To Western Women

Musthaq

I really didn`t understand you response. You say there were military excursions into Africa and then the peacefull conversion to Islam began. But isn`t this the same way Native American were converted to Christianity or African to Christianity, or East Timores to Christinity. There are very few examples for religion migrating into another region peacefully, and I may not be entirelly accurate but for Islam only Spain and South-east Asia fit the stated paradigm. As for Spain, Islam was brutally rooted out and in East Timor, Muslim tried to kill if Christians as they are right now attempting to do in Sudan. Eventhough I am not Buddist, I beleive that is the only peacefull religion. (Unless someone can prove me wrong.) Present day Church of England may also fall into the same category.

As for murder and mayham exercised in the name of almost every religion, I am not going to deny that. But the justification that it is being caused by peoples divergence from core religious believes is insufficient. Religious fanatics rise because they are allowed to rise. They are supported and encourage at every avenue because religion must be worn on the sleave and not in the heart. (Hence the attire, the hair, and the whole lot other superficial religious instructions.) Religious conviction must be demonstrated to attain or maintain your social status. So the question rises that will religions (especially the ones that profess to the inherit the eternal truth) ever peacefully co-esist with other? They never have and the never will; because my truth is trueer than yours and to admit that your belief may have any validity will directly contradict mine, thus blaspheme. Taking an overall view of history is not ignorant or mis-preception, but painstaking finding minute inconsitancies to defend religious followers is. To say it is not religion it the people who deverge from it and are not really following true religious beliefs is an insufficient argument. Religion is a weapon and will again and again be used to kill and oppress. History shows that giving it any significance at political or social levels will lead to bloody persicution.

Ylh

People do stupid things all over the world. Just because they are being practiced in US doesn`t make them advisable. No laws are required to enforce hijab if social conditions make them necessity. If that is the case then is it really choice.

As for asking others (Hindus) to stay out, I believe that there is something know as inbreading of ideas.

As for the person who wrote the poem, she has absolutely every right to vioce her opinions. But we also have to right to highlight the errors of her thoughts, especially when they are presented in public forum. Just beacause her belief are religion based doesn`t mean that the view she present remain un-questioned.

hamidm:#125

Your posts do provide some fun but they mean nothing.It is not a bad idea to give some madari performance on the chowk---nay essential sometimes.

Like fireworks they light up the sky for a moment but the darkness is even more ominous after that.They prove neither light nor warmth like a lamp.It doesn`t work as a flash-light,either.

I have `good` news for you.If you continue on the `right path` you would soon be attending weddings between two males or between two females.They are already quite frequent in the land of the `free`.As time goes by you & your children might witness some further `taboo` marriages (hitherto incestous) and perhaps you may see some four-legged creatures adorned as priests.This from people who still sneer at cousin marriages & polygamy.

`Enlightenment` is what you are after and `enlightenment` is what you`ll get.For others,they are silently bidding their time and seeing the new Dark Ages looming upon the horizon and busy seeking guidance provided in the Manual for Survival brought by the Messenger of Allah.

Look around you closely & see where the young third generation of muslim immigrants is heading.These were `educated` in a `free` system & the choice they are making is as clear as a bright sunny day.A minority does fall through the cracks for a short time.

There is an Alternative to prozaic & mind-controlling crutches.

In Re: ylh #139

You said:

``Hijab is really not a big thing in Pakistan ....

it is not enforced and women dont wear it usually``



Tell that to the women in Pakistani villages who are forced to remain indoors to protect the ``honour`` of thier men. Alternatively, go up to the Frontier and see for yourself.

You also said:

``Hindus please keep out of this discussion!!! cuz if you dont I will be forced to take up certain issues which might be very distasteful to the the hindu Community .......``

Please read my reply #64 in Pervez Hoodbhoy`s article on education in Pakistan. Why must you lose whatever moral authority you do have - which, by the way, is rapidly diminishing - by asserting your arguments with nothing but virulence and threats. Previous examples include (post #103):``I dont know what Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did to Fuzair`s ... ahem... amma... because it really puts something ... up ahem ... Fuzair`s rear side!``; and (posts #103 and 104): ``[D]ont start with the personal insults cuz I am lahori and the personal insults I can come up with are beyond your wildest dreams or your worse nightmares`` Charming, really, but no way to carry on any form of discussion, unless, of course, you are dealing with cloth traders (no offence) in Shah-Alam Market.

Take care,

Rafay

Re: all the detractors, notable Muslims, doubtful Muslimas, paranoid atheists, and the terrified neighbors from the other religion (s)

THIS IS ACERBIC JAZBATI......

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY

Has been a while since this poem was posted in the realms of cyber space, courtesy CHOWK...a place that has been called by various names, some good, others not so mentionable ones ( tells you something about the quality of the notables frequenting the domain of the web , i guess quality of thought/ reasoning , has declined universally...sadly !!)

Anyhow, my objective is not to criticize each and every posting in response to this poem, nor can I judiously do carry out such an improbable task. I would, however, try to make a few observations, put in my two ``paisaas`` on what I thought of the replies, and what I think of this poem. Would like to make a clarification or two as well, since people jump to conclusions without adequate premises ( the educated ones fall in this trap easily, so much for our vaunted

`` literacy`` ).

First thing first. This poem is not my work, never was, and I never claimed it to be my pristine creation. I had initially submitted it, with the specific instruction to CHOWK of notifying the readers of it being a contribution from my side. This were something I read at a site, liked very much , and just quoted it ( glad that CHOWK corrected its error subsequently ). I could notice the uneducated shrills of the literate audience, trying to sanctimoniously suggest that it were a plagairist piece and CHOWK needed to make sure that people of my ilk arent allowed in the future. Some suggested an inquiry, as if, inquiries yield fruitful results ( don`t we all know how effective they are in our part of the world? ).

According to some, this was below-par CHOWK, and needed to be taken out. I may ask, WHAT IS THE PAR AT CHOWK? Is it `` this should do it `` , which, do SO much for our intelligence, by suggesting the priciples of LUST, and how it cant be controlled, and our obession with amorality? Or the par is `` Hey Ram `` , which just is nothing more than the falderal emanating from the DISH , which makes sane people puke. Better still, I think the par at CHOWK is everything that is COOL ( read CONVENTIONAL ) like the fashion of Pakistani Bashing, Muslim Bashing, Islam Bashing. What is uncool ( read NON-CHOWK MATERIAL) is something that displays sentience, exhorts attention, sites the genuine emotions in people , or for that matter, is UNCONVENTIONAL. Unconventional is crap, and thus the poem were treated with a contempt as inexplicable, as the `` EDUCATION `` of our various readers. The Pappu bhais ( ref: KHUDA HAFIZ ..MY COUNTRY ) in north america, who make it a point to denigrate their religion, as abundant commodities at CHOWK, and that is the reason NO ONE ( and I repeat NO ONE ) of them liked this.

As far as the contents of the POEM are concerned, it is sad to note that the POEM doesnt suggest that women sit at home, do cooking and cleaning. They CAN earn a living if need be. However, the religion of Islam functions on reciprocity, and it is not that MEN have a right to the WOMAN as chattels. As husbands, men take care of the houselhold ( are supposed to perform HOUSEHOLD chores as well ), but their ``primary`` responsibility lies as the bread winner, the loyal/faithful soul who fulfils the rights to his wife. The WIFE , in the ideal circumstances, devotes her time to the rearing of children ( mind you , we dont mean education, i.e. TALEEM only ..we mean TALEEM O TARBIYAT ). Most of you are literate souls, and your extensive knowledge of economics would be able to tell you that studies have demonstrated the efficacy of educated mothers for the children- whereever educated women are responsible for children, the children have a greater chance of becoming better citizens, highly civic minded individuals, and humane beings : their TARBIYAT is more effective . I guess, the concept is arcane to my humane fellows from other religions ( and those of the same religion who are intent on displaying their overweening superiority complexes at being EDUCATED or their intense inferiority complexes at being born as Muslims ). But MUSLIMS are supposed to be bridled by the precepts of their faith - you either take it , or leave it, but DONT BE SANCTIMONIOUS ABOUT IT ALL...!!!! ). As I were saying, Islam means fulfiling rights, and not demanding them. If , and when the husband would grant those rights, the women would automatically fulfil hers. Islam is a too way street. WHO THE HELL SAID THAT `` rights are to be forced by MEN only``..AHH, THE EDUCATED ones would have said that , right????

Coming to the purdah, it is a quintessential part of our faith. Women are supposed to cover their bodies, except their faces and hands, and Men are instructed to lower their gaze. Such is the Islamic approach. BOTH are required to fulfil their obligations ( QED for you ).Someone suggested that WOMEN are being bound by this drocanian code, and should wear what is comfortable. I might dare ask, what constitues comfortable? Some ones comfortable could be jeans and a loose shirt. Some others would be okay with sleevless, transparent clothes! There has to be a code, and by dressing modestly, the code ensures that women are treated, as they should be...with dignity. The despicable men who pinch women on the streets ( someone pointed out ) are ignoble creatures who dont count in the realm of humanes, let alone followers of the faith. How many of you would look at a skimpily clad woman without the `` lust at first sight intent``...she is comfortable in her skimpiness ( right folks ), Are you comfortable with treating her as a sex object ( the same sex object the ignoble ISLAMIST make her wife to be)?

If yes, then you are no better than him ( no your own logic ), cos you are EDUCATED in the rules of the world , the rules of propriety/equality/ fairness etc. SO SHAME ON YOU IF YOU DO. And if you dont look at her at all, this is your morality, which is not guaranteed at all times. Answer this, do you honestly look at the beautiful hijabi muslima in the lustful manner that you would look at the soul in comfortable see through? Answer this with truthfulness!

As for the lurid stories of misogynism, and female abuse ( through purdah ), it is not the purdah that is the cause, it is the lack of it. I am not using the HOLY QURAN, just because, most of us are so wanton in our unadulterated criticism of ISLAM, that I dont want to put this big at the mercy of souls who pride themselves on `` their extremely limited intelligence `` and would go any length to prove their point. I dont want to discredit the HOLY BOOK by quoting it to those who have lost the understanding of the SPIRIT of ISLAM, and who are loath to anything ISLAMIC. SO much for our education. EDUCATED PEOPLE engage in discussions, not in personal attacks, which I see on CHOWK more than fruitful logical discussion. SO MUCH for the standard at CHOWK.

muqtay ka bund / bottom line is this:

purdha is the extrication of the woman

not her improsonment

AS FOR THOSE WHO STILL DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY AND WOULD DISMISS IT AS ANOTHER ACERBICALLY JAZBATI FALDERAL, PLEASE TRY TO `` EDUCATE `` YOURSELF IN THE REAL SENSE : TALEEM O TARBIYAT. THEN AGAIN, yeh aapkey ghaltey nahin hai shayad...taribiyat huwey he nahin

and I AM A MALE ...all the more reason to wonder why I contributed instead of the odious hijaban that most of you dread so much.

`` sharam tum ko magar nahin aatey ``

Allah hee haafiz

ACERBICJAZBATI

p.s: i LOVE the way some of us are terrified with ISLAM, PAKISTAN and all. And with others who try to palliate the `` ill will `` of our non-muslim ( muslims turned atheists ) by saying

`` this is not what happens in Pakistan/ this is extremism /etc etc etc ``..wake up guys....be proud of your religion, and your roots..but shayad `` sharam tum ko waqee nahin atey `` ..Allah ho Akbar!

Re: all the detractors, notable Muslims, doubtful Muslimas, paranoid atheists, and the terrified neighbors from the other religion (s)

THIS IS ACERBIC JAZBATI......

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY

Has been a while since this poem was posted in the realms of cyber space, courtesy CHOWK...a place that has been called by various names, some good, others not so mentionable ones ( tells you something about the quality of the notables frequenting the domain of the web , i guess quality of thought/ reasoning , has declined universally...sadly !!)

Anyhow, my objective is not to criticize each and every posting in response to this poem, nor can I judiously do carry out such an improbable task. I would, however, try to make a few observations, put in my two ``paisaas`` on what I thought of the replies, and what I think of this poem. Would like to make a clarification or two as well, since people jump to conclusions without adequate premises ( the educated ones fall in this trap easily, so much for our vaunted

`` literacy`` ).

First thing first. This poem is not my work, never was, and I never claimed it to be my pristine creation. I had initially submitted it, with the specific instruction to CHOWK of notifying the readers of it being a contribution from my side. This were something I read at a site, liked very much , and just quoted it ( glad that CHOWK corrected its error subsequently ). I could notice the uneducated shrills of the literate audience, trying to sanctimoniously suggest that it were a plagairist piece and CHOWK needed to make sure that people of my ilk arent allowed in the future. Some suggested an inquiry, as if, inquiries yield fruitful results ( don`t we all know how effective they are in our part of the world? ).

According to some, this was below-par CHOWK, and needed to be taken out. I may ask, WHAT IS THE PAR AT CHOWK? Is it `` this should do it `` , which, do SO much for our intelligence, by suggesting the priciples of LUST, and how it cant be controlled, and our obession with amorality? Or the par is `` Hey Ram `` , which just is nothing more than the falderal emanating from the DISH , which makes sane people puke. Better still, I think the par at CHOWK is everything that is COOL ( read CONVENTIONAL ) like the fashion of Pakistani Bashing, Muslim Bashing, Islam Bashing. What is uncool ( read NON-CHOWK MATERIAL) is something that displays sentience, exhorts attention, sites the genuine emotions in people , or for that matter, is UNCONVENTIONAL. Unconventional is crap, and thus the poem were treated with a contempt as inexplicable, as the `` EDUCATION `` of our various readers. The Pappu bhais ( ref: KHUDA HAFIZ ..MY COUNTRY ) in north america, who make it a point to denigrate their religion, as abundant commodities at CHOWK, and that is the reason NO ONE ( and I repeat NO ONE ) of them liked this.

As far as the contents of the POEM are concerned, it is sad to note that the POEM doesnt suggest that women sit at home, do cooking and cleaning. They CAN earn a living if need be. However, the religion of Islam functions on reciprocity, and it is not that MEN have a right to the WOMAN as chattels. As husbands, men take care of the houselhold ( are supposed to perform HOUSEHOLD chores as well ), but their ``primary`` responsibility lies as the bread winner, the loyal/faithful soul who fulfils the rights to his wife. The WIFE , in the ideal circumstances, devotes her time to the rearing of children ( mind you , we dont mean education, i.e. TALEEM only ..we mean TALEEM O TARBIYAT ). Most of you are literate souls, and your extensive knowledge of economics would be able to tell you that studies have demonstrated the efficacy of educated mothers for the children- whereever educated women are responsible for children, the children have a greater chance of becoming better citizens, highly civic minded individuals, and humane beings : their TARBIYAT is more effective . I guess, the concept is arcane to my humane fellows from other religions ( and those of the same religion who are intent on displaying their overweening superiority complexes at being EDUCATED or their intense inferiority complexes at being born as Muslims ). But MUSLIMS are supposed to be bridled by the precepts of their faith - you either take it , or leave it, but DONT BE SANCTIMONIOUS ABOUT IT ALL...!!!! ). As I were saying, Islam means fulfiling rights, and not demanding them. If , and when the husband would grant those rights, the women would automatically fulfil hers. Islam is a too way street. WHO THE HELL SAID THAT `` rights are to be forced by MEN only``..AHH, THE EDUCATED ones would have said that , right????

Coming to the purdah, it is a quintessential part of our faith. Women are supposed to cover their bodies, except their faces and hands, and Men are instructed to lower their gaze. Such is the Islamic approach. BOTH are required to fulfil their obligations ( QED for you ).Someone suggested that WOMEN are being bound by this drocanian code, and should wear what is comfortable. I might dare ask, what constitues comfortable? Some ones comfortable could be jeans and a loose shirt. Some others would be okay with sleevless, transparent clothes! There has to be a code, and by dressing modestly, the code ensures that women are treated, as they should be...with dignity. The despicable men who pinch women on the streets ( someone pointed out ) are ignoble creatures who dont count in the realm of humanes, let alone followers of the faith. How many of you would look at a skimpily clad woman without the `` lust at first sight intent``...she is comfortable in her skimpiness ( right folks ), Are you comfortable with treating her as a sex object ( the same sex object the ignoble ISLAMIST make her wife to be)?

If yes, then you are no better than him ( no your own logic ), cos you are EDUCATED in the rules of the world , the rules of propriety/equality/ fairness etc. SO SHAME ON YOU IF YOU DO. And if you dont look at her at all, this is your morality, which is not guaranteed at all times. Answer this, do you honestly look at the beautiful hijabi muslima in the lustful manner that you would look at the soul in comfortable see through? Answer this with truthfulness!

As for the lurid stories of misogynism, and female abuse ( through purdah ), it is not the purdah that is the cause, it is the lack of it. I am not using the HOLY QURAN, just because, most of us are so wanton in our unadulterated criticism of ISLAM, that I dont want to put this big at the mercy of souls who pride themselves on `` their extremely limited intelligence `` and would go any length to prove their point. I dont want to discredit the HOLY BOOK by quoting it to those who have lost the understanding of the SPIRIT of ISLAM, and who are loath to anything ISLAMIC. SO much for our education. EDUCATED PEOPLE engage in discussions, not in personal attacks, which I see on CHOWK more than fruitful logical discussion. SO MUCH for the standard at CHOWK.

muqtay ka bund / bottom line is this:

purdha is the extrication of the woman

not her improsonment

AS FOR THOSE WHO STILL DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY AND WOULD DISMISS IT AS ANOTHER ACERBICALLY JAZBATI FALDERAL, PLEASE TRY TO `` EDUCATE `` YOURSELF IN THE REAL SENSE : TALEEM O TARBIYAT. THEN AGAIN, yeh aapkey ghaltey nahin hai shayad...taribiyat huwey he nahin

and I AM A MALE ...all the more reason to wonder why I contributed instead of the odious hijaban that most of you dread so much.

`` sharam tum ko magar nahin aatey ``

Allah hee haafiz

ACERBICJAZBATI

p.s: i LOVE the way some of us are terrified with ISLAM, PAKISTAN and all. And with others who try to palliate the `` ill will `` of our non-muslim ( muslims turned atheists ) by saying

`` this is not what happens in Pakistan/ this is extremism /etc etc etc ``..wake up guys....be proud of your religion, and your roots..but shayad `` sharam tum ko waqee nahin atey `` ..Allah ho Akbar!

tahmed321

I think you missed the point of my post ...... althought I am the owner of a dog-eared and heavily underlined copy of Dawood`s Koran, which rests next to Russel`s ``Why I am not a Christian`` and Ibn Warraq`s ``Why I am not a Muslim``, I am not inclined to ``thump`` it .... far from it.

ylh

Ibn Warraq might be Shaitan incarnate, but he might have a point when he says, ``No amount of mental gymnastics or intellectual dishonesty is going to make the unpalatable, unacceptable, and barbaric aspects of Islam disappear.`` ....... one must not put words in God`s mouth.....it is difficult to have faith and still be a rational being....we all struggle with it.

hamidim to those he disagrees with as follows: ``Heretics and the Apostates, in cahoots with the Unbelievers and Infidels``.

Name calling of this kind is the mark of a ``jahel``, not that of a decent human being. In order to be a good muslim (or a good christian or good hindu) one must first become a decent human being.

As for your Quran thumping quotes, I suggest you start with the basics and try to start first understand the meaning of the Kalima: ``There is no God but God...``: It is for God to decide who goes to heaven or hell, not you. Then read and understand the deeply humane spirit of the Quran, and you may even rise to the level of a decent human being.

ive been called to the floor three times now..

omar1974: no, i cannot (rather will not) shed any light on the situation. i have learned to stay out of all hijab discussions..i said my rational unbiased bit ( having sat on, under and beside the perverbial fence) and that was that. people will make their biased comments, shout louder than the next, nothing comes out of it except deluded, delusional victors on both sides. it`s not a black and white issue but no one will budge and everyone is ofcourse, right.

rafay-alam..believe it or not, ive read the same piece you were talking about...the man said he preferred women in baggy clothing (like overalls etc) because his youth was spent in some arab country. it was in some teeny bopper magazine years back...didnt know you liked to peruse though them :)

ylh: SR is not sakina rizvi. stop hitting the send key five times. personal insults to other people really take away from your arguments. try to organize your thoughts so that you can share them better..

rizvi.

Sexna #111

What are you doing in the heat of June and July wearing your Kurta and Pajama? Let your Pajama go!

Never unreasonably question culture. It is artifactual, not based on reason, and any questitioning will end up taking you to the ``limiting case``, e.g., why don`t you take off all your clothes, in this case, or, in a morass of conflicting values and value espousals from which there is no escape unless you claim ``absolute values``! An oxymoron!

Didn`t Yahmla once asked you to show at least iota of brains? Do it.

I loved it...very true..such contributions should be more common place..

Rsaxena

Assumptions again I see....

have you ever been to Pakistan ??????

Hijab is really not a big thing in Pakistan ....

it is not enforced and women dont wear it usually ....

Hindus please keep out of this discussion!!! cuz if you dont I will be forced to take up certain issues which might be very distasteful to the the hindu Community .......

I personally am not a big fan of the Hijab .....

AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION ... THE ONLY CULTURAL SHOCK I RECEIVED IN USA WAS SEEING PAKISTANI GIRLS WEARING HIJAB .... honestly and at first glance I thought they were Arabs......

Nevertheless whoever wrote than poem ... whoever it was is justified in voicing his/her opinion and no body has the right to tell him/her not to!!!!!!

Those who wanna wear the Hijab say ``yay``

Those who dont wanna wear the Hijab say ``yay``

All is good!

Sincerely

-Yasser Hamdani

Hamidm

Listen to yourself .... and look at the conclusions you have drawn from the Quran.

The verses you have quoted dont seem to suggest that Hamidm ... why are you making this conversation into a joke. ``Do not show your finery to men other than your husbands`` seriously doesnot suggest to me what you just said ... make up and shaking hands is an irrelevant and vague conclusion but who would want their wife to be unfaithful ??????

This is my 2 cents for you Hamidm ... present facts in an impartial light and dont make this into a joke!!!!!!!!

Extremely distasteful!

Why is everyone out to attack Islam ???

For all those wanna-be intellectuals out there ...

Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Faiz Ahmed Faiz were intelligent men who were in a higher intellectual category than most of us here .... if you read their works or listen to their speeches you will see that they took pride in their Islamic heritage and connections ... It was a source of pride and an identity .....not shame!

If you havent please read Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s speech at University of California at Berkeley as a student in 1948 on Islamic Heritage ... or Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s speech at the Islamic Summit conference in 1974... and if ZAB is not good enough as he will not be for a lot of you then read Quaid e Azam`s famous speech to the consitituent Assembley on 11th of August ... the speech which is and should be quoted again and again but not in parts ...``You are free to go to your temples and your mosques ......... the Hindu Community will dissappear and the Muslim community will dissappear`` ... clearly a secular message .. BUT derived from the spirit of the Holy Quran according to Muhammad Ali Jinnah who said the same thing in the paragraph before that!

Also for those of you self professed Kemalists ...

dont give Kemalism a bad name because Kemalism where it was an antithesis to the existing Islamic order ... essentially is not at all opposite to the spirit of Islam ... and REMEMBER ATTATURK ALWAYS REMAINED A MUSLIM ... something to think about eh?

I personally think that Attaturk took his fight against obscurantism one step too far and became a

``fanatic`` liberal.

The death of Attaturk was mourned by Muslims all over the world in spirit of Pan Islamic unity.....

It was the later historians who chose to paint Attaturk in an anti Islamic light ... to counter the Islamic resurgence...

I wonder why these pseudo liberal Islam hating wanna be western wanna be intellectuals are the way they are .... what deep complexes lurk with in them

``Brutus is an honourable man

What private griefs they might have alas I know not``

Fuzair

Ok I agree (to disagree).

Let us all agree to disagree and instead detesting each other respect the other person`s point of view as the other person`s point of view!

-Yasser Hamdani

www.nation.com.pk, Apr 29,2000, Opinion

The General`s promise of human rights

Farhatullah Babar

``We wish to address the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms by sharing the thoughts and experiences of the public, the NGO`s and members of the civil society`` promised General Musharraf while inaugurating the two-day human rights conference in Islamabad last week. He also declared the year 2000 as the ``Year of Human Rights and Human Dignity in Pakistan``.

Musharraf also announced some half a dozen initiatives, the most promising among them the change in the procedure for registration of cases under the blasphemy law. The change however is not in the law itself but merely in the procedure to prevent its rampant abuse at the hands of

fanatics.

If implemented honestly there can be no cavil with the package. The UN Rapporteur on human rights Asma Jehangir is all praise for the initiatives and wants the people not to judge it as an issue of national domestic politics. Noted social worker Abdu Sattar Edhi dramatized his support to the initiative by flanking General Musharraf himself on the dais and applauding him.

But there are obvious caveats also.There can be no human rights and no human dignity if the law and constitution do not underwrite it. A right is no longer a right if it depends for its enforcement on the will of an individual and not on the law and constitution. And dignity becomes demeaning if it is to be conferred only through the executive fiat of an individual.

In a country where the Constitution, the mother of all laws, remains suspended any charter of human rights and human dignity sounds strangely odd. Media Advisor Javed Jabbar told journalists in the United States last week that it was ``ironic`` that a military government was hosting the human rights conference. For once JJ was right even though unwittingly.

Demands of rights and dignities often invoke conflicts between individuals and the state which can be adjudicated and enforced by an independent judiciary subservient only to the Constitution. But when the judiciary`s oath of allegiance to the Constitution is replaced overnight with an oath of

allegiance to an individual, where is the independence?

``Ironic`` indeed for a chief executive who has suspended the Constitution and subordinated the judiciary to his own will, to declare the year as the Year of Human Rights and Human Dignity. It is reassuring that the procedure for registering cases under the blasphemy law has been streamlined to prevent its misuse, but is that enough?

The clerics have demonstrated their power to overawe state institutions. They may not agree among themselves on who is a Muslim and who is not but when it comes to the state they are militant enough to seek to enforce their view of morality and right and wrong. It is they who insist on how to define a Muslim, blasphemy, interest, jehad and amr bil maroof and nahee an il munkar. They have not hesitated to threaten and frighten superior courts, parliament and other state institutions.

True, no honest deputy commissioner would allow the institution of a blasphemy case on doctored evidence. But he also can not risk his job and possibly life by outright acquittal under the threatening gaze of clerics. The result would be prolonged inquiries, trial and even detention of the accused who may actually be innocent.

A solution to preventing misuse of blasphemy laws lies less in making the deputy commissioner hold a preliminary enuiry. Perhaps it lies in making the accuser liable for the same punishment for false accusation. Only the fear of retribution can deter a false accuser and protect the weak.

And the blasphemy law is not the only instrument used by frenzied bigots against the minorities and the weak The hudood ordinance, the qisas and diyat law and the law of evidence have also been employed against women by unscrupulous persons. The initiative falls far too short of addressing this critical issue of human rights and dignity of more than half of nation`s population.

General Musharraf announced the setting up of yet another commission on the status of women to recommend measure for the protection of their rights. Was there really any need for it?

A simple announcement that their family matters, inheritance and marriage, which were regulated by the religion and fiqa to which they belonged even under the British rule, would be governed by the religion and fiqah they profess would have been enough. All that is needed to be decreed is that in relation to the state women shall have the same rights as man.

Instead the General promised another commission. Caring Atiya Inayatullah who helped Musharaf with glass of water on the dais should have briefed him that a Commission of Inquiry had already been set up in 1995 to examine laws discriminatory to women. The Commission headed by that remarkable jurist Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid completed its work and submitted its report in 1997. Unfortunately the Sharif government did not even read it partly because it was set up by the rival previous government and partly because it would have displeased the clerics whom Sharif was keen to keep on his right side.

Justice Zahid`s Commission has already identified the various laws which militate against women including the human rights violations taking place within the privacy of the home and in situations where legal remedies are not easily available. His recommendations also included the setting up of the Status of Women Commission now promised by the General. Atiya should have helped the General with the report rather than with a glass of water. Central to human rights is the culture of tolerance and respect for the dignity of human kind. But the charter fails to address the issue of bigots preaching intolerance and spreading the virus of intolerance against minorities, women and the people of opposing sects. Central also is the issue to bring back the minorities into the mainstream of national life by doing away with the separate electorates and reverting to the system as envisaged by the founding fathers. But the charter failed to address it.

The General also promised that the charter would be in the ``framework of human rights as enshrined in true Islamic values``. One only hopes that his initiative does not get bogged down in the squabbling of clerics no two of who agree on what are the ``true Islamic values``

Further to my post #52, how come the Muslims of Kerala were able to co-exist for centuries with topless Nair women without being tempted but Muslim men in Muslim majority countries feel the need to cover up all women, not just Muslim women? Is it because the Sharia laws regarding evidence of rape requires four male eyewitnesses whereas civil laws would allow circumstantial and physical evidence to prove rape? Thus, the Muslims of Kerala are afraid of the civil laws and behaved even when confronted by topless women whereas Muslims elsewhere can hide behind the Sharia and rape with impunity.

Tibor # 124

``Do not defend anything in God`s name. God can defend himself. All those who need a book to help them defrentiate between right and wrong, their hearts and souls are dark and dreary as any hell. Kindness and considreation is not something that can be aquired from any text. It is either there or not. I fear a man with a bible more than a man with a gun. Take any religion, if they don`t have another religious group to kill in the name of God, they will kill each other in the name of God``

Most beautiful words I have read in a while on chowk posts.