To Western Women

I think both jazba99 and Shivani must come forward and exonerate themselves from the accusations of plagiarism in their articles. Otherwise, they will be percieved guilty for not defending themselves. The authors should have credited the orginal sources for at least inspiring these poems. Chowk Staff in no way can verify each and every piece of material send to them for publications. They should not be charged for negligence or whatever.

On a positive note, this thread has provided me the opportunity to hear from Hamidm and SR, among others. What a delight it is to read their posts, not just for the contents but also for their writing skills. It is worth reading repeatedly both Hamidm and SRs` replies--at least for the joy of reading. Thanks guys!!!

Semites or Arabs were kind of out-cast people living on the fringe of first Persian and then Roman Empires. Their primitive and tribal laws were either accepted or improved by Islam. The whole point about Quran, besides Islamic spirituality is this ``better than before`` concept. This concept was advanced by the famous ``heretics`` like Ibn-Rushd and Al-Razi, as pointed out by Pervez Hoodbhoy in his book and several posts by Raja Amir Janjua. Whatever women rights or responsibilities are described in Quran must only be compared with, ``what was before`` and they are meaningless in the present circumstances. Instead of striving for better than the present, the literal exegesis would only lead to a static and Arabic society of several century past. Most women rightly reject any such imposition of retrogressive and primitive treatment, in the name of religion. What SR has said in the previous post is absolutely true. These were some of the ``rights`` of women in the 7th century Arabia. They may have been better than the 6th century--but this is 20th century now. Think about 21st and not the 7th. What disappointed me more than hijab, naqab or pardah was the pride in staying home and not working.

TO SR.......and a loooooong list of majority here at CHOWK!!

Its kind of evident that the most of the people here have a simple muslim bashing attitude varying from neo-intellectual revealations to personal insults.......

If the hype crowd of ivy league educated, second generation americans-(pakis) are so touchy about listening to opinions of people who do not agree to their libertarian views..........then what is the use of all this discourse at CHOWK........

Self proclaimed intellectualism is the prime reason why we cant have a serious exchange of ideas not only on this site but generally with pakis in ameirca land.

Guys ..guys.....take a look at the quality of journalism in iran at this time.......

JN, san jose

[When the cat was away the mice(mouse?) were having a party]

To:

All hindoo-hugging cliff-hanging `muslim` liberals,secularists,& moderates:

(note: hugging is an english word )

The answers to most of the questions on the subject of Islamic laws & jurisprudence are available on several sites.Please locate them or ask someone.

Naturally,with your mindset you can only be convinced if such approval comes from the west.Pathetic though your situation is, nevertheless if the query is sincere, then may I suggest to read the thoughts of NapoleonBP and Thomas Jefferson.Please also contact your local law society and ask them to suggest some western legal experts` material on it.You will be pleasantly surprised (or offended),depending upon the thickness of your walnut shell.

A.K.Brohi & A.R.Cornelius are also good sources.

All the libraries were destroyed by the British around 1857.Only the Khuda Baksh library was cleverly saved by rushing it to Rampur before the Brits could lay their hands upon it.A lot of work is underway now to learn how shariat laws were carried out before the British uprooted the entire edifice so that now even our own people have become totally convinced of their own inherent stupidities.

As I understand Chowk is what the name indicates,a cross-roads or a public square.Obviously seminars cannot be conducted here especially when the credentials are none but our biasis(of myself--the most,I hope so).This is its` great strength & vivacity.Fie upon the academic cobwebs & the camphor-laden funk of the salaried scholar.

BACK TO MY COW & BULL`s eye:

So all you secularists,socialists,kemalists,humanists,communists,atheists,scientologists,freemasons,Rosicrucians (add your own---)& others of the Dingbats & Two-whit-tu-hoos from the Ghasney-Lands:

Please ponder on the progress you are making on the use of the `EXIT` corridor as an `ENTER` corridor and how are you explaining this `double-role` to those around you.

Happy Haraamkaari to you all!

Jazba99:It would help if you please apologise for not making a full & complete disclosure about the source of this poem.The substance & sentiments of the poem are beyond criticism.



wasallam

salam,

is jazba99 is a women ???? cause as I am not that old at chowk so to keep up with the regular users

i have been reading prevous articles where ever they mention it and there i have often seen jazba99 as speaking like a guy (well not sure)

re:zehra

guess u should have posted the suzi fawad`s poem here that might would have cleared lots of missconceptions i hav seen arising here .

as i said above i am reading previous articles i have read ``A heavy price to pay `` just a few days ago . and the replies and ofcource yours too the one immediate after this poem..

:o)

so guys/gals here`s the orignal poem from which this poem is actually inspired from which bina,zehra and fouzia are babbling about ...

WHEN YOU LOOK AT ME

By: Suzy Fawad, Age 14

What do you see when you look at me?

Do you see someone limited,

Or someone free?

All some people can do is look and stare

Simply because they can`t see my hair

Others think I`m controlled and uneducated

They think I am limited and unliberated

They are so thankful that they are not me

Because they would like to remain free

Well, free isn`t exactly the word i would`ve used

Describing women who are cheated on and abused

They think I do not have opinion or voice

They think that being hooded isn`t my choice

They think that the hood makes me lokk caged

That my husband or dad are totally outraged

All they can do is look at me and fear

And in my eye there is a tear

Not because I have been stared at or made fun of

Bot because people are ignoring the One up above

On the Day of Judgment they will be the fools

Because they are too ashamed to play by their own rules

Maybe the guys won`t think I`m a cutie

But atleast I`m filled with more inner beauty

See, I have declined from being a guy`s toy

Because I won`t let myself be controlled by a boy

Real men are able to appreciate my mind

And aren`t busy looking at my behind

Hooded girls are the ones really helping the Muslim cause

The role that we play definately deserves applause

I will be recognized because I am smart and bright

And because some people are inspired by my sight

The smart ones are attracted by my tranquility

In the back of their minds they wish they were me

We have the strength to do what is right

Even if it means putting up a life long fight

You see, we are not controlled by a mini-skirt and tight shirt

We are given only respect and never treated like dirt

So you see, we are the ones that are free and liberated

We are not the ones sexually terrorized and violated

We are the ones that are free and pure

We are free of STDs that have no cure

So when people ask you how you feel about the hood

Just sum it up and say, ``Baby, it`s ALL good!``

re: SR

GET A LIFE MAN!!!

i don`t think i have to tell u that ``half truth is worst then a complete lie``

to ur satisfaction all ur reply do make me feel sad and hurt !!!

:OP

Very interesting, but aren`t you generalizing? You`re the kind of narrow minded galloot who thinks that all western women are hookers, or wear short skirt, or are easy. What gives you the right to say that someone is wrong.

Surely these western women DO have a good reason to think that you are oppressed and uneducated. Because the fact remains, a majority of muslim women who wear hijaab, if given a choice, would choose not to wear the hijaab. The only reason a majority of these women wear hijaab is that if they don`t, their husbands, brothers, strangers on the street, will proceed to administer a beating.

This is the Eastern culture you are so proud of. A culture, where women are treated worse than an Iowa farmer`s pigs. A culture, where women aren`t allowed to go to college. A culture where a dying woman cannot be seen by a male doctor. Pathans, Taalibaans, Saudis, to name a few are the most narrow minded animals on the planet, yes I am generalizing. These people believe that it is ok to kill a woman because they ``THINK`` she might have done something immoral, these animals don`t even have to prove anything.

So, miss Easter Woman, don`t be so quick to criticize other cultures, look at yours first.

SR

I am no apologist ... I ll give you the facts as they are.

1) yes you are right women are not allowed to marry non muslim men something that has emerged more out of the social context and as a doctrine of necessity that out of the holy book. Maybe you should check the holy book. I dont want to apologize.

2)According to you in the Quran Women`s testimony is half ... if you read the Quranic verse properly it is talking about business transactions ... again the context of the information is very important since women did not participate in business transactions then. Again this might be bordering on what you call apology (I just think that the word apologist is ridiculous) .... NO WHERE IN THE QURAN SAYS WOMEN`S TESTIMONY IS HALF IN CRIMINAL MATTERS!!!!!

Since there are women in the Business world today one can safely argue that the ayah is referring to a particular time period as the Quran so often does.

3)The concept of Hur is vague in the Quran ....but it is the contention that every soul will get hurs . HOWEVER THERE IS NO MENTION OF LITTLE BOYS FOR ISLAM IS A RELIGION TOTALLY AGAINST HOMO SEXUALITY ... NOW YOU HAVE A CASE THERE AGAINST ISLAM FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SEXUAL ORIENTATION ... BUT THEN WHAT RELIGION ISNT AGAINST HOMO SEXUALS ... WE AS MUSLIMS BELIEVE THAT HOMO SEXUALS ARE UNNATURAL ... did you make that statement just to make a statement ... For sake of sanity atleast stick to the facts!!!!

4)The multiple wives it is very clear is legal option but is no where encouraged in ISLAM ... again this was a semitic custom which would be gotten rid of slowly overtime .. slavery and MULTIPLE MARRIAGES WERE A SEMITIC CUSTOM ....

CUSTOMS LIKE THESE GO AWAY SLOWLY ..... ISLAM IN ITS EARLIEST TIMES EMANCIPATED THE SLAVES ..... AND IF YOU READ SOME HISTORY INSTEAD OF MAKING BASELESS ACCUSATIONS YOU WILL SEE THAT BY THE 17TH CENTURY SLAVERY HAD DISSAPPEARED FROM THE ISLAMIC WORLD FOR EXAMPLE and similarly multiple wives is taboo in most Islamic countries today. This is how the muslim community is supposed to move towards higher ideals..

When we talk about Muhammad`s 13 wives we often forget that only one of those was a virgin and the rest were all divorced or widows ....isnt it a wonder that a supposedly ``lustful`` man who had so much power only married widows?? I suppose you see that as another perversion eh?????

ISNT IT TRUE THAT A LOT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE LEFT WITHOUT WALI AFTER THE UHUD WAR WHEN MUSLIMS WERE ENCOURAGED TO MARRY UPTO FOUR ... FOR ALL THE REST OF THE TIMES ALLAH MADE IT CLEAR ...THAT MARRY MORE THAN ONE ONLY IF YOU CAN DO JUSTICE WHICH YOU CANT !!!!!

Now a final comment I am no bigot nor am I religious preacher ... If you had read my posts on the other forums you would be able to see that I am far from what you made me out to be ... I am no apologist either ... APOLOGIST IS SUCH AN UGLY TERM !!!!!!!!!!!!! It automatically supposes all defences to be apologies but then what are logical reasons behind something to be classified as ???

ALSO MR SR., FUZAIR AND SOLITUDE .... YOU ALL NEED TO DO SOME RESEARCH INSTEAD OF MAKING BASELESS STATEMENTS ....

I know that in Islamic tradition blasphemy was never punishable like it is today in Pakistan ... but I think a law should be made to punish people who come up with ridiculously stupid notions ...on account of stupidity and letting the brain lay idle!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The dilemma for me lies here

Should i follow this verse

So tell the tale they may reflect!(Al Quran)

or should I follow this one

``Turn you face away from the ignorant! (Al Quran)

SR

I am no apologist ... I ll give you the facts as they are.

1) yes you are right women are not allowed to marry non muslim men something that has emerged more out of the social context and as a doctrine of necessity that out of the holy book. Maybe you should check the holy book. I dont want to apologize.

2)According to you in the Quran Women`s testimony is half ... if you read the Quranic verse properly it is talking about business transactions ... again the context of the information is very important since women did not participate in business transactions then. Again this might be bordering on what you call apology (I just think that the word apologist is ridiculous) .... NO WHERE IN THE QURAN SAYS WOMEN`S TESTIMONY IS HALF IN CRIMINAL MATTERS!!!!!

Since there are women in the Business world today one can safely argue that the ayah is referring to a particular time period as the Quran so often does.

3)The concept of Hur is vague in the Quran ....but it is the contention that every soul will get hurs . HOWEVER THERE IS NO MENTION OF LITTLE BOYS FOR ISLAM IS A RELIGION TOTALLY AGAINST HOMO SEXUALITY ... NOW YOU HAVE A CASE THERE AGAINST ISLAM FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SEXUAL ORIENTATION ... BUT THEN WHAT RELIGION ISNT AGAINST HOMO SEXUALS ... WE AS MUSLIMS BELIEVE THAT HOMO SEXUALS ARE UNNATURAL ... did you make that statement just to make a statement ... For sake of sanity atleast stick to the facts!!!!

4)The multiple wives it is very clear is legal option but is no where encouraged in ISLAM ... again this was a semitic custom which would be gotten rid of slowly overtime .. slavery and MULTIPLE MARRIAGES WERE A SEMITIC CUSTOM ....

CUSTOMS LIKE THESE GO AWAY SLOWLY ..... ISLAM IN ITS EARLIEST TIMES EMANCIPATED THE SLAVES ..... AND IF YOU READ SOME HISTORY INSTEAD OF MAKING BASELESS ACCUSATIONS YOU WILL SEE THAT BY THE 17TH CENTURY SLAVERY HAD DISSAPPEARED FROM THE ISLAMIC WORLD FOR EXAMPLE and similarly multiple wives is taboo in most Islamic countries today. This is how the muslim community is supposed to move towards higher ideals..

When we talk about Muhammad`s 13 wives we often forget that only one of those was a virgin and the rest were all divorced or widows ....isnt it a wonder that a supposedly ``lustful`` man who had so much power only married widows?? I suppose you see that as another perversion eh?????

ISNT IT TRUE THAT A LOT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE LEFT WITHOUT WALI AFTER THE UHUD WAR WHEN MUSLIMS WERE ENCOURAGED TO MARRY UPTO FOUR ... FOR ALL THE REST OF THE TIMES ALLAH MADE IT CLEAR ...THAT MARRY MORE THAN ONE ONLY IF YOU CAN DO JUSTICE WHICH YOU CANT !!!!!

Now a final comment I am no bigot nor am I religious preacher ... If you had read my posts on the other forums you would be able to see that I am far from what you made me out to be ... I am no apologist either ... APOLOGIST IS SUCH AN UGLY TERM !!!!!!!!!!!!! It automatically supposes all defences to be apologies but then what are logical reasons behind something to be classified as ???

ALSO MR SR., FUZAIR AND SOLITUDE .... YOU ALL NEED TO DO SOME RESEARCH INSTEAD OF MAKING BASELESS STATEMENTS ....

I know that in Islamic tradition blasphemy was never punishable like it is today in Pakistan ... but I think a law should be made to punish people who come up with ridiculously stupid notions ...on account of stupidity and letting the brain lay idle!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The dilemma for me lies here

Should i follow this verse

So tell the tale they may reflect!(Al Quran)

or should I follow this one

``Turn you face away from the ignorant! (Al Quran)

You have all got to give credit to the author/poet. After all she is part a group that is perhaps the most daring in current intellectual circles: the Muslim `feminists`. This is the corps which does its best to defend the indefensible and is indefatigable in face of hard reason, solid logic, and inescapable facts that point to a simple relity: Human rights as we understand them, are incompatible with the Middle Eastern/Pakistani version of Islam. You can throw any amount of logic and reason and fact but will get the same reposnse in return. That Islam gave women rights in the 7th century, that `actually` women and men are equal except for some `minor` differences of roles etc etc. You will also hear how the lack of Iranian/Saudi moral policing has resulted in AIDS, rapes, and homosexuality in the Western world. And then the mea culpa : Soon the West will implode to nothingness because of its immoral lifestyle (all because of no hijab) and Islam (or the Mulla Omar version thereof) will be triumphant from sea to sea.

My hats off to Jazba and her ilk for being true believers and determined individuals. One wishes that such determination and devotion was found amongst those of us who must defend freedom against this growing intellectual militancy on part of totalitarians (the Afghani, Cuban, Saudi variety). Unfortunately, we defenders of human rights, are too easy to placate `multiculturalism` even when such `multiculturalism` is but a Trojan horse for those who have no love or respect for human rights, civil liberties, free markets, or most other God-given freedoms.

........ may I use the mother of all arguments to put an end to this useless discussion ? Let us, for a minute put aside our soap-boxes and step down from our high-horses to consider what Allah Almighty Himself said about this subject...... He said, and I quote :

``Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.`` (Al-Quran 4:34).

Now, this is the true word of God Himself - not some (un)authentic Hadith or Ghazalism. If we believe in the infallibility of the Koran, as we must, then let us quit bickering and get on with the job of putting these uppity women in their place ...... I think I`ll go home and see if I can get Her to fix dinner - if not we can always have Chinese carry-out or I can open up a can of tuna.....May the fleas of a thousand camels infest Gloria Steinhem`s ugly hairdo and may Asma Jehangir marry Sheikh Zaid bin Sultan Al-Nahiyan!

Re: Jazba99

``You`re so thankful that you`re not me.``

You got it sister!

Re: hamidm

You`ve a brilliant sense of humor. You combine it with sarcasm and it`s a killer. You make me laugh and think at the same time. You`ve talent. I hope to see your writing on the front page of Chowk one of these days.

Fuzair #50: You don`t get it, do you? It is not Islam that `imposes` on women, its men!!!! It`s this patriachal society. By making Islam a convenient scapegoat, you`re very effectively shifting the blame. I know a lot of women in Pakistan are not given a `choice` of covering themselves but the poem is not about that: its about those who DO wear them and how they`re regarded by their Western counterparts. Anyway, don`t ballast Islam when you have no idea what you`re talking about.

Just mention the word Hijab and watch the one covering the liberals’ anxieties fall to the ground. Everything from harems to houris to 4:34 to those wonderfully emotive (“Talibanization”), devilishly evocative (“never had a problem getting them off”), dreadfully banal (“gender equality”) interestingly ironic (“intolerant”) and even patently idiotic (“young boys”) catch-phrases are tied to the coattails of the hijab. As I read it, the poem was just another take on the “Don’t be to quick to judge me” line. A little over-apologetic maybe, but then, given the needless unquestioned suspicion with which the hijab is viewed by the ‘others’, one can perhaps condone the degree of overstatement.

Granted, the ‘hijab’ issue does raise questions as to the self-image and –worth it inculcates in it’s adherents. IMHO, only Solitude has cut through the heart of the matter, albiet needlessly abstracting in toto from the American slavery experience. Sol, the question “Can we allow one to choose slavery [for oneself], in your individual liberties scheme of things, must be answered with an emphatic “Yes!”, must it not-- representing the ultimate power of choice, as it were??”

I dislike the idea of the hijab. I think it degrading of the value of an integral part of oneself – the body. But until I can truthfully say I have no problems allowing my wife/daugthers to have the exact same rights as myself and roam the streets bare-breasted – or heck, the full monty! – I’ll bite my tongue and stay wary of casting the first stone. And I’ll stay open to opinions of those behind the hijab.

A few personally directed notes:

hamidm sahib (re. #19): Are you suggesting that Homer, Auscheylus, Shakespeare, Gothe, Mir Taqi, Whitman, Mackay, Auden, Wilde and Ginsberg, (all writers of “bad poems about [beautiful] young boys”) were victims of something approaching the hijab mentality? Or is this perhaps just another instance of mistaking the abstractions (those comfort-giving formulas we invent) for reality?

Sadhanaji (re. #31): Wise musings as usual. You say:

“Womens behaviour and dressing in the West seem sometimes to be more about exhibitionism or even a kind of reverse power play for others benefit than true expressions of their inner selves. And, somehow, men seem to benefit more from individual freedom and lack of social restraints than women. Now why is that? Is it because of underlying Christianity? I feel women are bearing a much greater burden than men in the Western experiments toward a more equitable society.”

To hazrd an answer to your question: Yes, you are so right in noting that men seem to benefit more from individual freedom. I don’t think it is BECAUSE of Christianity, though. To the contrary, it’s when Locke and his individual liberty doctrine supplanted the intricate (if sometimes restrictive) web of human relatedness (read “responsibility”) laid by Christianity (as by other religions/ belief systems in other parts of the world), that the woman found she had been short-changed. It had always been held that men, by nature, would want out of responsibility and that women were naturally predisposed to having and raising children with the father’s support– somewhat conflicting “goals”, reconciled only through the introduction of roles that stressed responsibility in exchange for stability.

However, in liberal democracy, there is no place for determinate role-playing. So they were dropped, with nothing to their place, except empty moral abstractions (based in little empiricism) such as gender equality, and individual ‘freedom’ (mostly of the “from” variety) which do little more than smoothen the teeth of the gears that once locked and drove the social machinery. (BTW, Allan Bloom, from whom I borrowed the gears metaphor, deals with this issue masterfully in the “relationships” section of “The Closing of the American Mind”— if you’re interested.)

digit, jay and omer080: Thanks for showing what true critical thinking is about. While it may be true that the piece stereotypes and oversimplifies, it is interesting to note how so many of the responses have shown the same traits even as they condemn the author.

Omarphoenix: I admire your independence of thought even at your age. Just remember though, we are trained to be sheep of one kind or other most of the time. (Don’t mean to sound condescending :) )

To all those who hold that Western women don`t dress for men... could someone please tell me what the motivaton is, then, to don a totally misogynistic invention as the pencil-heeled shoe (or whatchyamightcallit!)-- let alone seductive tops. (Hmmm.. and if the genders were wired so ``equally``, why is it we see nary a whit of a corressponding effort to impress on the part of men??)

Re. plagiarism: In cases such as there reasonable evidence of non-originality is brought to light, but of which the original author may be deemed unknown (and virtually unknowable), I suggest the chowk retain the piece but simply remove the alleged author’s name (perhaps with the penalty of disallowing further postings under that name

Yasser Hamdani (a.k.a. ylh)

#27 [``…I am ready to answer all of your questions and doubts about innate equality of men and women in Islam .... though there might be a functional difference…``]

#53 [``…when you make a statement like Islam is incompatible you are committing an error of gigantic proportions .... For every argument I can give you a counter argument proving the Inherent innate equality of men and women though there maybe a functional difference…``]

Since you are relatively new to the Chowk, perhaps you`ve not been privy to some exhaustive debates that have taken place in the past. The archives here are full of those futile debates because when finally confronted with `facts`, the apologists simply disappear. They probably move on because they think this site is full of `misguided` people with whom they do not wish to have any further discourse. Then, sooner or later, a new person comes along with his/her fresh faith re-hashing the same tired cliches. One of these cliches is that women in Islam have been given equal rights or something close to it. You seem to be saying the same. So I`ll ask you to explain, how, in the name of truth, can you explain the fact that, dispersed through its text, the Quran clearly contains the following things:

1) Muslim women cannot marry a non-muslim man, while the man can marry a Christian or a Jewish woman.

2) A daughter inherits only one half as much property as does a son.

3) It takes two women`s testimony to equal that of one man (of course, they all have to be muslims in good standing).

4) A pious man has been promised beautiful virgin girls for his harem in Paradise and has also been promised young boys (optional, I presume!) whereas no such promise has been made to women.

5) Men are allowed multiple wives (not to mention concubines) while women are not. Thus the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Ali each had 13 (thirteen) wives. (This last item is a historical fact and is obviously not to be found in the Quran, but I have included it here to prove a point. At any one time there were more than four wives, so please don`t give the `limit-of-four-at-one-time` theory to me, that simply isn`t true.)

If you`ve studied your Holy Book, surely you will know the references, but I`ll be happy to provide them, if you claim ignorance.

One gets sick and tired of self-righteous believers acting really indignant and going, on and on and on and on and on, ad nauseum, harping upon the theme that KNOWLEDGE of the Quran is what will cure disbelief since, they claim, it is lack of knowledge that leads to such misguided notions.

Some of these questions were raised in other discussions on the Chowk, but none of the raving Quran waivers ever give straight answers. They either accused the questioner of inventing these things (which shows that they were ignorant of the Quran`s contents), or they side-stepped the questions or resorted to name calling. What is going to be your response?

Sincerely,

...SR

I was just going to go back and look for that Suzy and the Hood poem! Thanks, Zehra. My brain was itching too.

found what i wa slooking for..something that was tickling my brain since i read this poem..we`ve had this discussion on chowk before..refer to bina`s article ( one of my favorites, a heavy price to pay)..

If it is not my old friend Fuzair to jump in with his (rusty) two cents.....

Let me tell you something Mr Self COnfessed Kemalist .... I too like Attaturk a lot but he was not perfect ... And you have nerve to say that Kemalism is consistent with human rights ????

I admire Kemal Attaturk`s valiant fight against obscuranitism but he took a step too far ... he denied his own self ... and at best made Turkey a second class European nation .....

You talk about human rights ... what would you call a liberal fanatic? I have issues with Maulvis too but does that give me the right to persecute and execute them ??? Didnt Attaturk kill Ulama on mass scale ... DOnt get me wrong Ulama are a scum bag yes but does anyone deserve to die .. isnt that negation of the human rights which your KEMALISM stands for ????? Does replacing the Fez with HATS... and making a crime to wear traditional turkish attire contitute Human rights????? IS banning the Hijab consistent with Human Rights????

Denying yourself and your heritage .... is that what culture is about ???

A whole people were denied their right to live according to their culture and their traditions ...

some of those traditions had to go I agree and I commend Attaturk for that but is blind immitation of the west Modernity and Progress???

when you make a statement like Islam is incompatible you are committing an error of gigantic proportions ....

For every argument I can give you a counter argument proving the Inherent innate equality of men and women though there maybe a functional difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Isnt there one though ...

I hope Mr Fuzair doesnt claim that men can give birth!!!!!!!!

-Yasser Hamdani