81 Posted by fairdinkum on April 26, 2000 9:46:05 am
``This poem is a contribution from Acerbic Jazbati, source is unknown``
Hmm! It reminds me of Helen Darville aka Helen Demidenko and her famous book ``The hand that signed the paper``.
Hmm! It reminds me of Helen Darville aka Helen Demidenko and her famous book ``The hand that signed the paper``.
#80 Posted by fuzair on April 26, 2000 9:46:05 am
Re: Sobia #57
I refer you to Hamidm`s excellent post (#58) which pretty clearly puts the onus on Islam and not just on some male misinterpretation/distortion of it.
BTW, I`ll probably incite another hissy-fit from you and your friends, but who do you think wrote the Koran in the first place? God or men? Oh yes, your answer would be God. Incidentally, I`ll grant you and your friends that Islam was a great improvement on 7th century Arab customs and mores BUT in the immortal words of Janet Jackson, ``What have you done for me lately?``
I usually prefer to ignore ylh`s demented ravings in the same way that I ignore the neighbour`s dog that likes to howl at the moon but every now and then his howlers are so egregious that they must be noted.
In one of his posts (#71) he claimed that by the 17th century, Islamic societies had abolished slavery. He really is an embarrasment to Rutgers and whatever ``foreign`` school he attended in Pakistan: Mauretania--a good Muslim country--only abolished slavery in 1980. I believe the Saudi`s, the paragon of Islamicness, only did so in 1965 (or thereabouts, I`m a bit unsure of the exact date). Last time I looked, we were in the 20th century, so 1980 and 1965 do not count as 17th century.
Yes, the hijab is an innocuous enough piece of cloth but it is a very potent symbol of female subordination. Just as Jews have a fit when they see the Swastika chalked up on walls, so should all people who think that women are indeed the legal/social/cultural equals of men have a fit when they see the hijab. This is indeed the thin end of the wedge and giving in on this one ``minor`` point is to encourage the obscurantists to pursue their agenda.
BTW, with regard to the mindless aping of the West charge that is hurled at me by ylh, F_K and krashid and friends. I suppose that by their reasoning, the Japanese nationalists who decided to modernise Japan and to take on, and come close to beating, the West in WWII were also ``Baa Baa Black Sheep`` who had been brainwashed into thinking that the West was superior to their own culture? Funny, I never thought that the Goras were better than us. I was always amazed that a group of people as smart as us could not get our act together enough to beat a bunch of lazy, hedonistic, immoral, uncultured long-nosed barbarians. I always thought that if such clearly inferior people could do so well, we could do even better.
It was only after growing up a little and getting away from the Maulvi who was forcefeeding me the Koran that I realized that maybe the Gora Saab had some virtues that we, in spite of all our Allah Allahing, lacked.
The following is my sister`s reaction to the poem:
``I give her the right to choose, and if purdah is her choice, then that is fine. Unfortunately, for the vast vast majority of women who do observe purdah in this world, it is not a choice, it is a
decision that is made for them by society and enforced by her community and family. I am not saying that some of them would not choose to do purdah if they were free to make that decision. I am sure that a percentage of them would. After
all, a percentage of women also choose to dress in mini-skirts and low neck blouses, again, their choice--or a percentage chooses to dress in black leather with studs and purple hair. Each to their own.
The problem comes when you start calling the person who chooses a different path from your own as deviants, ``weird``, ``bad`` (as in promiscuous) or even ``oppressed``.
The problem with purdah though is not the act of veiling itself. There is nothing wrong with wanting to cover your hair, or even your whole body (psychoanalytical finger pointing of ``insecure`` and ``sexually repressed`` aside). It is the whole systematic suppression of a woman`s social, legal, economic, political, and human rights that is almost an inevitable part of the package that is the problem.
So Ms Jazba99 may be free to choose to observe purdah. And be educated enough to write poetry in English, and have the resources and choice to use a computer and the Internet. Unfortunately, most women living in conservative societies (and not just Muslim-look at India) do not. And that is the problem.``
I refer you to Hamidm`s excellent post (#58) which pretty clearly puts the onus on Islam and not just on some male misinterpretation/distortion of it.
BTW, I`ll probably incite another hissy-fit from you and your friends, but who do you think wrote the Koran in the first place? God or men? Oh yes, your answer would be God. Incidentally, I`ll grant you and your friends that Islam was a great improvement on 7th century Arab customs and mores BUT in the immortal words of Janet Jackson, ``What have you done for me lately?``
I usually prefer to ignore ylh`s demented ravings in the same way that I ignore the neighbour`s dog that likes to howl at the moon but every now and then his howlers are so egregious that they must be noted.
In one of his posts (#71) he claimed that by the 17th century, Islamic societies had abolished slavery. He really is an embarrasment to Rutgers and whatever ``foreign`` school he attended in Pakistan: Mauretania--a good Muslim country--only abolished slavery in 1980. I believe the Saudi`s, the paragon of Islamicness, only did so in 1965 (or thereabouts, I`m a bit unsure of the exact date). Last time I looked, we were in the 20th century, so 1980 and 1965 do not count as 17th century.
Yes, the hijab is an innocuous enough piece of cloth but it is a very potent symbol of female subordination. Just as Jews have a fit when they see the Swastika chalked up on walls, so should all people who think that women are indeed the legal/social/cultural equals of men have a fit when they see the hijab. This is indeed the thin end of the wedge and giving in on this one ``minor`` point is to encourage the obscurantists to pursue their agenda.
BTW, with regard to the mindless aping of the West charge that is hurled at me by ylh, F_K and krashid and friends. I suppose that by their reasoning, the Japanese nationalists who decided to modernise Japan and to take on, and come close to beating, the West in WWII were also ``Baa Baa Black Sheep`` who had been brainwashed into thinking that the West was superior to their own culture? Funny, I never thought that the Goras were better than us. I was always amazed that a group of people as smart as us could not get our act together enough to beat a bunch of lazy, hedonistic, immoral, uncultured long-nosed barbarians. I always thought that if such clearly inferior people could do so well, we could do even better.
It was only after growing up a little and getting away from the Maulvi who was forcefeeding me the Koran that I realized that maybe the Gora Saab had some virtues that we, in spite of all our Allah Allahing, lacked.
The following is my sister`s reaction to the poem:
``I give her the right to choose, and if purdah is her choice, then that is fine. Unfortunately, for the vast vast majority of women who do observe purdah in this world, it is not a choice, it is a
decision that is made for them by society and enforced by her community and family. I am not saying that some of them would not choose to do purdah if they were free to make that decision. I am sure that a percentage of them would. After
all, a percentage of women also choose to dress in mini-skirts and low neck blouses, again, their choice--or a percentage chooses to dress in black leather with studs and purple hair. Each to their own.
The problem comes when you start calling the person who chooses a different path from your own as deviants, ``weird``, ``bad`` (as in promiscuous) or even ``oppressed``.
The problem with purdah though is not the act of veiling itself. There is nothing wrong with wanting to cover your hair, or even your whole body (psychoanalytical finger pointing of ``insecure`` and ``sexually repressed`` aside). It is the whole systematic suppression of a woman`s social, legal, economic, political, and human rights that is almost an inevitable part of the package that is the problem.
So Ms Jazba99 may be free to choose to observe purdah. And be educated enough to write poetry in English, and have the resources and choice to use a computer and the Internet. Unfortunately, most women living in conservative societies (and not just Muslim-look at India) do not. And that is the problem.``
#79 Posted by OMAR1974 on April 26, 2000 9:46:05 am
To EASTERN WOMYN :) (notice the power of LABELS)
It has now been established on Chowk for all but unredeemable obscurantists ala Farangi Kush, that burqafication & hijabization are in general:
A)A form of gender discrimination, and a crude tool of patriarchy & male chauvanism-dominence
B)Rarely the product of FREE CHOICE in a FREE ENVIORNMENT but rather the habituation of slaves falling in love with their chains in 95% of cases.
I would now like to initiate a debate on the aesthetic/functional merits of DUPATTAS in Pakistani Culture. Are these too not a product of patriarchy and a tool of gender oppression? Consider their uses (to cover heads during Azan & busoms on the streets?) and whether womyn would choose to wear them if they could do without them, and still wear a Shalwar Kameez without inviting possibly untoward-unwarranted male & female comments. What makes a dupatta such a REQUIRED part of Shalwar-Kameez? Can`t Shalwar-Kameez be worn w/o a dupatta? Has any of the ladies on this forum ever consciously done so? Why or why not? I invite comments from all on this undiscussed, ignored, corollary issue.
OMAR MIRZA
It has now been established on Chowk for all but unredeemable obscurantists ala Farangi Kush, that burqafication & hijabization are in general:
A)A form of gender discrimination, and a crude tool of patriarchy & male chauvanism-dominence
B)Rarely the product of FREE CHOICE in a FREE ENVIORNMENT but rather the habituation of slaves falling in love with their chains in 95% of cases.
I would now like to initiate a debate on the aesthetic/functional merits of DUPATTAS in Pakistani Culture. Are these too not a product of patriarchy and a tool of gender oppression? Consider their uses (to cover heads during Azan & busoms on the streets?) and whether womyn would choose to wear them if they could do without them, and still wear a Shalwar Kameez without inviting possibly untoward-unwarranted male & female comments. What makes a dupatta such a REQUIRED part of Shalwar-Kameez? Can`t Shalwar-Kameez be worn w/o a dupatta? Has any of the ladies on this forum ever consciously done so? Why or why not? I invite comments from all on this undiscussed, ignored, corollary issue.
OMAR MIRZA
#78 Posted by mospel on April 26, 2000 9:46:05 am
wow!!
this is great.
i fully endorse the ideas contained in this ditty.
we should put this either on some website of women rights.
this is a great message for the critics of status of women is islam.
this is great.
i fully endorse the ideas contained in this ditty.
we should put this either on some website of women rights.
this is a great message for the critics of status of women is islam.
#77 Posted by XXYZ on April 26, 2000 9:46:05 am
The poem is Ok. You can write a better one, verse, Qafia, radeef. wazan -wise? Do it.
1. These topics are generic. Many people write on the same subject. We learn from others, past and present. How many of us have come up with original ideas? How many Shakespears, Newtons, Keplers, Einsteins, Bertrand Russels, Salams,and Tagores did we have? Who said in the Chowk that there was no school in my mother`s stomach!
All Chowkwallas are shamelessly condescending and patronizing to each other. That is why nothing but absolutely nothing of value has emerged out of this site. MeiN, meiN, meiN, meiN, is all we have done.
I don`t wish to close without coming back to the question [raised] of plagiarism: I think it was the most ridiculous, indefensible, silly, and idiotic point raised. All Urdu poets were plagiarisers/[rists?] according to this criterion. All talked about the same mazmoon; then, there is tazmeen, declared or otherwise. Never heard of it?
Read the poem and reflect and reason. And shut up! You make me puke.
XXYZ
1. These topics are generic. Many people write on the same subject. We learn from others, past and present. How many of us have come up with original ideas? How many Shakespears, Newtons, Keplers, Einsteins, Bertrand Russels, Salams,and Tagores did we have? Who said in the Chowk that there was no school in my mother`s stomach!
All Chowkwallas are shamelessly condescending and patronizing to each other. That is why nothing but absolutely nothing of value has emerged out of this site. MeiN, meiN, meiN, meiN, is all we have done.
I don`t wish to close without coming back to the question [raised] of plagiarism: I think it was the most ridiculous, indefensible, silly, and idiotic point raised. All Urdu poets were plagiarisers/[rists?] according to this criterion. All talked about the same mazmoon; then, there is tazmeen, declared or otherwise. Never heard of it?
Read the poem and reflect and reason. And shut up! You make me puke.
XXYZ
#76 Posted by jay on April 26, 2000 9:46:05 am
TALIBANS OF THE CHOWK,
The educated liberals of the chowk are on a feeding frenzy, last seen at the taliban `revolution` in afghanistan.
It is time that these educated pakistanis realise that what they have to strive for is a version of islam that accepts purdha if a women choses the same way as a miniskirt.
The response of the allegedly `journalistic` women of the chowk had been despicable.
Insisting on the purdha and banning it are the out come of the same world view, my interpretation of the book is correct, the taliban view.
To gymnosophist,
I admire your knowledge of india.
The educated liberals of the chowk are on a feeding frenzy, last seen at the taliban `revolution` in afghanistan.
It is time that these educated pakistanis realise that what they have to strive for is a version of islam that accepts purdha if a women choses the same way as a miniskirt.
The response of the allegedly `journalistic` women of the chowk had been despicable.
Insisting on the purdha and banning it are the out come of the same world view, my interpretation of the book is correct, the taliban view.
To gymnosophist,
I admire your knowledge of india.
#75 Posted by krashid on April 26, 2000 9:46:05 am
The question is role of women and women`s liberation and current century.
Women by nature are not equal but equivalent to men and their (both men and women) basic aim is propagation of species which after probably many millenium comes in the form of family as a unit.
Islam stresses on family as a unit and different laws regarding dress code etc are related to that.
I see all these beautiful words regarding women`s liberation and equality etc etc in a very crude way.
The world was, is and probably will be male dominated. Now role of women in western society is not equivalent for propagation of species. It is reflected in negative population growth and importation of ``Kalay Angrez`` to fill the population gap.
Now women have to define their new role as equal. So they can continue to survive in market job etc at par with men. I think it is more of an instinct of survival in current trend of population and ``mind`` control.
It is also sadly reflected in the attitude of male chauvinist who claim the promiscuity of Burqa clad, Purdah clad women but forget that it is their own promiscuity which they are proudly presenting (for them it is a shame for women and pride for them)
To Jazba and others. Have a good family life. Give priority to your family which is the back bone of society. Work together with your male partners to have a happy home and good life.
Women by nature are not equal but equivalent to men and their (both men and women) basic aim is propagation of species which after probably many millenium comes in the form of family as a unit.
Islam stresses on family as a unit and different laws regarding dress code etc are related to that.
I see all these beautiful words regarding women`s liberation and equality etc etc in a very crude way.
The world was, is and probably will be male dominated. Now role of women in western society is not equivalent for propagation of species. It is reflected in negative population growth and importation of ``Kalay Angrez`` to fill the population gap.
Now women have to define their new role as equal. So they can continue to survive in market job etc at par with men. I think it is more of an instinct of survival in current trend of population and ``mind`` control.
It is also sadly reflected in the attitude of male chauvinist who claim the promiscuity of Burqa clad, Purdah clad women but forget that it is their own promiscuity which they are proudly presenting (for them it is a shame for women and pride for them)
To Jazba and others. Have a good family life. Give priority to your family which is the back bone of society. Work together with your male partners to have a happy home and good life.
#74 Posted by fairdinkum on April 26, 2000 3:25:52 am
Umer080,
My apologies, Bibi Aisha actually went to war against the Fourth ``rightly guided`` Caliph, and not the third.
My apologies, Bibi Aisha actually went to war against the Fourth ``rightly guided`` Caliph, and not the third.
#73 Posted by fairdinkum on April 26, 2000 3:25:52 am
Re: Umer080 #46
I found the following very interesting:
“In Quran, women as well as men, have been asked to lower their gaze and hide their private parts. There is no discrimination in this aspect. Didnt bib aisha(rta) ride an elephant to a war?. I guess i dont need to say anything further.”
I looked into it, but I could not find information on any war in which Bibi Aisha participated riding on an elephant. The closest I could find is a war known as Jang-e-Jamal. But she rode a camel not an elephant in this war…. She
went to perform ``Jihad`` against your third Caliph and suffered a humiliating defeat. The camel she was riding was destroyed.
I would like to know more about the Elephant war. Can you help me on this?
I found the following very interesting:
“In Quran, women as well as men, have been asked to lower their gaze and hide their private parts. There is no discrimination in this aspect. Didnt bib aisha(rta) ride an elephant to a war?. I guess i dont need to say anything further.”
I looked into it, but I could not find information on any war in which Bibi Aisha participated riding on an elephant. The closest I could find is a war known as Jang-e-Jamal. But she rode a camel not an elephant in this war…. She
went to perform ``Jihad`` against your third Caliph and suffered a humiliating defeat. The camel she was riding was destroyed.
I would like to know more about the Elephant war. Can you help me on this?
#72 Posted by OMAR1974 on April 26, 2000 3:25:52 am
Correction to my post#69
Should read:
`Purdah in itself, if limited to HIJAB (not Burqa as misstated), if accepted by truly free choice in a truly free enviornment of personal choice is to be respected.`
Ylh #62: Saudi Arabia did not outlaw slavery until the 1960s, also the slave trade through East Africa continued well into the 20th century in Arab dhows.
Omar Mirza
Should read:
`Purdah in itself, if limited to HIJAB (not Burqa as misstated), if accepted by truly free choice in a truly free enviornment of personal choice is to be respected.`
Ylh #62: Saudi Arabia did not outlaw slavery until the 1960s, also the slave trade through East Africa continued well into the 20th century in Arab dhows.
Omar Mirza
#71 Posted by zeemax on April 26, 2000 1:06:09 am
It seems to me that Jazba is being savaged rather unfairly, somewhat on the lines of the poor Colonel who advocated sending hoardes of unemployed Pakistani youth into India in return for `maal-e-ghanimat`.
In my opinion, this poem reflects a retaliation against cultural/religious discrimination of identity sometimes experienced in the West. It is a reaction against being considered `different`, by becoming even more `different`! In other words, `` yes I`m different! So what ? Go jump in a lake``.
A good analogy would be the African Americans of New York. In response to being called `niggers`, they dress in white suits, white hats, and roam around in huge white cadillacs - probably in order to appear even more `nigger`; showing two thumbs to their detractors.
So, I`ll request Chowkwallas to give poor Jazba a break !
Rgds.
In my opinion, this poem reflects a retaliation against cultural/religious discrimination of identity sometimes experienced in the West. It is a reaction against being considered `different`, by becoming even more `different`! In other words, `` yes I`m different! So what ? Go jump in a lake``.
A good analogy would be the African Americans of New York. In response to being called `niggers`, they dress in white suits, white hats, and roam around in huge white cadillacs - probably in order to appear even more `nigger`; showing two thumbs to their detractors.
So, I`ll request Chowkwallas to give poor Jazba a break !
Rgds.
#70 Posted by fairdinkum on April 26, 2000 1:02:13 am
Well, if jazba is in the same age group as Suzy Fawad, then we shouldn`t be too harsh on her. Yeah, the poem is in the same vein, but I am not sure if it amounts to plagiarism (legally).
Jazba, Chowk is a dangerous place…full of pros…. be careful next time!
Jazba, Chowk is a dangerous place…full of pros…. be careful next time!
#69 Posted by digit on April 26, 2000 1:02:13 am
In response to Bina:
`` i think Jazba99 asked for all the negative responses. Shouldn`t feel too bad, though,
because the poem is definitely not an original...``
Well, given the recent news that this poem is not an original I submit that perhaps
some scorn is due to Jazba. :-)
``I stick with my original contention that Muslim women have a lot more to worry
about than just their clothes.... The Quran carries maybe five verses instructing men
and women how to dress, and a hundred or so instructing them to give generously of
their wealth to the poor. You do the math.``
No need for the math, I get the point. I can`t help but to agree.
``And, after all, you never see Muslim men debating whether they should adopt
blinkers so their eyes never land upon a woman`s body, do you?``
Well, at the risk of sounding like a smart-alec, the mullah types are quite serious
about men turning their gaze away from women.
In any case, the alleged criteria for Hijab is not so much about weakness in men
(although it`s a pathetic excuse that`s often invoked) as it is about a recognized
traditional requirement of how muslim women dress.
The emphasis on Hijab in recent times is a very complex issue. Partly political, partly
rebelling against colonialism, partly rebelling against rampant consumerism, etc.
But there is a spiritual dimension to it, and for those whom I know who wear the
Hijab, they treat it like a part of their spiritual makeup, and wear it for the sake of
faith and identity rather than any particular ``benefit`` to anyone else.
Moving back to men, it`s interesting to note a lack of stink over men`s dress
*requirement * or even the dress code enforced in western societies (as minimal as it
is - but it still is illegal to prance around topless for women in most western states).
Clearly, the issue is the Hijab itself, rather than the women who wear it. That`s sad.
It is also clear that this unassuming piece of cloth has been hijacked by many as the
perfect crutch on which to base silly anti Islamic polemics and equally silly Islamist
`wear this and your problems will go away` cant.
``I believe this hijab debate is artificially constructed to keep Muslim women
distracted and disempowered ``
Well, this ``issue`` exists solely due to the anti-Hijab camp. For traditionalists, it`s a
non issue. Most muslim women wouldn`t give a damn, they`d wear it if they`d have
to and if it`d afford them that extra bit of freedom.
The debate is fostered and perpetuated by those who hate the concept of the Hijab.
I take it your hinting that this is a part of some fundamentalist scheme to keep women
down. I must disagree if this is what your are suggesting.
``There is a very interesting column in the Friday Times (www.thefridaytimes.com)
Opinion section by Sherry Rehman, ``A Tale of Two Revolutions``.``
I`ve read it...interesting.
But I find this statement very, very disturbing:
`The Islamic Republic of Pakistan still has not turned fundamentalist. But if the
barbarians at the gate are allowed more concessions, nobody knows which way
history, circumstance and collective folly may take us.`
What is she suggesting here? Is she suggesting that it`s time to start suppressing
Islam a-la Attaturk? What constitutes a fundamentalist?
Rather obscurantist.
So-called fundamentalist movements are varied in their outlook, and her lumping
together of the Hijab i`s she talked about with the Taliban-wannabe`s is a bit much.
In any case, I can`t seem to grasp the significance of this article as it relates to the
discussion at hand. :-(
`` i think Jazba99 asked for all the negative responses. Shouldn`t feel too bad, though,
because the poem is definitely not an original...``
Well, given the recent news that this poem is not an original I submit that perhaps
some scorn is due to Jazba. :-)
``I stick with my original contention that Muslim women have a lot more to worry
about than just their clothes.... The Quran carries maybe five verses instructing men
and women how to dress, and a hundred or so instructing them to give generously of
their wealth to the poor. You do the math.``
No need for the math, I get the point. I can`t help but to agree.
``And, after all, you never see Muslim men debating whether they should adopt
blinkers so their eyes never land upon a woman`s body, do you?``
Well, at the risk of sounding like a smart-alec, the mullah types are quite serious
about men turning their gaze away from women.
In any case, the alleged criteria for Hijab is not so much about weakness in men
(although it`s a pathetic excuse that`s often invoked) as it is about a recognized
traditional requirement of how muslim women dress.
The emphasis on Hijab in recent times is a very complex issue. Partly political, partly
rebelling against colonialism, partly rebelling against rampant consumerism, etc.
But there is a spiritual dimension to it, and for those whom I know who wear the
Hijab, they treat it like a part of their spiritual makeup, and wear it for the sake of
faith and identity rather than any particular ``benefit`` to anyone else.
Moving back to men, it`s interesting to note a lack of stink over men`s dress
*requirement * or even the dress code enforced in western societies (as minimal as it
is - but it still is illegal to prance around topless for women in most western states).
Clearly, the issue is the Hijab itself, rather than the women who wear it. That`s sad.
It is also clear that this unassuming piece of cloth has been hijacked by many as the
perfect crutch on which to base silly anti Islamic polemics and equally silly Islamist
`wear this and your problems will go away` cant.
``I believe this hijab debate is artificially constructed to keep Muslim women
distracted and disempowered ``
Well, this ``issue`` exists solely due to the anti-Hijab camp. For traditionalists, it`s a
non issue. Most muslim women wouldn`t give a damn, they`d wear it if they`d have
to and if it`d afford them that extra bit of freedom.
The debate is fostered and perpetuated by those who hate the concept of the Hijab.
I take it your hinting that this is a part of some fundamentalist scheme to keep women
down. I must disagree if this is what your are suggesting.
``There is a very interesting column in the Friday Times (www.thefridaytimes.com)
Opinion section by Sherry Rehman, ``A Tale of Two Revolutions``.``
I`ve read it...interesting.
But I find this statement very, very disturbing:
`The Islamic Republic of Pakistan still has not turned fundamentalist. But if the
barbarians at the gate are allowed more concessions, nobody knows which way
history, circumstance and collective folly may take us.`
What is she suggesting here? Is she suggesting that it`s time to start suppressing
Islam a-la Attaturk? What constitutes a fundamentalist?
Rather obscurantist.
So-called fundamentalist movements are varied in their outlook, and her lumping
together of the Hijab i`s she talked about with the Taliban-wannabe`s is a bit much.
In any case, I can`t seem to grasp the significance of this article as it relates to the
discussion at hand. :-(
#68 Posted by OMAR1974 on April 26, 2000 1:02:13 am
Regarding Replies 1-55
I concur with the views of Rafay Alam, Bina, Tibor, Zeemax, Slink/Shandana Minhas, MacGupta, Sigalph235, hamidm, Jawahara, SR, Solitude, Fozia, the happy one, Zehra (#39), Fuzair & gynosophist.
Any `New` Insight to what has been said thus far?
Your Enviornment is what you are. If you are born & bred in a purdah lovin` enviornment that will be the ideal/norm for you; except for the few exceptional women who choose the path of deburqafication and all it entails and Vice Versa regarding Ylh`s examples. I note Zehra Rizvi talked about wearing Hijab in the PAST TENSE in her post. Perhaps she could shed some light as an x-hijaban, now thoroughly morally corrupted, cigarette dangling from her lips, standing naked (for non-hijab/burqa clads are considered practically NANGEE by obscurantists), (lips) ... curled in a sleezy come hither look to every male stud that crosses her path ... now that his phermones can fully penetrate into her senses stimulating her appetites just waiting to be unleashed ... something burqa clad, stay at home chicks were surely unable to do ... (although burqa & hijab issues are seperate I can`t resist) ... being unexposed ...:)
Purdah in itself, if limited to burqa, if accepted by truly free choice in a truly free enviornment of personal choice is to be respected. Here i may point out that Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan as well as parts of Pakistan do not afford a truly FREE CHOICE. The question is, can you don a hijab/burqa one day, and the next day on your own whim discard it without social attitudes towards you changing? Or will only burqa clad/hijabans be deemed virtueous by society? And the rest contemptible sluts? Me, personally, i prefer FREEDOM to CHOOSE over a society which takes away individual freedom of choice. I.E A Liberal democracy is far, far better, than a theocracy ANY DAY OF THE MILLENIUM. And Kemalist Turkey is far far better than Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Why? Because I truly believe no progress in other areas where womyn need empowerment can be achieved UNTIL the cover-up-the-womyn-to-make-them-respectable mentality is completely shed. They will always remain 2nd class citizens, since covering them up will always take priority over their acces to education, equal treatment in the workforce etc. Now i personally prefer the company of assertive individuals, regardless of whether they agree with my views or not. Submissiveness, only inspires my utter contempt, hatred & ridicule. Its quite dangerous to be meek & weak. Also, unattractive.
Carried to its logical extreme in a patriarchical society, this cover-up-the-womyn attitude leads to men commiting honor killings in a spirit of religious righteousness, as opposed to the rule of law ---divorce/Khula. Why? Because men feel they have a PROPERTY interest in the womyn, and when womyn adopt an attitude of submissiveness, THEY INVITE this treatment. And the truth is that the murderous men just get to walk away with blood on their hands.
NO! It is FAR preferable to have a society where Bikinis on beaches are the (optional) norm,
than a society that takes away too much individual freedom and fosters gender inequality, while asserting the LABEL of Equality in the face of the real facts both in theory, & in reduction to practice, of the position of womyn in society.
In the memorable words of justice Cardozo, We live in `a scheme of Ordered liberty.` Meaning, society is NOT falling apart because womyn are not wearing hijab/burqafied, and are instead wearing low cut dresses everyday, and bikinis on the weekends. AND, it preserves the LIBERTY of the individual, while taking social interests into account (Can`t wear bikinis in Times Square because of societal interests). This concept of Liberty of the individual being an important value, i`m sorry to say, simply does not exist in sufficient measure in muslim countries as something that is given due repect. And thats the root of the problem.
Bikinis are THE FINAL SOLUTION to the house-negro mentality of culturally cultivated lovers of their own oppression (those who have never been led to believe they had the right/freedom to choose otherwise). This (bikinification) should be implemented at once by all progressive minded individuals! Only this is the path of gender equality ... heil Cindy Crawford!
OMAR MIRZA
I concur with the views of Rafay Alam, Bina, Tibor, Zeemax, Slink/Shandana Minhas, MacGupta, Sigalph235, hamidm, Jawahara, SR, Solitude, Fozia, the happy one, Zehra (#39), Fuzair & gynosophist.
Any `New` Insight to what has been said thus far?
Your Enviornment is what you are. If you are born & bred in a purdah lovin` enviornment that will be the ideal/norm for you; except for the few exceptional women who choose the path of deburqafication and all it entails and Vice Versa regarding Ylh`s examples. I note Zehra Rizvi talked about wearing Hijab in the PAST TENSE in her post. Perhaps she could shed some light as an x-hijaban, now thoroughly morally corrupted, cigarette dangling from her lips, standing naked (for non-hijab/burqa clads are considered practically NANGEE by obscurantists), (lips) ... curled in a sleezy come hither look to every male stud that crosses her path ... now that his phermones can fully penetrate into her senses stimulating her appetites just waiting to be unleashed ... something burqa clad, stay at home chicks were surely unable to do ... (although burqa & hijab issues are seperate I can`t resist) ... being unexposed ...:)
Purdah in itself, if limited to burqa, if accepted by truly free choice in a truly free enviornment of personal choice is to be respected. Here i may point out that Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan as well as parts of Pakistan do not afford a truly FREE CHOICE. The question is, can you don a hijab/burqa one day, and the next day on your own whim discard it without social attitudes towards you changing? Or will only burqa clad/hijabans be deemed virtueous by society? And the rest contemptible sluts? Me, personally, i prefer FREEDOM to CHOOSE over a society which takes away individual freedom of choice. I.E A Liberal democracy is far, far better, than a theocracy ANY DAY OF THE MILLENIUM. And Kemalist Turkey is far far better than Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Why? Because I truly believe no progress in other areas where womyn need empowerment can be achieved UNTIL the cover-up-the-womyn-to-make-them-respectable mentality is completely shed. They will always remain 2nd class citizens, since covering them up will always take priority over their acces to education, equal treatment in the workforce etc. Now i personally prefer the company of assertive individuals, regardless of whether they agree with my views or not. Submissiveness, only inspires my utter contempt, hatred & ridicule. Its quite dangerous to be meek & weak. Also, unattractive.
Carried to its logical extreme in a patriarchical society, this cover-up-the-womyn attitude leads to men commiting honor killings in a spirit of religious righteousness, as opposed to the rule of law ---divorce/Khula. Why? Because men feel they have a PROPERTY interest in the womyn, and when womyn adopt an attitude of submissiveness, THEY INVITE this treatment. And the truth is that the murderous men just get to walk away with blood on their hands.
NO! It is FAR preferable to have a society where Bikinis on beaches are the (optional) norm,
than a society that takes away too much individual freedom and fosters gender inequality, while asserting the LABEL of Equality in the face of the real facts both in theory, & in reduction to practice, of the position of womyn in society.
In the memorable words of justice Cardozo, We live in `a scheme of Ordered liberty.` Meaning, society is NOT falling apart because womyn are not wearing hijab/burqafied, and are instead wearing low cut dresses everyday, and bikinis on the weekends. AND, it preserves the LIBERTY of the individual, while taking social interests into account (Can`t wear bikinis in Times Square because of societal interests). This concept of Liberty of the individual being an important value, i`m sorry to say, simply does not exist in sufficient measure in muslim countries as something that is given due repect. And thats the root of the problem.
Bikinis are THE FINAL SOLUTION to the house-negro mentality of culturally cultivated lovers of their own oppression (those who have never been led to believe they had the right/freedom to choose otherwise). This (bikinification) should be implemented at once by all progressive minded individuals! Only this is the path of gender equality ... heil Cindy Crawford!
OMAR MIRZA
#67 Posted by rafay_alam on April 26, 2000 1:02:13 am
In re: SR, reply #55:
Sir, my hat off to you. Well said and well put. Let the `Quran thumpers` reply to that.
R.
Sir, my hat off to you. Well said and well put. Let the `Quran thumpers` reply to that.
R.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- KaalChakra: first, and to what... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: I think our discussion... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: rahul, there has never... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- rahul_capri: sadna,I just read it,thanks.I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: Sadna, ok, a question. We... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- sadna: Do you remember the... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- hamidm2: Re: # 115 tahmed, ... you... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- sadna: PS: I think the... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
