To Western Women

Hi ,
To the writer.
Your poem is incredible, and to an extent you are very right to write that a woman when fully covered avoids unexpected confrontations , but your topic being ` to the western women ` offends many readers. I have been to many places and seen many people , let me tell u that western women are `` all `` not bad . Yes , there must be numbers of them .
And i have seen some of the muslim ladies too , who turn up in burkhas with skimpy clothes inside and many dirty deeds to hide. I am sure you are an EXCEPTION as i can read you, from your poem.

cherym #201

Hello She: How are you?

I hope you remember who the Sheesh Nag is [``some sheesh nag. Pooh..``]. He is gender-blind. It doesn`t make any difference to it whether a researcher is a ``He``, or, a ``She`` if weak as a researcher.

In any case, good to see you around old chap! I wish I were not a SHEESH Nag.

Our Muslim fundamentalist colleague would have affairs and would talk for hours on telephone. I don`t know whether they considered this Islamic or not.

They would listen to music themselves and would turn over the musical function. When asked they said golden words. Individually it is not a sin but collectively it is a sin.

They beat a ``Qadiani`` because he was drinking water in Ramadhan. I don`t know which Islam tells them.

Our weakness is that we cannot say ``If this is Islam then hell with it``.

They manipulate this mentality to the greatest advantage. That is instead of doing something, they utilize the people`s sentiments to their own advantage.

The example of these parties particularly Jamat-e-Islami is like Mohajir Qaumi movement with Islam instead of Mohajir as their slogan.

Ref krashid #: 212

When you say ``This was in reference to your taunting of Prophet PBUH``, please notice that I did not refer to the Founder of Islam even by his given name but only as the Prophet, acknowledging that he brought religion to the people of Arabia and the rest of the world. If however, you find anything I said offensive, I apologize. I do not mean to hurt people but I would like them to think how the Prophet`s words are twisted by a few to impose their views on the public.

Taking the example of women`s right, the Prophet tremendously improved women`s rights by giving them the right of inheritance, etc., when the usual practice in Arabia was to bury female infants to kill them. Instead of saying that Muslims to day should take inspiration from the Prophet`s words and try to make women equal in rights to men today, we have the religious leaders claiming that the Prophet sealed the fate of women and they should have no further rights.

I don`t know whether people recognize my suggestion for a chastity belt to be the absurdity I meant it to be. I am sure through the conquest of Spain, the Arabs would have gained knowledge of the existence of such devices in Europe, yet they seem not to have imposed it on their own women, proving that they realized the difference between the absurd and the acceptable. On the other hand, current day folks such as the Taliban probably would find the chastity belt acceptable for their womenfolk.

When you say ``The people to be loathed are not the prophet PBUH but the people who are utilizing the name and persecuting others in the name of Prophet PBUH``, I add ``Amen``.

Harimau#210

This was in reference to your taunting of Prophet PBUH.

I am not against religion. I am against the sacredness in the name of religion which religious figures of today demand, who want to hide behind great people and have nothing to offer.

Being a Muslim may be a factor in reverence for the prophet PBUH for me. But I have studied also on history on my own.

If you read a history without socio-economic circumstances of that time you are going to err.

Martin Ling started a work on life history of Prophet PBUH and before he finished, he became Muslim. Prophet PBUH is considered the most influntial person in human history even by some non-Muslim sources.

Consider that with the respect we give to each other, and how much we are worth.

The people who are playing with Islam are doing the same thing as Stalin did to Communism.

The people to be loathed are not the prophet PBUH but the people who are utilizing the name and persecuting others in the name of Prophet PBUH.

Hey ppl,

Here is something for Western Women from a Sick Male.

When I look at you

All I can see in you

Is the contraption that uplifts your breasts.

Your words I could care less

Because you`re so full of figure,

Growing harder, I have my hand on my zipper

I don’t think it`s my own choice,

In your own ``bikini top`` you rejoice.

You`re staring back at me.

You think i`m circumcised,

Tanned, obsessed and subjected.

You`re so thankful that you are free.

But western woman you`ve got it wrong-

I’m the weak and you’re the strong,

For I just want to be inside you trap.

Iron neck brace, short whip,

These are devices for pain and hurt,

My big plans are coming up.

Always jumping on the male organ,

Hold on and understand my terms.

No condom, no 5 star facilities,

No feeding amenities.

No time off for menstrual pain-

``hard on`` they laugh ``what a shame.``

Extra pay for special skill-

Your job I can always fill.

No sex unless you`re sterilised.

No foreplay unless you`re sexually terrorised.

And is this legal?

I`m a person with ideas and thought,

I`m not for sale, i can`t be bought.

I won`t decorate anyone`s arm,

Nor be promoted for my charm.

Ther`s more to me than playing hard.

Living life as a balancing game-girlfriend,

slut, partner, whore, biatch, lover-

And still bring home a male.

Who thought up this modern ``alimony``

Where man can love `em and man can’t leave `em

This is not free but life in a cage.

Western woman you can have your life

Man-who needs a wife.

I am in over my head with no respect

Surely that`s to be expected-

For I am not trying to demean the feminine

I will still live up to a female criterion.

I make love, like there is no tomorrow,

And i hope you see this very soon,

For your own sake-wake up and use your might!

I am sure that you are built just right?

Ref krashid #: 209

Have you heard of reductio ad absurdum in logic? That is what the chastity belt and electronic blinkers are. I am trying to find out what would be considered absurd and what is acceptable and what is the dividing line between the two. It has nothing to do with being non-secular, anti-democratic, anti-Pakistani, anti-Islamic or not respecting the others` point of view. It has everything to do with making you (and Naqshbandi and others) see to what absurd lengths the mullahs have gone in imposing the burqa on women.

Respect for others come from the belief that everyone has a right to live his life according to his conscience. If that doesn`t agree with anyone`s concept of the Islamic way, let Allah be the judge. Surely, there is no higher blasphemy than arrogating to yourself the right to judge that is reserved for Allah on the Day of Judgment.

Harimau!

If you represent Indian then you are increasing my disappointment.

I thought you were secular and democratic.

Do you know the meaning of secular.

Learn to respect others point of view.

Jeolousy will make you say crazy things. You don`t want to be a western woman? Great, who cares. Western women aren`t writing poems about not wanting to be a Muslim woman. Live you own life and NEVER TELL ME WHAT TO DO IN THE WEST. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT- STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS! WHEN YOU MAKE MY BUSINESS YOUR BUSINESS- THAT`S WHEN WE`LL HAVE A PROBLEM!

In Pakistan, Women Pay the Price of `Honor`

Pamela Constable

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23279-2000May7.html

Fuzair #202

Thank you for a very balanced, factually accurate and enlightened post. Unfortunately, this Arab-Israel argument has degenerated into personal attacks of a most distastful nature which does not enhance the credibility of the particular contributors and dissuades others to avoid interacting in this pissing contest.

To add to an ancillary note of your [``...Rumor has it that Gen. Zia and the Pakistani military
mission to Jordan took part in the operational planning for Black September...``], I`d like to add a few words.

According to this well attribute `rumor` not only did Brigadier Zia ul Haq, of Pakistan Army (posted in Jordan at the time), take part in `planning`, he was also instrumental in `setting the trap` by acting as a go-between and a supposedly `neutral` negotiator (talking to both the PLO and Jordanian filed commanders). The PLO`s pre-emptive action was thus delayed (because of which the PLO supposedly lost the initiative) while the Jordianian army was afforded critical time in which to gain tactical advantage over the PLO forces and thus out-flank them with devastating results. Those negotiations were a mere smokescreen carried out in bad faith. The PLO never forgave Zia (may his dentures rot for all eternity) for that `deceit` while the King was ever so grateful to him. But, like you rightly said, ``that is another subject.``

...SR

Goodness, you go away for a few days and exciting things happen!

Thanks to Bina, Prof. Bilal Ahmad and all the others who thought my post worth reading. I am frankly quite amazed by the positive response I received.

Since the discussion has moved on to Israel and the Palestinians, allow me to throw in my two cents worth.

Both sides are, in great part, correct and incorrect. Israel has been rightly described as the last European settler colony (although as Sigalph has pointed out Sephardic Jews are a very large portion of the population--I thought they were in a slight majority of the Jewish population but I am not sure of my figures) BUT it is also the only functioning liberal democracy in the Middle East.

I thought that Sigalph meant only only the Israeli Arab citizens when he mentioned their ability to choose their own representatives. The West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights are under Israeli military rule and normal Israeli law does not apply there. Israeli Arabs enjoy full civil rights in Israel. That having been said, their position in Israel is somewhat akin to that of blacks in the US in the 1970s--the worst excesses of Jim Crow are gone but they are still second class citizens (some members of Likud were demanding that Israeli Arabs not be allowed a vote on the land-for-peace issues and in the Knesset Arab members have been traditionally excluded from defense committees, etc). Its not the Israeli Arabs that get their homes bulldozed but the West Bank ones. We seem to forget that there are hundreds of thousands of loyal Israeli Arabs that enjoy (near) full civil rights.

Lest we get all worked up about this brutality to Palestinians, lets fix our own treatment of minoritites before we take up the cudgel on behalf of others. Look at our own treatment of non-Muslim minorities. Are Israeli Arabs better-off than non-Muslims in Muslim countries? Yes. Are they full citizens? No.

However, Israel being a functioning democracy is irrelevant. South Africa was a functioning democracy, albeit one with a very limited franchise, and most people weren`t in favor of allowing apartheid to continue unimpeded. The fact of the matter still remains that the Palestinian Arabs (both Christian and Muslim) were dispossesed from their lands. Some of the means used were legal--purchasing land from absentee Arab landlords and then removing the Palestinian sharecroppers--and some means used smack of terrorism--Palestinian farmers ``encouraged`` to vacate their lands by the Haganah. Sometimes a judicious massacre or two was carried out to encourage the reluctant ones to leave--Dir Yassein comes to mind as an example.

Yes, some Israeli officers have been reprimanded for some excessives and atrocities but the norm has been to look the other way. For example, the Shin Bet agents who shot and killed the Palestinian bus hijackers AFTER they had been taken into custody were, I believe, merely dismissed from service. However, this only happened when some left-wing reporters published pictures of live hijackers being hauled off by Shin Bet agents and contrasted this to the pictures of dead terrorists displayed by Shin Bet.

Don`t forget that Palestine was only 3% Jewish in 1917 when the Balfour Declaration committed the British govt to creating a Jewish homeland. In this case, perfidious Albion had three deals going--one with the Jews, one with the Arabs and their real one with the French--but in any case, the British wound up getting stuck with this one. The early (both pre and post WWI) Zionist accounts of Palestine are clearly written with the dominant natives-dont-count European colonial attitude and speak of an ``empty land`` waiting to receive back the Jews. Winston Churchill wanted to give the Jews Uganda, to create another white-settler colony in Africa to strengthen the Empire, but the Zionists refused since only the original homeland would, could, attract sufficiently large numbers of Jewish migrants to make nation-hood possible.

In any case, the Palestinians are the victims of both the Israelis and their Arab neighbours. The Arab nations attacked Israel in 1948 to ensure that they grabbed the land and not the Jews. Jordan, under King Abdullah, was the only Arab country to give citizenship to Palestinians, allow them to own land and for many of them to live and work outside the refugee camps. I met an Israeli Arab in college many years ago who, shamefacedly, confessed to me one day that he was glad that the luck of the draw had worked out for his family and that they were Israeli citizens because, with the possible exception of Jordan, everywhere else, the Palestinians were treated very badly.

Sigalph is guilty of exaggeration when he characterizes Black September as an attack on the Palestinians by the Jordanian Army. It was nothing of the sort. It was an attack on the PLO by the Jordanian Army. Many Palestinians in Jordanian uniform took part in military operations though, for obvious reason, most of the actual fighting was done by Bedouin units personally loyal to the King. Rumor has it that Gen. Zia and the Pakistani military mission to Jordan took part in the operational planning for Black September but that is another matter. The PLO was attacked because it had assumed the role of a state-within-a-state--complete control over the refugee camps, did not allow Jordanian officials entry into them, used Jordanian territory to launch attacks on Israel, etc.--and seriously threatened the Jordanian monarchy.

The PLO was forced to leave Jordan and move to Lebanon where it ultimately sparked the Lebanese civil war when the Maronite-led Lebanese Army tried and failed to repeat another Black September.

So, back to basics now. Israel is an established fact. Its not going to go away and the dispossessed are not going to get all or even most of their land back. They might get a few square miles if they grovel enough. In thirty years, much to their eternal shame, the entire Arab world couldn`t beat a handful of Jews fleeing from Europe. The only time the Arabs managed to avoid total defeat was when the British-officered Arab Legion captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem for King Abdullah. Only Sadat had the courage to admit defeat, make peace and try to live with reality. Slowly, the other Arabs have followed his lead. Its time we did the same and just forgot about it. There is very little likelihood of the Israelis selling us some upgraded weapons packages for our aging tanks and planes but at least we can ask.

Sorry, long post.

Regards to all.

re digit #202 who said

`So, stating that Israel was the Jewish homeland for some 4000 years either makes you confused or a Jew, as I see no other rational alternative.`

Actually it makes you an IDIOT since I never said that ``Israel was the Jewish homeland for some 4000 years``.

But then facts have never been the strength of the Arab League lobby anyway.

In response to sigalph235, who wrote:

``My religion is between me and my Creator; I couldn`t care less whether you thought I was Jewish or Taoist.``

For the record, I could care less wheather you were a Jew or a Taoist.

It was my intent to point out the absurdity in recognizing Israel as the ehternal Jewish homeland as such a concept only exists in the dreams espoused by Zionist ideology, which in turn borrows heavily from Jewish theology.

So, stating that Israel was the Jewish homeland for some 4000 years either makes you confused or a Jew, as I see no other rational alternative.

But, as I`ve said above, I could care less which of the two you are.

As far as Oman is concerned, it`s undemocractic nature doesn`t really bother me much. The fact is, there are no political prisoners there. It`s a rather nice place to be.

That Israel is a democracy seems to bring a tear to your eye. To me, it simply demonstrates that even democracies can be savage and brutal.

Jay,

Thanks for taking my complaints well. Well as I said, I enjoyed reading your witty comments/posts.

Tahmed: I will try to write it when I have some free time I agree with Sadhna, where is the time.

Sheesh Nag: Some nag all right. Pooh..

How clever of you, you are right, I am the faulty researcher. One correction, not that it matters, but I am a she.

Cheers

cheraym

sigalph235 #193: Your views on the Palestinians situation in Israel are contrary to the views of all the Palestinians, I have met, regarding their own situation. So I tend to agree with them and not with you.

It is quite common for third parties to justify or water down suppressions in one form or another. I had a jewish roommate for two years in college. He was a member of a lot of National Jewish organizations in the US, and through him, I learnt a lot about the outlook of these organizations regarding Israel and Palestine. These organizations used the same arguments you are using, and thus became unappointed spokespersons for Palestinians.. One guy actually stated that since Israel provided garabage collection and pick up facilities in certain refugee areas of Palestine, hence the Palestinians should be happy under Israel, as no other Arab country would have provided that to them.

When countries or groups suppress others or take over their land, they have to come up with some excuse to justify it. One of the best ways to do that is by stating that the subjagated people would be worse off in other places, or under their own self-rule. This could be true (in the case of Palestinians, it is definitely not true), however it is still not justification enough to subjugate someone, or move in and take over their land. I believe one of the arguments the British used for taking over India was that they were actually civilizing the Indians. This was the basic argument used by all colonisers. It may even be correct that the British did civilize the Indians in many ways, however it still does not justify their invasions. The African Americans are much better off than their distant African cousins still in Africa. However that does not justify slavery.

There is a simple moral rule; no one has a right to invade, take over and suppress another group of people against the will of the locals. It doesn`t make any difference if the invader is more democratic, civil, educated than the people being conquered. Otherwise the Europeans conquests and colonizations are all justified, since in many cases they were more democratic than the local kings and nawabs that were ruling over their subjects. If the local population does not want to be ruled or invaded, then all attempts to justify these invasions by the invaders and their supporters are immoral. These should be opposed as a matter of principle, and not supported. There is absolutely no way to justify conquests and invasions and suppressions, and I have very little respect for people who attemp to justify them.

``That said, now the substances. I agree wholeheartedly as you said that we shouldn`t use the past of 4000 years to decide the present. I had mentioned that ONLY to point out how absurd it is that some of you are quite willing to use the past of 50 years (because it suits your purpose) to decide the present.``

This comment is unclear. I am not quite sure what you mean by, ``some of you.`` I do not represent an organization; I operate alone. Also what past of 50 years are you refering to? I assumed we were discussing Palestine and Israel here. What do other countries have to do with what is going on in Palestine and Israel? The only relationship I can see is between Palestine and other countries that are also struggling (or historically struggled) to gain freedom from oppression.

``The present is this: Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East where voters, Jewish, Muslim, Druze, and Christian choose who governs them.``

I would encourage you to discuss these issues in detail with Palestinians. Israel is not as much of a democracy for Middle Eastern Muslims as you are trying to make it out to be. If you have read Hannan Ashrawi`s (as well as other Palestinian writers`) book, then it should be quite clear to you. I would also encourage you to read, O` Jerusalem by Lappierre/Collins (the authors of Freedom at Midnight). They give a very objective acount of the history of Israel. You might be surprised to find out that the original terrorist organizations in the Middle East were formed by European Jews. Infact some of the leaders of these organizations later went on to become very high officials in the Israeli cabinet. One actually became the Prime Minister.

And being a democracy is also not enough of a reason to conquer and displace people from their lands. Otherwise, any group of people who can establish a, ``functioning democracy`` in other people`s lands have a green light to invade, subjugate and displace the local population. After that the ruling group can use the argument, that since they are the only, ``functioning democracy`` in the area, they were justified in their invasions.

``... am quite familiar with the fact that 60 minutes is a US TV news show (I have lived too long in the US not to know that, pal).``

The comments presented on Chowk are read by readers from many countries. Although you maybe familiar with 60 Minutes, that does not mean a person living in Pakistan or Japan is necessarily familiar. I know may people in Pakistan who are not familiar with 60 Minutes (I was not familiar with it when I was in Pakistan).

``I am also very thankful that you have a high regard for the freedom struggle of Bengalis. If I was a more suspicious soul I`d have assumed that you were trying to be patronising since those facts are somewhat tangential to what I thought we were discussing.``

I have no need to patronise anyone. I am a very strong supporter of all people(s) who are fighting for their freedom. I do not make any distinction amongst them in regard to race, color or religion, or my own personal affinities. I also strongly oppose all groups who attempt to suppress others. I strongly oppose all supporters of suppression groups. And I strongly oppose people who try to justify these suppressions, displacements etc. by coming up with definitions that only present the oppressors` point of view. The reason I used the example of Bangaldesh was because Bangladesh was also a result of a freedom struggle.

In the end, whether the Palestinians are better off by having their land taken over by Europeans is a decision to be made by the Palestinians, and no one else. Obvioiusly the conquerers will always try to justify their conquests. Along similar lines, I know people in Pakistan who think the Bangladeshis were better off with Pakistan. However, the final decision should be made by the Bangladeshis and not the Pakistanis. Similarly, the final decision about the justification of the immigration of European Jews into the Middle East, under the umbrella of the US (which would not allow these same jews to migrate to the US), should be made by the people whose land was invaded, and not by you, or the conquering Israelis.

It is unfortunate that people rely on the reasoning used by the suppressors and rulers to form their point of view of suppressions.

Dear Muslim Woman (Acerbic Jazbati),

You may have a point regarding the problems being faced by the Western women of today, but PLEASE donot forget the plight of the oppressed women of the Muslim world, especially the ones in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Just because Western women are on the wrong track (in your opinion) does not make the Muslim Women be on the right. I think there are a lot of issues that need to be sorted out for the Muslim women and we should not bury our heads in the sand and think all is well.

Best regards.

A Muslim Man.

Ref krashid #: 181

You said {I think chastity belt for males should also be marketed and you will beat Azim Premji.}

I believe the Qur`an only says that men should ``lower their gaze`` when they meet women. Thus, sunglasses/spectacles with a tiny camera that detects a woman in burqa (THAT should be an easy problem in image recognition) and immediately close the crystals of the LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) lenses so that the only way to see anything would be to lower the gaze would be the appropriate device for men. Thank you for stimulating my thoughts so that I have now come up with another useful invention for Islamic societies, the electronic blinkers.

Electronic chastity belts for men would be anti-Islamic as the Prophet has not asked men to lower any other part of their anatomy. He was extremely considerate and scientific in his approach and took into account that such reactions are beyond the control of men.

I am rather disappointed that I haven`t seen enthusiastic posts of approval for the chastity belt from ``let-us-put-women-inside-burqas`` men and ``I-am-Western-educated-but-I-wear-a-hijab-by-choice`` women. I hope you will live by the words you write here and be one of the earliest customers for my Electronic Islamic Blinkers.

siaglaph!

I will ask you this question.

Why didn`t you gave your country to India while Bangladesh was in Army rule?

Will you do that if army took over?

Will you justify the taking over of your country because there is no democracy?

If you answer yes, then you are justified in defending Israel.

If not then try to apply the same criteria to other people as yourself.

As you said, you are a proud freedom fighter. But Bangladesh in its form has never existed in history. Would you give it to Delhi to rule as a subjugated state, because that is the old history?

You are referring to non-European jews. Can you breakdown them as migrants from Somalia etc to increase the number of (second class) jews.

re digit

`` Stating otherwise would pretty much declare oneself as being Jewish, as only the Jews belive that Israel is the ethernal Jewish homeland, be there Jews in rule over the land or not.``

My religion is between me and my Creator; I couldn`t care less whether you thought I was Jewish or Taoist.

Yes indeed Israeli jails have torture and Palestinians have died under it. They have exact numbers and judicial enquiries people lose their jobs because of this high handedness. Quite a different picture than in the Arab world where no numbers exist, no enquiries are ever made, and those who disappear are gone for good while their killers and torturers are given gallantry awards by presidents elected with 99.99 per cent of votes in one-party elections.

Oman? Where the Qaboos family is afraid of so afraid of its own people that it won`t allow a parliament to be elected? Get real. At least you can be intelligent and have us compare Israel`s pluralist democracy with quasi-democracies like Jordan, Egypt, or Tunisia.

cheraym!

So, this ``Researcher`` is back? Is his research all over, or, is he just here to unload his insides out?

He is a ``faulty`` researcher. Beware of that.

In response to sigalph (#185):

``Really? The land of today`s Israel was ancient Jewish homeland almost four thousand years ago; who has displaced whom?``

Only for a short period of the Jewish history has Israel actually been a Jewish homeland. Stating otherwise would pretty much declare oneself as being Jewish, as only the Jews belive that Israel is the ethernal Jewish homeland, be there Jews in rule over the land or not.

Further, the Arabs who had inhabited the land during the Ottoman era did not displace the jews from the land. It was clearly the European Jews who displaced the Arabs.

The past history of the Jews (holocost and all) is irrelevant when it comes to the issue of Palestine; the displacement of the Arabs is the cause of all contemporary hostility.

``It is telling that only in Israel, of all the Middle East, are Arab Muslims capable of having a meaningful, though small, voice in electing their rulers.``

This is funny. The Arab`s, Muslim or otherwise, are third-class citizens of Israel. Of course, being a third class citizen in a state that is rather wealthy (thorough aid and now a boombing high-tech sector) still makes them better off then their peers in other states.

But it should also be noted that not any old Arab can become a citizen of this state. It`s not in the interest of Israel to re-patriate all the disposessed Arab`s. That move, seeing as Israel is a democracy and all, could spell trouble for the *zionist * state. You see, the Arabs don`t share the view that Israel is the ethernal homeland of the Jewish people.

``By no means a fully pluralist liberal democracy, Israel has place for the most vocal and active dissent``

Yes, then their army comes and bulldozes down your house when you are through demonstrating your dissent. Get real.

``Any Palestinian or Arab attempting half that would be shot or tortured to death...``

Torture is legal in Israel, and many palestinians have died in Israeli prisons. In any case, if you wish to compare Israel with another Arab state, try Oman.

re umairr #191

While your write-up is interesting and even surprising given that you support recognition of Israel, you tend to ascribe to me a lot of things which I did not say. If this is simple oversight, that`s okay; if this is a a method to let you score otherwise impossible points, then I am quite disappointed.

You mention ``the reasons you are using to justify the killings of Palestinians...`` I have never justified any killing; please be careful in throwing around such nonsense, as pleasing to some ears as it may sound.

In the same vein you end by expressing surprise that I am ``actually trying to justify the suppression and conquest of Middle Easterners...`` That reminds me of the Sir Winston line about the Labour leader, ``the getleman is indebted to his imgaination for his facts and his memory for his jokes.``

You ascribe to me the folowing as well: ``If you are trying to indicate that Palestinian Muslims have a better and safer lifestyle in Palestine...`` I have never indictaed that at all (never mind whatever this ``Palestine`` is). I have said, and prove me wrong, that Palestinian Muslims are the only Muslims in the Middle East who participate in genuinely meaningful elections. That may not be important to YOU; I know a lot of people who`d die (and do die) to gain that right to choose their rulers.

That said, now the substances. I agree wholeheartedly as you said that we shouldn`t use the past of 4000 years to decide the present. I had mentioned that ONLY to point out how absurd it is that some of you are quite willing to use the past of 50 years (because it suits your purpose) to decide the present. Either we can take into account ALL of recorded history of that land or NONE; intellectual honesty doesn`t allow for a 52 year limit on taking history into account. So I am all for your line ``One needs to solve problems in the present not in the past``. The fifty years is past and so is four thousand.

The present is this: Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East where voters, Jewish, Muslim, Druze, and Christian choose who governs them. Those Palestinians who may not want to live as part of the Israeli state have the option to move to Palestinian self ruled areas. And the world community has an obligation to see to it that those self rule areas are given normal opportunities to create a decent quality of life. In other words, the old Regan Peace Plan: The right of Israel to exist within safe and secure forntiers along with the legitimate rights of Palestinians for self determination.

I know Hanan Ashrawi, have read some of her works and am quite familiar with the fact that 60 minutes is a US TV news show (I have lived too long in the US not to know that, pal). I am also very thankful that you have a high regard for the freedom struggle of Bengalis. If I was a more suspicious soul I`d have assumed that you were trying to be patronising since those facts are somewhat tangential to what I thought we were discussing.

Indeed I am originally from Bangladesh and very proud of the 1971 War of Independence. It is not inspite, but because, of that long freedom struggle that I appreciate the thousands of years of struggle of the Jews to reclaim their homeland and doggedly hold on to it while all their neighbours took oaths in heaven to throw them into the sea.

European Jews? Can you name a single member of the Israeli inner cabinet who was born in Europe? Before you go off with ``but their parents were..`` hypothesis, should we then assume that Gen Zia, Nawabzada Liquat Ali Khan, and all the Mohajirs are ``Indian`` Pakistanis? Give me a break! Never mind the fact that more than a third of Israeli Jews are of Middle Eastern/non-European descent. But that is an inconvenient fact.

Throughout your post you`ve alluded to the ``suupression`` (that word has been used at least once in evey one of your paragraphs)by Israel of Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Christians. If that were indeed the case, a fifth of Israel proper (excluding the post-1967 aditions) wouldn`t be Palestinian Arab and the Holy Places of Christians and Muslims had long been destroyed to make room for excavation of Jewish sites.

You want to see ``suppression``: look at the annihilation of Bahais in Iran or check out the chemical genocide of Kurds by that champion of humanity Saddam Hussein. Or the wiping out of the ancient city of Hama by Hafiz al Assad in 1983 when mosques were bombarded with tank hits.

Or, closer to Palestinian hearts, the butchery forver known as Black December in 1970 when Jordanians ``took care`` of the Palestinian problem. Or when under the guise of Martial Law, Dhaka was turned into a graveyard on March 25, 1971. Mind you, none the above was carried out by ``European Jews``.

My friend, you don`t know what suppression is. Compared to the rest of her contemporaries, Israel is humane to the point of disbelief. I know that is a very unpopular thing to say in the company of Muslims and desis. But facts are neither Jewish nor Arab. Demonizing the ``European Jews`` got us nothing but the Holoucast and five Arab-Israeli wars.

The history of jews is very interesting.

They have suffered persecution throughout history. Whether in Spain, Jerusalem, or Europe.

In the last century, when Jewish Christians (Christians whose ancestary were jewish) and moneyed jewish like Rothscild etc became prominent a movement started called Zionism. Which was basically to create a land of Israel and for it not only was it necessary to disposses the locals of their lands by buying the land or by forcible eviction, but also to bring Jewish people who were mostly from East Europe.

As far as justifying creation of Israel on the basis of ``Promised Land`` with all the blood shed still going on. It is more justified to have ``Jihad`` against infidels, because of the only uncorrupted book of God.

As far as reality of Israel. I think it is a metter not for us to decide. Because a tranche of IMF loan or a five day visit by Clinton or a transfer of technology can blur our vision to see all things in good light.

The decision should be left on the people who have been dispossesed and suffered and are still suffering.

An interesting News from yesterday is that Israel attacked by MISTAKE a civilian population in south Lebanon. Hizbollah Guirella attacked North Israel in retaliation.

So Israel attacked again (bombed) South Lebanon in retaliation because the original attack was not an attack but MISTAKE.

sigalph #185: ``Really? The land of today`s Israel was ancient Jewish homeland almost four thousand years ago; who has displaced whom?``

I belong to the small group of Pakistanis who think that Israel should be recognized by Pakistan(as long as the Israelis are willing to give Palestinians some form of independence). I believe in this because, on the whole Pakistan has gained nothing from opposing Israel. Also, I do not know of anything their leader Yaser Arafat has ever done for Pakistan. From what I hear Palestinians and Pakistanis are actually fierce competitors in places like the UAE (I could be wrong). And most of all, I doubt Israel will disappear in the coming decades, so there is no point in trying to make it disappear.

However, the reasons you are using to justify the killings of Palestinians, and the take-over of their land are beyond me. What happened 4000 ago cannot be used to justify the present. Otherwise why not revert back to the world of 4000 years ago completely, and redistribute everything in that manner. Infact, why stop at 4000, why not go back 6000 years, or more. Should the Native Americans be allowed to kill all the descendants of European Americans. Should the Hindus be allowed to kill all the Muslims in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (or at least the ones whose forefathers did not locally convert from Hinduism, and came in with the conquering armies).

Using thousands of years old history to justify present conditions is the last resort argument. Such arguments are used by people who cannot justify something under present conditions. It is quite possible that my great great great great grandfather killed someone, or took over someone`s land; should that person`s great ...... grandson kill me now, or kick me out of my house. One needs to solve problems in the present, and not in the past.

In case of Israel, your justification is even weaker. The jews, who are running Israel right now, are almost all European jews. So even if we use your argument of 4000 years ago, the jews who have a right over the land in Israel should be the descendants of the Middle Eastern jews, and not the descendants of European jews. The reason the European jews ended up in Israel, and not in the USA (or remained in Europe) is because they were not strong enough to do so. According to Dominique Lappieres`, ``Oh Jerusalem,`` the USA would not bend its immigration policies enough to accomodate the few (hundreds of thousands) of jews coming out of Europe after WWII. Many, if not most of them, would have opted for the USA, instead of fighting it out in the Middle East with Muslims, for a completely uncertain future. The USA could have accomodated them very very easily. Lappierre furthur points out that strong lobbies in the US jewish community themselves did not want the European jews to migrage to the USA. These lobbies were interested in obtaining a jewish state in the Middle East, and could only do so through the efforts of the European Jewish immigrants. And obviously the European jews did not feel strong enough to take on the European Christians. So they went after the weaker people of Palestine.

According to 60 Minutes (a US TV news show), the jews in Israel currently are facing a huge problem trying to decide whether Israel should be an orthodox jewish state or a liberal one. 60 Minutes pointed out that the orthodox rabbi supported population of Israel averages 7 kids per household, while the the liberal Israelis population (the face that Israel likes to show the rest of the world) averages 2 kids per household. 60 minutes furthur mentioned that most liberal jews in Israel would migrate to the USA, if they could get green cards.

The European jews were about as justified in taking over the land of the Palestines, as a Pakistani or Bangledeshi Muslim would be in taking over Mecca and Medina, or a Sikh would be in taking over Hasan Abdal, i.e. absolutely not justified. The European jews`, ``conquest`` was basically survival of the fittest, and cannot be backed by a moral argument. Unfortunately, the victors/people in the strongerst position in a confrontation try to morally justify their stand by using all kinds of baseless arguments.

The group of Middle Eastern jews who had been living in the areas now constituting Israel do fall under your 4000 year theory. Had those Middle Eastern jews asked for a separate piece of land, and an independent Israel, then they would be justified. Infact the European jews suppressed not only the Muslims, but the entire population of the the areas constituting Palestine. This included suppression of the Middle Eastern Christians, as well. I would encourage you to read the book authored on this subject by Hannan Ashrawi. She is the Christian spokesperson for Palestine. She has a Ph.D. in English from University of Virgina, and is one of the best speakers I have ever heard. As a whole, the European jews have dominated the Middle Eastern jews also. So, someone from Europe (jew, muslim or christian) has absolutely no right in taking over land from a Palestinian (muslim, jew, or chiristian). Under your argument, a Central Asian or Afghan could demand the land of India and Pakistan, since his forefathers ruled over it for 800 years. How far back in history should one go?

``It is telling that only in Israel, of all the Middle East, are Arab Muslims capable of having a meaningful, though small, voice in electing their rulers.``

If you are trying to indicate that Palestinian Muslims have more rights, and better and safer lifesyle in Palestine, than in other Arab countries, then I am afraid I cannot agree with you. This is quite apparent from the rate of migration outwards from Palestine, and the rate of migration inwards into the other Middle Eastern countries. Palestine would be the last choice of migration for a person migrating into the Middle East. Most go to Saudia Arabia, UAE, etc. That, ``meaningful, though small, voice`` you are refering to is so small and so unmeaningful that it does not compensate for the other suppressions against the Muslims that occur in Israel. I have quite a few Palestinian friends, who have migrated to the US from Palestine. Infact many of them migrated to Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries first, just to get out of the Israel dominated Palestine. All of them would completely disagree with your assumptions that they were better off in Palestine, then in other Middle Eastern countries. Percentage wise, Palestinians have historically had a very high rates of migrantions to other countries in the Middle East (specially to Jordan). Their situations in other Middle Eastern countries are definitely not ideal. However, their historical migration patterns would indicate that as Muslims they are better off outside Israel in other Middle Eastern Muslim countries (at least in their opinion, perhaps not in yours).

Even if the Muslims in Israel had more rights in Israel than in other Middle Eastern countries, that still does not justify the European jews coming in and taking over their land, or suppressing them in any way.

So at a moral level, there is absolutely no justification for the Europeans jews` suppression of Palestinian Muslims (infact there cannot be moral justification of anyone conquering and taking over anyone else`s land. All such actions should be opposed and not justified.) On a realistic level, Pakistanis and Palestinians should accept the fact that Israel will not go away, and try to solve the problems keeping that in mind.

I may be mistaken, but I think you mentioned you are from Bangladesh. I have always been a very strong supporter of the East Pakistanis getting their right to decide their own future in 1971 (as well as the Kashmiris, the Kosovars, Bosnians, Chechnyans, the Pakistanis, the Indians under the British etc.). Most of the violence in the world occurs when one group forces itself over another just to gain personal advantage. Once that conquest is completed, the conquering/suppressing group attempts to justify their actions by using all kinds of illogical arguments. Considering the fact that Bangladesh is itself a product of the struggle of East Pakistan against a suppressing West Pakistan, I am quite surprised you are actually trying to justify the suppression and conquest of Middle Easterns (Christians and Muslims) by, ``invading`` European (jews). Quite interesting.

cheraym #88 writes: ``If you guys are interested I can let you know in a later post how I have personified most of the popular/unpopular chowkwallas.`` OK, I am curious. Pl. go ahead and send out the personifications before this thread disappears.

To cheraym,

I did not compare Yassar Arafat to M.K Gandhi. All I said is he is a Mahatma. Your problem is typical, when you know what is good and bad in an absolute sense, you read what you want to read, irrespective of what is there. Take it easy.

regards

jay.

Sorry, in my last post I misspelled gymnosophist. Somehow, I felt you are a physicist (some illusion of mine). Any way what is in a name, a rose is a rose always! Don`t you try to personify /epitomize people when you read their creations over again? If you guys are interested I can let you know in a later post how I have personified most of the popular/unpopular chowkwallas.

Regards

cheraym

sigalph235 #185.

one of the participant writes thus:

Krashid says: `For one thing, the history of Israel is a dispossesion of locals of Palestine of their land, killing of them. It was an invasion of Europeans(Jews) on Arab soil.```

You say `` Really? The land of today`s Israel was ancient Jewish homeland almost four thousand years ago; who has displaced whom? It is telling that only in Israel, of all the Middle East, are Arab Muslims

capable of having a meaningful, though small, voice in electing their rulers. By no means a fully pluralist liberal democracy, Israel has place for the most vocal and active dissent. Any Palestinian or Arab attempting half that would be shot or tortured to death in enlightened and peaceful places like Syria, Iraq, Libya, and SAudi

Arabia.``

Good point. It is the same argument of Hindus invading Muslims in Kashmir. Interestingly, one of my Jewish American friends mentioned other day that since most of the powerful New Yorkers are Jewish, why not they purchase home for all the Jews in Israel, as you have suggested that why not the arabs do the same for the Palestinians. But what is the solution for God-damned Kashmir?

On a different note, Tahmed, I laughed a lot when you said that we should give dandas to the militaries? Is it military you meant or the militias? Does not matter. How about bows and arrows? I guess one gets better pleasure out of beating someone with hearts content only by using dandas.

Jay, I know I do not have any right to say enough is enough in a democratic process, and nobody owes anything to me or any chowkwallas. But do not squeeze your lemon that hard when it starts tasting bitter. I see some of your posts although very witty, but quite obnoxious. You really do not have to rub it in. Same goes for YLH. If we really think that forum like Chowk can be used as a constructive tool for bringing in opinions conducive to the overall well being of the people of sub-continent, then we should use some measures of restraint and mutual respect.

Sadna and gymnophysist, keep up good work.

Have a nice weekend.

one of the participant writes thus:

`For one thing, the history of Israel is a dispossesion of locals of Palestine of their land, killing of them. It was an invasion of Europeans(Jews) on Arab soil.`

Really? The land of today`s Israel was ancient Jewish homeland almost four thousand years ago; who has displaced whom? It is telling that only in Israel, of all the Middle East, are Arab Muslims capable of having a meaningful, though small, voice in electing their rulers. By no means a fully pluralist liberal democracy, Israel has place for the most vocal and active dissent. Any Palestinian or Arab attempting half that would be shot or tortured to death in enlightened and peaceful places like Syria, Iraq, Libya, and SAudi Arabia.

Oh, as for the European Jews: more than a third of Israel`s Jewish population today is made up of people of non-European descent.

If Arabs and Muslims really cared for Palestinians that much, their petrodollars would have brought them a home ages ago and Palestinians wouldn`t have been one of the most discriminated minorities in the ``brotherly`` Gulf sheikhdoms. The issue is kept alive by Arabs and their court jesters because this is the only issue which gives the Arab League and OIC a cover for all that ``unity`` non-sense they preach.

In the immortal words of Pakistan`s late Prime Minister (later re-quoted by the late HM King Hasan II) Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy, ``Israel has come to stay.`` Deal with it! Mr Suhrawardy paid for that indiscreet remark partly with his office; we are still paying for not heeding it by going through fifty years of illusion.

As for the gentleman who compared Arafat to Mahatama Gandhi: get real! I am no fan of the Mahatama at all; but he never condoned, let alone ordered, physical harm and death to innocent men, women, and children unlike ``Chairman`` Arafat. History will someday ask why did Arafat get a Nobel Peace Prize while Gandhi didn`t? Perhaps because the Swedes and Norwegians, with all due respect to Their Majesties Kings Hakon and Olaf, have lost sight of history.

Ref Molko #: 180

You ask {We`ve debated the Koran being the literal word of God, or being merely divinely inspired. What about the third scenario- that the Koran isn`t the word of God, but something that came out of Muhammad`s imagination? What would the implications of that be?}

The result of you saying that the Koran came out of Prophet Muhammad`s imagination is that you will get stoned to death. [And I do not mean by pot (marijuana) drugs, hashish, etc., when I use the word ``stoned``.]

Dear Molko,

Reply 181

Oh God, why are we wasting our time on this. There I was, reading you fellows` schools of thought, staying well back and now you`ve forced me to come into this discussion. Nevertheless, I`ll try to be as short as possible.

Where shall I start from? The very first result of what you say is that Muhammed (PBUH) is a liar; though judging from his profile, by the people of Mecca and Medina etc. etc. he was an `amin.` I`m sure you`ve heard of the example of him addressing the kafirs on if he were to say there`s an army behind the mountains would you believe him. They all said yes. He then goes on to talk of ONE GOD and they refuse to believe him. Therefore either Muhammed (PBUH) was an honest man right from the start or the people of Arabia were fools.

Let`s travel 1400 years later into Canada, Toronto. A marine merchant was given certain script of Quran to read. He read upon a description of a sea storm then asked the fellow who had given him the script, `This Muhammed, was he a sailor too?` When told that Muhammed had always lived in the desert, he converted to Islam because in his opinion only a seaman could have described a sea storm as well as the one that was written in Quran. (Surah Nur 24:40). Therefore, either Muhammed had a brilliant imagination, or it was just a plain fluke or someone else had done the sailing for him. Of course, Muhammed could have just read some script on a sea storm, though he was an illiterate. Then again, Muhammed could have simply been lying about his illiteracy.

How about atomic particles. For a long time the Greeks (Democritus) had postulated on atoms, or `atomos`, the smallest INDIVISIBLE particles. The Arabs had their own word for it, `Zurrah` or `Durrah`. Recently it`s been discovered that these INDIVISIBLE particles are in fact DIVISIBLE, i.e. they can be split into nucleons, electrons which can further be split into quarks etc. There is a reference to this in Surah Saba 34:3 (He is aware of an Atom`s weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything SMALLER than that). Of course, once again this could have just been an educated guess. After all everybody knew in the days of the elements (earth, fire, water blah blah) that things were actually made of atoms that could be further broken down.

From another point, If Quran were the works of a human, then surely it would reflect his thinking. Muhammed (PBUH) went through a difficult life, such as the death of his daughters, agitation by the kafirs and the initial fear of the first revelation. There is no mention of Mohammed`s (PBUH) feelings in the book. All of you writers out there, surely you would agree that we use our experiences to fuel our creative processes and our experience do come out onto paper. Yet his experiences are not really there in the book.

On top of that, humans are imperfect creatures. If Quran were the product of a human, then surely it would not provide `falsification tests.` No other book does that and that`s because no other book is perfect. Quran actually invites a person to find mistakes and discrepancies within the texts. That`s like me doing an exam paper, and asking the examiner to find mistakes in my answers. I would only say this if I were 100% sure of being correct on every question. Check out Surah an-Nisa 4:82 (Do they not consider the Quran? Had it been from other than Allah, they would have surely found therein much discrepancy). Please don`t talk to me about Zer, Zabr changes introduced by Khalid bin Walid or Hajjaaj Bin Yousif or Ousama Bin Laden or whoever (can`t remember his name right now), because that move was made to ensure that Non Arabs could pronounce the Arabic words properly. You`ll know what I mean if you were born in Pakistan and Urdu was your first language. If an English bloke were to read the same text he would need Zer, Zabr and Pesh to steer his mouth in the right directions. Doesn`t mean you`re changing the Urdu words.

Another example concerns embryology. (Surah al-Hajj 22:5, al-Muminun 23:14 and Ghafir 40:67). A world expert on Embryology in Canada (once again) was given the scripts and he subsequently changed the descriptions of embryo development in the later editions of his book `Before we are born` (PS he was a non-Muslim), because some of the things mentioned were only discovered `30 years ago.` One thing that had fascinated him was the description of the human being as a `leech like clot` (alaqah) which was new to him. When he looked at a picture of a leech and compared it to the clot, the resemblance was startling. When asked, maybe the Arabs could have delved in crude dissections of their own, he replied `impossible` as these pictures were taken under a microscope. Microscopes didn`t exist 1400 hundred years ago! So what we are saying is that Muhammad (PBUH) or his ally already had microscopes. They investigated embryonic development, wrote it down in Quran and then destroyed their equipment. This is ridiculous unless you can come up with some evidence to prove this.

Also the fact that Quranic verses say `this information is new` (i.e. does not have any bibliography) as opposed to the other books which state that such and such information was derived from XYZ book also confirm it`s authenticity as a divine revelation. Enemies of the prophet (PBUH) were never able to claim that Muhammad was taught such and such in XYZ schools (as he was an illiterate) or that they knew which person he got that information from.

I really could go on and on and an and ariston… I`ll probably end up doing an article. Forget all of the things I`ve mentioned above. Accuracy does not necessarily constitute divine revelation. As one fellow said, a telephone directory is not a divine revelation` so forget what I`ve just said. You`ve said that The Quran maybe the work of Muhammed. Fine, you made the claim, go on and prove it and if you can`t prove yourself, than accept the fact that the Quran is a divine revelation.

(PS, let`s not waste our time pondering over the meaning of life, why tarkaa daal looks like diarrhoea and whether the Quran is a divine revelation or not. These things have been set up to divert our attention so that we never get to ponder over the real issues of life. The same crap happens down my hometown. There are so many pubs in this place, the youthful energy is tamed with alcohol so that no body can stand up and question the politicians and their dubious policies).

Take care

Omar Phoenix

Dear Krashid,

Take it easy my friend, life is precious, more important than religion, a whole lot more than human rights. Just laugh at the prof, dwell on the logic and reason we depend so much on, reflect on the futilty of individual life while admiring the human spirit.

In an earlier post I have called Yassar Arafat a Mahatma which should summarise my view on Israel.

Life is too multifarious to be serious all the time.

Regards

jay.

Haramiu#

I think chastity belt for males should also be marketed and you will beat Azim Premji.

We`ve debated the Koran being the literal word of God, or being merely divinely inspired. What about the third scenario- that the Koran isn`t the word of God, but something that came out of Muhammad`s imagination? What would the implications of that be?

To Fuzair#144

It is only a matter of semantics to differentiate between divinely inspired or literal word of God.

Does it prevent the taking of authority in the name of God, because it is divine and God ordained. As simple as that.

Going back to early history of Islam and rifts among Muslims, it was found convenient to close the door of Ijtihad.

That was a positive as well as negative step. Positive that it preserved the Islam as was practiced in that time. Its rituals were preserved including all ``Ibada``. Negative in the sense that all the Islamist movement see that period as role model and not only want to emulate that but also want to live in that time or bring back the old glory, forgetting that cultural aspect of Islam is also related to socio-economic status and there is no hard and fast rule.

Like, there is clear Ayah in Koran regarding Booty. But when Omar RZAH conquered some part, he did not allow it to be distributed, but left it to the people related to greater good of society.

The rule of law and good governance was a part and parcel of early Islamic history. And in most places where they conquered people welcomed them in comparision to local ruthless rulers. The example of Iran and India is appropriate.

With the advent of a established Muslim empire, the need for civil life increased, and possibly for that reason door of Ijtihad was closed, to keep peace in society and it is one of the principle of Fiqh to obey the ruler until he works against the greater good of society and openly performs evil. Also due to the strong opposition from Shiites, Kharijites and other small groups, it would have been convenient for rulers to go hand in hand with Mullahs in curbing the oppsition for the greater benefit of people.

But there is no doubt that Muslim rulers were pragmatic.

Why the movement of enlightenment which restarted in Muslim world, did not succeed, while it was successful in Europe needs to be studied.

One of the reason may be attack of Halaku to destroy the magnificient empire, but there must be other reasons also.

The current Islamic revival movements are a reaction to enlightenment, where all things foreign are unIslamic and only Islamic thing is related to past.

But the Islamic movements have a positive aspect that they are learning with experience and probably will mature with time.

Like Jamat-e-Islami in Pakistan, which has played a pivotal role in keeping the status quo with feudal-industrialist alliance as Islamic, is now one of the parties which has taken part in democratic struggle after 1970. This party which was pro-American all along is now Anti-American.

Although Taliban are blamed for the current crises. It is America, which has brought the genie out and is trying to put it back.

The world is not unipolar with one superpower as is assumed. It is just a temporary phase. Like European Union has more than double the share in world trade compared to America and China is going to increase its share in world trade to a significant extent in near future.

India is more than ready to play its part as a western ally to keep the status quo of North South divide or Rich and poor nation divide. That is amply evident in attitude of people of that region. (Only if the fruits of prosperity reach to common man only time will tell).

To Fuzair#144

It is only a matter of semantics to differentiate between divinely inspired or literal word of God.

Does it prevent the taking of authority in the name of God, because it is divine and God ordained. As simple as that.

Going back to early history of Islam and rifts among Muslims, it was found convenient to close the door of Ijtihad.

That was a positive as well as negative step. Positive that it preserved the Islam as was practiced in that time. Its rituals were preserved including all ``Ibada``. Negative in the sense that all the Islamist movement see that period as role model and not only want to emulate that but also want to live in that time or bring back the old glory, forgetting that cultural aspect of Islam is also related to socio-economic status and there is no hard and fast rule.

Like, there is clear Ayah in Koran regarding Booty. But when Omar RZAH conquered some part, he did not allow it to be distributed, but left it to the people related to greater good of society.

The rule of law and good governance was a part and parcel of early Islamic history. And in most places where they conquered people welcomed them in comparision to local ruthless rulers. The example of Iran and India is appropriate.

With the advent of a established Muslim empire, the need for civil life increased, and possibly for that reason door of Ijtihad was closed, to keep peace in society and it is one of the principle of Fiqh to obey the ruler until he works against the greater good of society and openly performs evil. Also due to the strong opposition from Shiites, Kharijites and other small groups, it would have been convenient for rulers to go hand in hand with Mullahs in curbing the oppsition for the greater benefit of people.

But there is no doubt that Muslim rulers were pragmatic.

Why the movement of enlightenment which restarted in Muslim world, did not succeed, while it was successful in Europe needs to be studied.

One of the reason may be attack of Halaku to destroy the magnificient empire, but there must be other reasons also.

The current Islamic revival movements are a reaction to enlightenment, where all things foreign are unIslamic and only Islamic thing is related to past.

But the Islamic movements have a positive aspect that they are learning with experience and probably will mature with time.

Like Jamat-e-Islami in Pakistan, which has played a pivotal role in keeping the status quo with feudal-industrialist alliance as Islamic, is now one of the parties which has taken part in democratic struggle after 1970. This party which was pro-American all along is now Anti-American.

Although Taliban are blamed for the current crises. It is America, which has brought the genie out and is trying to put it back.

The world is not unipolar with one superpower as is assumed. It is just a temporary phase. Like European Union has more than double the share in world trade compared to America and China is going to increase its share in world trade to a significant extent in near future.

India is more than ready to play its part as a western ally to keep the status quo of North South divide or Rich and poor nation divide. That is amply evident in attitude of people of that region. (Only if the fruits of prosperity reach to common man only time will tell).

Jay#172

Since I don`t expect any humanism which is also the basis of religion from people of your breed who justify killing of people by state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir in thousands.

As per your beliefs I also expected you to say, although you came belated on this. ``Killing of Jews by Arabs``

For one thing, the more you write the more my faith increases in Jihad as the only way to deal with a people like you and a nation as apathetic like you.

For one thing, the history of Israel is a dispossesion of locals of Palestine of their land, killing of them. It was an invasion of Europeans(Jews) on Arab soil.

You are justified in justifying that.

Salaam to all the jehadist, who are at least fighting oppression in some form.

Hell to all intellectuals who are stroking their pot belly after justifying all injustices.

The following verses has been quoted by several people to show why Muslim women should wear the hijab.

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils, screen themselves completely except the eyes ) all over their bodies.” (Surah Al-Ahzaab – Verse #59 This tafseer is Agreed upon by Ibn Kathir, Qurtabi and At Tabrani )

“And Say to the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, head cover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) (Surah An-Nur, Verses 30-31, This tafseer is Agreed upon by Ibn Kathir, Qurtabi and At Tabrani )``

I have had an idea for a marketable product for quite some time now and I believe that the Chowk is possibly one of the best focus groups that can tell me how much of a market the product would have in Islamic countries.

Specifically taking up the challenge posed by the statement “And Say to the believing women to .... protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts)``, my idea is to design a high-tech chastity belt. In the medieval age, chastity belts were used in Europe, not necessarily by the vast majority of women but at least they were forced on women who were thought to be easy prey for unscrupulous men. These belts used a mechanical lock and key system. I propose to redesign the belt to use fingerprint recognition technology so that around the age of 6 onwards when the belt is first put on a girl, the father`s index finger would be the only fingerprint that would unlock the belt and, after the nikah, the husband`s fingerprint would be the sole key to open the belt. With the advent of modern materials, I am sure we can design one that would be reasonably comfortable and the electronic fingerprint keylock system would absolutely foolproof, fulfilling the requirements of the Qur`an. This is one way to integrate high technology with an Islamic way of life.

I recognize I am letting out my invention into the public domain before taking out a patent on it but hopefully, publication of this post on Chowk would establish the fact that I am the inventor of the high-tech chastity belt.

I earnestly solicit the views of Chowkwallahs on the marketability of such a product. In particular, Asif Naqshbandi, Farangi_Kush, krashid, and the whole host of Islamic scholars are requested to review the idea. I would also like to know if chastity belts are mentioned in any of the hadiths, etc. If not, I request that the concept of ijtehad may be applied to determine the appropriateness of chastity belts.

The additional benefit is that karo-kari and similar honor killings and rapes would become impossible and Islamic countries would approach the perfect society desired by the pious. And Zeemax would not be able to crow that the burqa and hijab come off real fast under the right circumstances.

re: dgit #171

dgit,

I agree with most of what you say...just wanted to clarify one thing:

you write,

``the manner in which the Quranic message is conveyed leaves little doubt: the word`s are to be construed as literally from God.”

Whether or not Quranic words are literally from God is a different issue altogether – a matter of personal belief, perhaps… should we attempt literal interpretation of these words, given the disastrous results it produces, is more important an issue….it directly affects people’s lives…..situation in Afghanistan being a good example in this matter……also, ijtehad (research work conducted by a qualified religeous scholar in order to give opinion on an issue which is not clearly discussed in Quran and Hadits) and ijmah (collected opinion of prominant Muslims of a society) are two different things. Ijmah is no longer practiced, but ijtehad is still practiced in several Muslim countries including Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Pakistan, India, Egypt, and Syria. However, literal interpretation of Quran and sunnah is the biggest barrier in making ijtehad truly a way forward.

well...give the writer a break..

she sure has every right to express her self.

any way..

i just read this article and i feel it pretty much says all that thre is to say about the concept of Hijab ...obviously some of you still would call it the ``different interpretation``

NIQAB

By Um Amir

All too often Muslim women in niqab are ridiculed and called names regardless of time and place. Unfortunately, a woman who wears niqab in the United States will get better reception from the kafir than from Muslims. Muslim women often call women in niqab “ninjas” and “fitna on the face”, only failing to realize that they have wronged themselves.

Allah said: “If you do good, you do good for your own selves, and if you do evil, you do it against yourselves.” (17:7)

“Whosoever does righteous deeds it is for the benefit of himself, and whosoever does evil, it is against his own self.” (41:46)

This paper was written in response to those people who say things like ``The niqab is not in Islam”, or niqab is ``bad for dawa``, as well as those individuals who scoff at it too lightly. People should understand that the niqab is from the Qur’an and Hadith. Even if you hold the view of it not being wajib it is still THE BEST thing and anyone who wears it is to be respected. Anyone who discourages the wearing of niqab or denies it being in Islam or makes fun of someone who wears it should fear ALLAH and re examine their hearts and intentions.

``Allah has sent us to deliver whomsoever chooses, from the worship of

men to the `uboodiyah (worship and servitude) of Allah. And from the

narrowness of this world, to the vastness of this world and the Hereafter. And from the oppression of the (false) religions, to the justice of Islam.`` - Sahabee Rab`ee ibn Aamir [Ibn Katheer`s al-Bidayah wa an-Nihaayah]

Religious Reference to Niqab

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the

believers to draw their cloaks (veils, screen themselves completely except the eyes ) all over their bodies.” (Surah Al-Ahzaab – Verse #59 This tafseer is Agreed upon by Ibn Kathir, Qurtabi and At Tabrani )

“And Say to the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, head cover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) (Surah An-Nur, Verses 30-31, This tafseer is Agreed upon by Ibn Kathir, Qurtabi and At Tabrani )

Generally there are two opinions regarding covering the face. One view held by the Ulema is that the niqab (covering the face) is wajib (compulsory) and other Ulema hold the view it is Mustahab (recommended and the best thing to do but not compulsory). Both scholarly opinions are dependent upon the concept of perceiving Ummul Mu’mineen, the wives of the prophet, as being an example to all Muslim women, or in a category of their own.

Be that as it may, following the etiquettes Allah taught the Prophet’s wives was the way of his companions and those that came after them. And, the best way is to follow Rasulullah’s, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, practice as well as his companions. Ibn Kathir holds that these commandments are applicable to all Muslim women. (Tafseer Ibn Kathir, Vol. 3, p. 483)

This following hadith explains when and under what circumstance the verses of hijab was revealed. The wives of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. `Umar used to say to the Prophet ``Let your wives be veiled,`` but Allah`s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam`aradi Allahu anha the wife of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam went out at `Isha` time and she was a tall lady. `Umarradi Allahu anhu addressed her and said, ``I have recognized you, O Sauda.`` He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of ``Al-Hijab`` (A complete body cover excluding the eyes). (Hadith -Sahih Bukhari 1:148)

After the verses of hijab were revealed certain changes took place within the society at the time. For instance, women were carried on camels in a covered Haudaj, and they only went out if their faces and bodies were fully covered as explained in the following hadiths:

`A`isha radi Allahu anha used to say: ``When (the Verse): `They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,` was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces.`` (Hadith - Sahih Bukhari 6:282)

“When the verse ``That they should cast their outer garments over their

persons`` was revealed, the women of Ansar came out as if they had crows

over their heads by wearing outer garments.” (Hadith - Abu Dawud, Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu`minin radi Allahu anha)

Narrated `A`isha radi Allahu anha who said, ``The riders would pass us while we were with the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). When they got close to us, we would draw our outer cloak from our heads over our faces. When they passed by, we would uncover our faces.” (Hadith - Recorded by Ahmad, Abu Dawud and ibn Majah, Narrated `A`isha. [In his work Jilbab al-Marah al-Muslimah, al-Albani states (p. 108) that it is hasan due to corroborating evidence. Also, in a narration from Asma {who was not the wife of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), Asma also covered her face at all times in front of men.)

A`isha radi Allahu anha narrated: ``May Allah bestow His Mercy on the first Muhajirat (emigrants). When Allah revealed, `...and draw their Khumur over their Juyubihinna...`, they (i.e. the women) tore their material and covered themselves with it.``(Sahih Bukhari) Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalanee, who is known as Ameer Al-Mu`mineen in the field of Hadeeth, said that the phrase, ``covered themselves``, in the above Hadith means that they ``covered their faces``. [Fath Al-Bari].

A’isha radi Allahu anha says: “(during Hajj in the state of Ihraam) when the male should walk in front of us while in the company of Rasulullah (sallallahu Alayhi wa sallam), then we would drop our veils from the head over the face.”

In addition, women were no longer required or encouraged to participate in Jihad unless completely necessary. They were forbidden to travel without a Mahram. A man who did not apply these rules on his family was called a Dayyouth.

In order to shed more light on the issue, it is just as important to look at the opinions of the scholars about Niqab.

Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhu, who was one of the most knowledgeable companions of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, states that the Muslim women are ordered to cover their head and faces with outer garments except for one eye.

Ibn Katheer said...

‘Women must not display any part of their beauty and charms to strangers except what cannot possibly be concealed.’

Imam Ghazaali(mentions in his famous book of Fiqh Ihyaal Uloom):

``Woman emerged (during the time of Rasulullah `saw`) with niqabs on their Faces``

Jami`atul Ulema Junbi Africa sate that the proper opinion for the Hanafi madhab is that ``A woman must be properly and thoroughly covered in a lose outer cloak which totally conceals her entire body including her face!``

(This from the book Islamic Hijab by Jami`atul Ulema P.12)

It is also state in the Famous books of Fiqh Durrul Mukhtar...

``Young women are prohibited from revealing their faces in the presence of men.``

The Mufassireen, such as Al-Qurtubi, site in their Tafseer of the Ayah on Jilbab (Al-Ahzab 33:59), that the Jilbab is: ``a cloth which covers the entire body... Ibn `Abbas and `Ubaidah As-Salmaani () said that it is to be fully wrapped around the women`s body, so that nothing appears but one eye with which she can see.`` [Tafseer Al-Qurtubi].

Imam Qurtubi in his Al-Jamia li Ahkaamul Qurãn states:

‘All women are in effect covered by the terms of the verse which embraces the Shari`a principle that the whole of a woman is ‘Awrah’ (to be concealed) – her face, body and voice, as mentioned previously. It is not permissible to expose those parts except in the case of need, such as the giving of evidence…’

In Fathul Bari, chapter Hajj, a tradition reported on the authority of A`isha radi Allahu anha says: ``A woman in a state of Ihram (during Hajj and Umrah) should stretch her head - cloth over to her face to hide it.``

Sheikh ibn Uthaimin ....

“The Islamic hijab is for the women to cover everything that is forbidden for her to expose. That is, she covers everything that she must cover. The first of those bodily parts that she must cover is her face. It is the source of temptation and the source of people desiring her. Therefore, the woman must cover her face in front of those men that are not mahram. As for those of who claim that the Islamic hijab is to cover the head, shoulders, back, feet, shin and forearms while allowing her to uncover her face and hands, this is a very amazing claim. This is because it is well-known that the source of temptation and looking is the face. How can one say that the Shari`a does not allow the exposure of the foot of the woman while it allows her to uncover her face? It is not possible that there could be in the Esteemed, Wise and Noble Shari`a a contradiction. “

Jamaal Zarabozo (a scholar of Islam in the United States)....

“In Surah Al-Ahzab, verse 59, Allah has ordered the believing women to wear a jilbab. A jilbab as defined in all the books of tafseer is a cloak that covers the woman`s body from the top of her head to her feet. It is also described in those books, form the scholars of the earliest generation that after that verse was revealed, the women would completely cover themselves, leaving, for example, just one eye exposed so they can see the road. Hence, this is the outer garment of the woman that she must wear when she is in front of men she is not related to. “

Ridiculing Niqab

Allah subhana wa ta’ala says: “The hypocrites fear lest a Sûrah (chapter of the Qur`ân) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allâh will bring to light all that you fear.’ If you ask them (about this), they declare: ``We were only talking idly and joking.`` Say: ``Was it at Allâh, and His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam that you were mocking? Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you because they were Mujrimûn (disbelievers, polytheists, sinners, criminals, etc.)” The hypocrites, men and women, are from one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief and polytheism of all kinds and all that Islâm has forbidden), and forbid (people) from Al-Ma`rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do), and they close their hands [from giving (spending in Allâh`s Cause) alms, etc.]. They have forgotten Allâh, so He has forgotten them. Verily, the hypocrites are the Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh). `` (Sura At-Taubah 9:64-67)

Regardless of whether it is concerning woman`s hijab or any other matter of the Shari’a, mocking and rediculing a Muslim for holding onto and applying the teachings of Islam NO MATTER HOW DETAILED of an issue it is, OR HOW UNIMPORTANT IT MAY SEEM TO SOME, EVEN THE POINT OF MOCKING one for use of a MISWAK, that renders a person a kafer, let alone ridiculing the decent women of niqab or calling them ``ninjas`` those are the actions of disbelievers, and render anyone who commits them a kafer even if his excuse is ``I was merely Joking`` . Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed!

At a gathering during the Battle of Tabuk, one man said, ``I have not seen anyone like our Qur’anic readers who is more desirous of food, more lying in speech and more cowardly when meeting the enemy.`` A man said, ``You have lied and you are a liar. I shall definitely tell the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) about that.`` That news was conveyed to the Messenger of Allah and the Quran was revealed. Abdullah ibn Umar added, ``I saw the man holding on to the bag of the camel of the Messenger of Allah and the dust was striking him while he was saying, `O Messenger of Allah, we were just joking and playing. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said [saying the verse of the Quran], ``Was it Allah, and His Signs and His Messenger you were mocking? Make no excuse, you have disbelieved after you had believed. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others among you because they were sinners.`` (al-Tauba 65-66).

Based on this, ridiculing believers has been equated with ridiculing Allah, His Signs and His Messenger and constitutes disbelief.

I am certain that many of us have come across women who do not wear hijab and yet still possess better adab than one who does. Allah is all Knowing and all Seeing. However, that does not negate the injunctions Allah has put upon all of us that we should obey. The fact still remains that the practice of Islam is not only in words but more significantly in deed. Ridiculing any practice in Islam goes against the belief that Allah is the Creator and that He is the only one who knows the nature of His creations

Tabarruj

“O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women. If you keep your duty, then be not soft in speech, lest he is whose heart is a disease (of hypocrisy or evil desire for adultery) should be moved with desire, but speak in an honorable manner.

And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves (tabarruj) like that of the times of ignorance (jahiliyya, before Rasulullah’s teachings), and perform as-salat, and give zakat and obey Allah and His messenger. Allah wishes only to remove ar-rijis (evil deeds and sins) from you, O members of the family of the prophet, and to purify you with a thorough purification.” (Surah al ahzab 32-33)

Mujahid and Qatadah say that the word Tabarruj in this verse means

walking in a lewd way. Muqatil states that Tabarruj is when a woman only

covers her head with her head with her scarf without covering her neck

and chest. Mubarrad says that Tabarruj is when a woman reveals her

physical attractiveness which she is required to hide.

Lais states that Tabarruj is when a woman does not hide the beauty of her face and her physical shape and considers it good to reveal it. Abu Ubaidah

(radiallahu anhu) says Tabarruj is when a woman exhibits her beauty and

her body in a way as to cause sexual excitement in men. Ibn Jauzi, after quoting the above statements, writes in regards to “stay in your houses”: “I believe that coming out of her house and roaming about the streets in itself is sufficient to cause trouble, let alone exhibiting her beauty and her body.” (Ahkaamun-Nisa`) Thus as much as possible women should remain in their homes.

A hadith that supports this stance is: Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahyah ibn Sa`id from Amra bind Abd ar-Rahman thats ``Aisha radi Allahu anha, the wife of the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, said ``If Rasulullah, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam had seen what women do now, he would have forbidden them to go into the mosques, just as the women of the bani Isra`il were forbidden.`` Yahya ibn sa`id said that he asked `Amra, ``Were the women of the bani Isra`il forbidden to go into the mosques?`` and she said, ``Yes.`` (almuwatta 14.6.15)

All the criterions in the verse 33:32-33 were taught to the Wives of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) to safeguard their chastity, and since the wives of the Prophet are examples to all Muslim women, we are required to follow these Commandments. (Imam Abu Bakr Jassaas, Jassaas, vol. 5,p. 230)

“Oh you who believe! Enter not the Prophet’s houses, unless permission is given to you for a meal, (and then) no to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, en enter, and when you have taken your meal, disperse without sitting for a talk. Verily, such behavior annoys the Prophet, and he is shy of asking you to go; but Allah is not shy of (telling you) the truth. And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen: that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts...”(33:53)

Muslims were forbidden from entering the houses of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), as they used to enter each others houses without permission in the days before Islam. Allah chose modesty and honor for this Ummah and commanded them to observe Hijab. Undoubtedly, this commandment is in respect and honor of this Ummah. (Tafseer Ibn Kathir)

Although the three Commandments in this Verse --entering the house of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) after permission, not engaging in idle talk after the meal, and observing Hijab between men and the wives of the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam were revealed specifically for the houses of the Prophet and his Wives, these are binding for all Muslims as we are required to follow the guidance and tradition of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). The only instances injunctions are not applicable to all Muslims is if Allah Himself specifies that a particular rule is meant only for the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and the Ummah is not subjected to it.

It is not the case here. (Ibn `Arabi, Ahkaam-ul-Qur`aan, vol. 5, p. 342) This Verse provides the permission to ask, from behind a screen (Hijab), the Wives of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) for any necessary thing, including any matters of religion. And, all Muslim women would be bound by the same rule. Beside this Verse, other principles of the Islamic doctrine also tell us that a woman, for her honor) deserves to be hidden - her body as well as her voice. (Tafsir-ul-Qurtubi, vol. 14 , p. 227)

* * * * * *

There are many more proofs and references regarding niqab. It is evident by these mentioned above that niqab is not a matter to be belittled. If anything, the niqab should symbolize the strength of Muslim women to uphold their teachings in the midst of all the evil in society.

In all attempts to revive any teaching, a visual image of resurgence is sought after in every society. The niqab should serve as that-- a symbol and remembrance for each Muslim that we as Muslims are different from the kafir, that we have a purpose in life other than material gain, that this life is just a test. Its visual effect on the Islamic resurgence should be seen as an opportunity for all of us to earn a good deed.

Zayd bin Talhah narrated that Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: “Every religion has distinctive quality, and the distinctive quality of Islam is modesty.” (al bayhaqi, ibn majah and imam malik’s almuwatta)

Allah subhana wa ta’ala said: “By the passing time, man is indeed in loss, excpet thsoe who believe, do good deeds, enjoin upon one another the keeping to truth, and enjoin upon one another patience in adversity.” (103:1-3)

So, how can people say that the niqab has no place in this day and age? when it clearly says in this ayah that we are at a loss through the time? I would assert that there is even a GREATER NEED nowadays to wear a face cover in order to give the Muslim woman the honor and dignity Allah gave the Ummul Mu’mineen.

Abdullah bin ‘Umar related that Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: “Modesty and faith exist together, when one disappears, the other also disappears.” (al bayhaqi)

There are quite a few reasons as to why there is a need to wear niqab. However only one is for certain the best intention and purpose-- to please Allah, that one believes Allah has enjoined it upon her, and that Rasulullah’s sallallahu alayhi wa sallam wives wore them. Only with that intention in any endeavor we take on can we change ourselves and purify our hearts as women as well as a community.

“Verily, Allah does not change a people’s condition unless they change what is in themselves.” (13:11)

‘Verily, Allah will most certainly support the one who supports His cause; verily, Allah is the Most Powerful and Almighty.” (22:40)

Top Ten Things About Childhood That S-ck

by Ayeda

10-- Injections

9--- Loose teeth hanging off your gums by a thin sliver of skin that bleed when you try and pull them out

8--- Grown-ups who spell out words so that you can’t understand (yet you do and are traumatised for life over what they are actually saying about you)

7--- Fat, lazy ayahs who never change their clothes

6--- Maulvi Sahibs with bad breath

5--- Throat paint, ghararas and enemas

4--- Visiting stingy relatives on Eid

3--- Your mother making you give away your toys to kids who come over to your house (who called them over anyway, huh?)

2--- Pulling band-aids off

1--- Rectal thermometers

TRUE ISLAM, AN EXPERIMENT.

Islamic jihadists have cpture tourists in Philippines, are killing hindus in kashmir, jews in israel, world trade centre bombing. Some are suggesting that islam is inherently violent, non compromising and TNT, two nation theory, is the essence of islam.

A learned professor conducted the experiment, he drank wisky with water, brandy with water, gin with water, and even beer with water: and in all instances got drunk. He tried it with other subjects also and concluded `` irrespective of what you mix it with, water always ma