Another One Bites The Dust

Aoa. U wrote a good article. If u doesn’t mind can u write about after university life?
I mean we got lot of knowledge from universities but after that did we give some thing about over society?
Thanks

Shandana I think you were being a bit naiive when you trusted him initially and expected him not to act like Zia.

Sattar,

I admire your faith. And patience.

Best regards,

Patrick

Zafar, PM, Saminashah,

Your kind, encouraging comments are very humbling … and much appreciated.

It is a travesty that Islam has been hijacked by the corrupt religious elements and disfigured beyond recognition. This religion once attracted the powerless, the down-trodden, and the innocents of the society … and is now sadly seen as a barbaric ideology by a significant part of the world.

It seems that the silent majority of Pakistan, who by large are respectable, peace loving folks … are all too occupied with daily hustle and bustle to devote much time/energy to sorting out the mess the mullahs have created. In absence of any structured resistance, the mullahs have gone on to define Islam for them and for the rest of the world. This will change one day … I have faith in Allah Almighty … the Living and Just God of the worlds.

Urstruly Sahib,

Another thought on the issue of ahadith … that you cite to support your position …

Admittedly, there are several ahadith that clearly mention (as commonly understood) a two thousand year old prophet residing in the sky … who will one day descend on the shoulders of two angels, fight the one-eyed monster riding a giant, fire-breathing donkey … Go figure!

Usually, when I raise this point … you become silent on the issue … and stop responding to my posts. So much for your belief in ahadith!

On the other hand, the Quranic verses that clearly negate your claim … also remain unanswered … while you continue to insist that you have addressed this issue. BTW, that bogus link you provided … does not shed any light on the Quranic injunctions either …

Zafar, PM, Saminashah,

Your kind comments are very humbling … and much appreciated.

It is a travesty that Islam has been hijacked by the corrupt religious elements and disfigured beyond recognition. This religion once attracted the powerless, the down-trodden, and the innocents of the society … and is now sadly seen as a barbaric ideology by a significant part of the world.

It seems that the silent majority of Pakistan, who by large are respectable, peace loving folks … are all too occupied with daily hustle and bustle to devote much time/energy to sorting out the mess the mullahs have created. In absence of any structured resistance, the mullahs have gone on to define Islam for them and for the rest of the world. This will change one day … I have faith in Allah Almighty … the Living and Just God of the worlds.

Urstruly Sahib,

Another thought on the issue of ahadith … that you cite to support your position …

Admittedly, there are several ahadith that clearly mention (as commonly understood) a two thousand year old prophet residing in the sky … who will one day descend on the shoulders of two angels, fight the one-eyed monster riding a giant, fire-breathing donkey … Go figure!

Usually, when I raise this point … you become silent on the issue … and stop responding to my posts. So much for your belief in ahadith!

On the other hand, the Quranic verses that clearly negate your claim … also remain unanswered

For the record,

I still stick by my characterization of Sheema Kirmani, based on both my personal experience at Yale University, and in the New York times...

-YLH

Ylh,

Ah yes, the old `switch and bait`...tiny qualified begrudging admission of possible incorrectness after you spent fifty posts clamoring up and down that said person was a liar and a b, and that we were all wrong and delusional...Sarwari may have been useful in your little temper tantrum agenda (and folks, wouldn`t THAT e-mail exchange have been interesting to read), but I don`t actually care....I`ve read your ``responses`` and I find them appropriate for someone your age and temperment.

Now you start bleating about other interactors who have not been one third as annoying as you have proved to be for two years straight. You`ll understand if no one`s interested.

Btw, IF you want people to stop misrepresenting your stances, I`d suggest you do the same. That means if other interactors write different perspectives you refrain from the childish name calling, and spamming of the boards.

Good luck and I wish you well in the future.

re. Samina Shah, Zafar, Sattar, #586

hear! hear!

Sattar bhai, I would have thought that the jerk`s ridiculous accusation that you were intent on cursing the Prophet would be enough to make you realize that you (and I) are dealing with a man (apologies to all men) who will stoop to any depths to `win` an argument, and that any further attempt at reasoning with him is a complete exercise in utility.

There are some folks you can reason with and some you just can`t.

regards,

PM

Re Urstruly,

Here’s some more on the topic of ahadith which are at times misused as basis for unfair practices by the mullahs. You quoted …



“… Keep in mind that Holy Prophet did punish people who disrespected him, it is well documented … “

I earlier mentioned that owing to human inclination to err, not all hadith can be considered accurate. Ahadith that conflict with Quranic injunctions, are frankly inaccurate and should not be followed. Also, as far as I know, there are several ahadith that contradict each other … and sometimes violate clear Quranic commandments! So, what should a Muslim rather trust? Works of men who narrated and recorded ahadith after 100 - 200+ years of the Prophet’s death … or the Word of Allah?

Now, it is conceivable that the Prophet (pbuh) had people punished for various anti-social activities. These people in turn probably also blasphemed the Prophet (pbuh). However, this does not establish the cause-and-effect equation where blasphemy is the reason why these people were punished.

To round things up … consider the following …

In verse 60 of Surah-e-Ahzab Quran advocates killing those who are “hypocrites, people whose hearts are diseased, and those who cause agitation in the City (by spreading rumors etc.)”. This verse is often cited by those who support blasphemy laws. A closer look at the context of this verse suggests otherwise.

The earlier verses of this chapter make it clear that the Quran is referring to the times of war, when the enemy has united against Muslims and is conspiring to annihilate them. In this particular case, it was the Battle of Ditches. Then, the kuffar of Quraish, some Bedouin tribes, and some Jewish tribes had united, attacked the Muslims, and conspired to finish them off. The title of surah, i.e. “Ahzab”, meaning “Confederates”, makes the context clearer. It is in such times that those who conspire against the Muslim community are to be slain.

In such a state of war, spreading rumors against the Prophet (pbuh), who was the central figure in this conflict … and also the commander-in-chief of the army … is not mere blasphemy … it constitutes anti-state conspiracies designed to annihilate the besieged, innocent Muslim community. In such times it is fine to severely punish, and even execute, those who resort to hate-mongering and spreading rumors.

Now read the quote from your reply … that I have reproduced at the beginning of this post. Hopefully, things will make more sense.

There are numerous ahadith where the Prophet (pbuh) forgave those who ridiculed and insulted him, tortured him, stoned him bloody, attacked his community with an army, and planned to kill them. Let’s not ignore these ahadith now … they too are “well-documented” … and above all, consistent with the message of Quran. The dear Prophet (pbuh) not only forgave them, but also prayed for them!

Frankly, it does not fit the profile of a person called Rehmat-ul-Alameen (Mercy for all the worlds) to go around killing people for merely blaspheming him. Such behavior fits a barbaric, ego-maniac, and I refuse to believe that the dear Prophet (pbuh) resorted to such practices. At the same time, Quranic injunctions clearly command believers to merely stop mingling with those who blaspheme against the signs of Allah or the Prophet (pbuh).

[[ May-17-02 22:55:26 EST Reply #: 563

saminashah

Progressive, (Pig Member Breath,)

What do you want from us khabees admi? Your opinions are not respected or wanted, your cut and pastes are slightly more intellectual than your puerile posts...you couldn`t string together a half comprehensible sentence if your life depended on it...why are you writing pathetic little posts to people who are actually debating a topic in a decent manner? Go curse yourself silly.``]]



Samina ;-)

ROTFL.NOW THATS FUNNY ...HA HA HA LOL

Hamidm

There more interesting stuff in that post, such as ``some confuse this with relativism or postivism``. Discerning the Eternal from the temporal, has been a challenege, not just for Ulema, but all of us.

In the material I had offered, in particular the work of Dr. Karl Popper and the understanding of ``method`` and the criteria of discern science from non-science - is ``one`` key to allow Muslims to negotiate the interpretation of Quran.

I very much agree, that there is to my reading, no explicit injuction - there is a warning about the evil and danger of not being ``present``, of escape - again some have confused this to mean to understand that those who drink are alcoholics and drunks.

I believe Temporal puts the smackdown as far as the article is concerned in his post:

``?The NY Times article published last friday is full of disinformation and misquotes. This reporter called from Islamabad and wanted to meet Sheema. It so happened there was a dance performance of her arranged by the horticultural society. So he saw the performance. Later he came over to Sheema`s place and had a kind of a social chat with her. During all this time he never took any notes! It appears that while in Pakistan he never switched on any Pak tv channels. There`s a 24-hour Indus Music channel which like V, MTV,MM,MMM does nothing but play songs and of course there`s a lot of dancing. The other 4 channels also have a big chunk of their time taken up by music and dances. During the referendum all day there were songs and dances. There are regular dance performances as well. Then culturally every wedding, be of the poor or rich has days of dancing prior to the Nikah. Hey why am I telling you this? This gora just poured out his hidden racist feelings and distorted vision about Pakistan.

Sheema had mentioned about:

1, dance being banned in !981 during Zia dictatorship;

2, The difficulties one faces to get an NOC an archaic law dating back to over 100 years;

3,and classical dancing a sort of dying art just as classical music because of today`s trends.

Sheema does not recollect saying certain things that he has quoted as if he was taking notes.This man made a story as if to dance in Pakistan is a grave criminal act! Officially this government has put a new life in Pakistan National Council of Arts (PNCA); giving them big funding. The PNCA has already organised whole evenings of dance performances. Sheema is directing the dance programmes. Every year national and international dance festivals are held in Karachi or Lahore or Islamabad. I have the copy of the article. It is very cleverly and well written except that it paints a largely false picture of the reality. Even the reporter demoted by two ranks Sheema`s father to Major! He was

Brigadier General?]``

If indeed, this is what Sheema`s stance is then I am wrong but the truth is that I have heard this woman speak at Yale and she made the same obnoxious claims there... So I doubt that your mutual friend is telling the truth.

-YLH

Since everyone is taken `Umbrage` to my justified and totally accurate characterization of Sheema Kirmani, I also must condemn others for their unprovoked and bigoted attacks.. in my last post I presented the case of saxena, whose posts are without exception always profane and Moronic...

Now I must condemn Akash`s post 568:

``But dont ever refer me to Ali1`s posts. I never bother to read the posts of that ba$tard.``

I hope all of the valiant crusaders for dignity will join me in this condemnation of Akash, thereby showing that their umbrage is not exclusive to Pakistanis alone...

-YLH

The reference in my last post was to #554..

samina shah,

You ask where I am.. I have responded in detail to you.. Perhaps you wouldn`t mind reading it. Dhoondhni parti hain posts.. look closely you will find my replies... As for sarwari, she works for CNN now and only at my request does she come here, otherwise, I don`t think she has time to waste especially on people she thinks are just not worth it.

Waisay I am amazed at the way, my statement against a `public figure` is taken to be so offensive, and I am accused of hurling abuses, which I admit of doing so in provocation and which is my inalienable right to do so if provoked, Rsaxena`s comments which are without exception always profane and moronic, are not only tolerated by the likes of you, but even encouraged, and embraced, not only against me, but when someone like Farzana Versey writes an article against say your beloved (undoubtedly male chauvinist par excellence) Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi aka Mahatma, and rsaxena goes on into his rampage against her.

I suppose they just don`t classify as `insults` right.. I mean `dipshit` is so much better !

temporal,

Point taken!

Mithuna,

The claim was made at Yale University on April 9th 2001.

Kashmir just the beginning in jihadis` vision of war

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - The deadly hand of jihadis appears finally to have stoked the fires of confrontation to such an extent that a clash between India and Pakistan is inevitable.

Indian and Pakistani troops exchanged what was described by Indian defense officials as unusually heavy border fire on Friday in the south of Jammu and Kashmir following the attack on Tuesday in Indian-ruled Kashmir in which 35 people died. India has blamed Pakistan-backed Islamic militants for the incident.

Jihadi sources say that the latest attack in Kashmir is part of a much broader plan to push India and Pakistan into conflict and to foment unrest from the Indian subcontinent to Central Asia in order to complete their unfinished agenda of creating a bi-polar world of Muslims and non-Muslims.

Long before the events of September 11, Islamists had begun to rally in the face of what they perceived as spreading United States hegemony in the post Cold War era. Washington, they believed, was set on the elimination of fundamentalist forces in South and Central Asia - basically the remnants of the jihadi movements that fought in Afghanistan, and which, ironically, the US supported and helped equip. At the same time, the US would counterbalance the increasing presence of China in the region, which was quickly emerging to fill the vacuum left by the demise of the former Soviet Union.

Islamic militants, battle-hardened in the mountains of Afghanistan, formed the core of the opposition to the US challenge. And foremost among them was al-Qaeda, a coalition of several militant groups with members in many countries, with its vision of a polarized world. After the US overran Afghanistan, the base for most of the jihadis, they shifted to Indian-held Kashmir, and to India itself, from where they plan to stir India and Pakistan into fighting that they reason will inevitably draw in the US.

Prominent Pakistani defense analyst, Colonel (retired) Ghafar Mehdi, says that the current situation between India and Pakistan suggests that India will try to occupy some strategic areas of Pakistani-administered Azad (Free) Kashmir. Tuesday`s attack has, in many people`s eyes, given India the right to do this, especially in the ``war on terror`` era.

Prominent analyst on international affairs and former chairman of the international affairs department of Karachi University, Professor Shamim Akhtar, explains further, saying that for the first time Pakistan is engaged on three fronts - in its own tribal areas (along with the US in looking for al-Qaeda and Taliban forces), on its northeastern border with India, and on the domestic front, where militants are agitating against President`s General Pervez Musharraf`s alliance with the US.

The failed attack to blow up the Indian parliament on December 13 was the beginning of jihadis` new war aimed at raising tension between New Delhi and Islamabad to boiling point. Although Pakistan has denied the involvement of any Pakistani-based militant groups in this attack, insiders have no doubt that they were involved. A widely-publicized crackdown against militants in Pakistan announced earlier this year was aimed at clipping the wings of the militants, but few people of importance were detained. Mostly rank-and-file group members or those who did not toe the government line were taken in. And when subsequently released, they agreed to stop cross-border activities.

Further, Pakistan`s Corps Intelligence, Military Intelligence (303) and the Inter-Services Intelligence have set out new guidelines for their contacts in the militant groups acting in Kashmir: they should act more like locals and sever ties with international groups such as al-Qaeda, and adopt more politics and less militancy. Those jihadis opposed to this have now made their base the whole of India, and once fighting does break out between Pakistan and India, their networks across India will be activated to play havoc with Indian interests.

This is the big game plan in which US and allied forces will have to become involved, and the battlefield will be from the Pansher Valley in Afghanistan to Kolkata in India.

Sattar 2, Zafar,

Hear hear! Don`t waste your time with said interactor; it will be an infuriating process (if and you`ll have learned very little beyond how to argue with political pathologicals...there are other interactors with whom you can have a more meaningful exchange of ideas with.

U.S. India-Pakistan Mission Fails to Ease the Standoff

By HOWARD W. FRENCH with CELIA W. DUGGER

SLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 16 — A senior American diplomat ended a two-day visit to India and Pakistan today aimed at reducing the military standoff between the nuclear-armed rivals but reported little sign of progress, saying ``this is not the work of one trip.``

The mission here by the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, Christina Rocca, came a day after an attack in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir that killed 34 people, mostly women and children, in a passenger bus and at an Indian Army barracks.

India quickly blamed Pakistan for sheltering the Islamic militants who it charged were behind the attack, and Pakistan condemned the killings almost immediately. But it was the kind of incident that diplomats fear could open a war between the two nations, which have a million troops facing each other on a hair trigger along their 1,800-mile border.

The risks of a conflict were also highlighted by a recent report that Pakistan`s military may have prepared its nuclear weapons for use during the last round of skirmishing between the two countries in Kashmir`s icy mountains in 1999.

``We`re very worried about the continued mobilization of two major armies facing each other at close proximity and the possibility of a spark that could lead to an unintended conflict,`` Ms. Rocca said in New Delhi this morning before leaving for Islamabad.

Once here, she met with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, as she put it, ``to explore ways with which India and Pakistan can move away from the dangerous confrontation that has characterized their relations`` since India mobilized troops after it blamed Pakistan-based militants for a suicide attack on its Parliament last December.

The attack on Tuesday placed more pressure on Ms. Rocca`s mission, as well as on India`s government for possible retaliation. In a sign of just how difficult her discussions in the two countries have been, Ms. Rocca today refused even to describe the substance of her talks.

Indian officials expressed hopes that Ms. Rocca would use America`s full influence to get General Musharraf to end what they charge is Pakistan`s continued support for extremist Islamic groups waging a holy war to drive India from Kashmir, India`s only Muslim majority state.

In January, General Musharraf banned several militant Islamic groups, including some that have sent fighters across the border into Indian-ruled Kashmir. Diplomats say that most of these groups continue to function, however, often simply changing their names.

``All that I can at this point say is that it`s a situation which calls for punishment,`` India`s defense minister, George Fernandes, said today at a news conference in Jammu. ``What that punishment should be is something that will need to be deliberated upon.``

But Pakistan`s information minister, Nisar Memon, today rejected responsibility for the latest killings. ``Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism,`` he said. ``We will not allow any group or organization to use Pakistani soil against any country.``

Reflecting the balancing act at the heart of her mission, Ms. Rocca strongly condemned the Kashmir attack while still in New Delhi, calling it barbaric. ``Acts like this are intended to undermine peace in the region,`` she said. ``I think acts that occurred in Jammu are terrorism.

``No matter what the levels are, infiltration must stop,`` she added, referring to what Indian officials say have been scores of incursions in recent months by Islamic fighters into its side of Kashmir.

But Pakistan is also essential to the United States campaign against Al Qaeda holdouts in Afghanistan and Pakistan itself. Mindful of those priorities, once she arrived in Islamabad this evening, Ms. Rocca expressed ``great respect`` for General Musharraf`s cooperation in fighting terrorism.

The report that Pakistan may have prepared its nuclear weapons during its last confrontation with India offered scant detail, but it provided new reason for caution during the current high tensions.

The report, by Bruce Riedel, who was special assistant to President Bill Clinton, was published by the Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania.

In it, Mr. Riedel says that Pakistan`s prime minister at the time, Nawaz Sharif, flew to Washington and met with President Clinton on July 4, 1999, desperate to find a way out of a conflict that threatened to turn into a full-scale war.

``Clinton asked Sharif if he knew how advanced the threat of nuclear war was,`` Mr. Riedel wrote in the paper. ``Did Sharif know his military was preparing their nuclear tipped missiles?``

In an interview today, Mr. Clinton`s national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, said that Mr. Sharif ``was surprised by the fact, or perhaps surprised that we knew the fact.``

The Pakistani prime minister pressed Mr. Clinton to act as a mediator, but the United States rejected that role, Mr. Berger said. Mr. Sharif agreed in any case to withdraw the Pakistani forces unconditionally, and the crisis was defused.

Asked about Mr. Riedel`s account, Mr. Berger noted that the United States was worried that neither India nor Pakistan ``understood each other`s doctrine or capabilities, and therefore misunderstood each other`s red lines,`` the actions that could prompt a nuclear response. Bush administration officials have said in recent months that they share the same fear.

Some experts and Indian military officials said today that they doubted Pakistan actually coupled its missiles with warheads. V. P. Malik, who was India`s army chief at the time, said he had no such intelligence, nor did the Americans share what they knew with India.

George Perkovich, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he, too, doubted that the Pakistanis went that far. They may have moved the missiles around, he speculated, as a way to grab American attention in hopes that the United States would intervene on Pakistan`s behalf.

But Mr. Riedel`s retelling, and Mr. Berger`s comments, indicated that President Clinton`s success in convincing Mr. Sharif to pull back from the conflict may nonetheless have averted a possible nuclear catastrophe.

``I thought that this was a very dangerous moment,`` Mr. Berger said.

Still Raw From Recent Attack, India Is Girding Itself for War

By CELIA W. DUGGER

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/international/asia/18INDI.html?tntemail1

EW DELHI, May 17 — Reacting to a terrorist attack on Tuesday that killed 32 people, most of them women and children, senior Indian officials said today that they were considering military action against Pakistan — which they blame for the attack — as well as punitive diplomatic steps.

As a fresh bombing and outbreaks of gunfire ratcheted up tensions in the disputed province of Jammu and Kashmir, a foreboding of war hung over this capital, where some in the government voiced bitter disappointment with the United States. These officials said America had failed to persuade Pakistan, an ally against terrorism in Afghanistan, to stop sponsoring terrorism against India in the five months since a five-man squad attacked the Parliament, killing nine.

Cabinet ministers will meet Saturday to discuss how India should respond to the attack on Tuesday. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is expected to consult with the political opposition next week and announce the government`s decision in a nationally televised address sometime later.

``The mood in the country is for some decisive action, and the government will have to respond,`` one official said. ``A war cannot be ruled out.``

Here in India`s capital and in Washington, diplomats and officials are trying to figure out whether India would actually risk a war with Pakistan, whose leaders have suggested over the years that they would use nuclear weapons if they felt Pakistan`s survival was at stake.

India is demanding that Pakistan stop training, arming and harboring extremist Islamic groups using Pakistan-held Kashmir as a base for fighting Indian rule in Jammu and Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority state in India. Pakistan denies the charges and says it has been a victim of terrorism itself.

A million Indian and Pakistani troops are now fully mobilized along their shared 1,800-mile-long border, a buildup India initiated after the attack on its Parliament. In addition to the fear that fighting between the nuclear-armed nations could spiral out of control, American officials are also concerned that war would disrupt the hunt for members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and jeopardize American troops stationed there.

As Pakistan denied its complicity, the Parliament in India today unanimously condemned the attack on Tuesday on bus passengers and the family quarters of an army camp and resolved to fight terrorism.

India`s Defense Ministry said the three gunmen were young Pakistanis, a fact it said it had deduced in part from the Pakistani cookies and chocolates found on the men`s bodies. The three were killed in a shootout on the outskirts of Jammu, winter capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir — a land that India and Pakistan have fought over for more than half a century.

With tensions rising, Indian and Pakistani troops exchanged heavy fire in Jammu today, leaving an Indian civilian and four Pakistani soldiers dead, officials said. Hundreds of families fled border villages in Jammu to escape the fighting.

In Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, a bomb exploded at a crowded intersection this afternoon with a deafening roar, killing 2 people and wounding 15.

In the Indian Parliament, some called for swift military retaliation against Pakistan, some for restraint, but the usually fractious legislature seemed nearly unanimous in assessing the danger that India faced and in identifying the culprit, Pakistan.

Madan Lal Khurana, a leader of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, argued for a strike on some of the more than 70 training camps for militants that Indian officials said have mushroomed recently in Pakistan-held Kashmir. ``Have a decisive war to teach Pakistan a lesson,`` he said. ``The prime minister said after the attack on Parliament that we would fight terrorism to the finish. I want to know how that will be done in practice.``

In an interview this morning, the hawkish home minister, L. K. Advani, was grim as he discussed his extreme disappointment with the United States and referred contemptuously to Pakistan`s military ruler, President Pervez Musharraf, as simply ``Pervez,`` unusual in a region where a head of state would rarely be stripped of honorifics.

Mr. Advani said he had repeatedly been assured by American officials — up to and including President Bush — that the United States would attend to India`s concerns about Pakistan-sponsored terrorism once Afghanistan had been dealt with, but that nothing had changed for India.

When the American ambassador, Robert Blackwill, visited Thursday, Mr. Advani said he told the ambassador: ``Suppose the Americans were to tell Pakistan that we are convinced you are continuing with cross-border terrorism against India, and unless you stop we`ll declare you a terrorist state? Consequences would follow that Pakistan just doesn`t have the guts to bear. I`m not able to understand why you don`t do that.``

Another senior Indian official said Mr. Advani`s views on the United States are ``shared by the entire top leadership.`` This official also said India had intelligence that Pakistan was planning to disrupt coming state elections in Jammu and Kashmir.

Elections perceived as generally free and fair are an important part of the government`s political strategy in Kashmir, he added — and a Pakistani attempt to sabotage them would be seen as provocative.

``We may have to do something which you will not like and which we would prefer not to do,`` the official said. ``I will not go beyond that.``

Asked if the government was just bluffing about its military threats, to light a fire under the Americans and get them to jawbone General Musharraf, the official said, ``No, you should take seriously what I said.``

Reply #: 565

Zafar Al-Talib to Sattar II

Well spoken. Comforting to know guys are in the world raising families, etc. and interacting in such a great way. Maybe the Sufis are coming back

through old souls. I`ve a suspicion that it`s the meditations of a few holding this crazy old world from flying apart...

Whither ylh and Aisha Sarwari?

saminashah:

samina, dont bother wrestling with a pig. You only end up getting dirty yourelf.

It is beneath you. Expend your ideas on people who are responsive without dismissing you as a kaanjri simply for holding your views.

-h-

More to come!

For those `muslims` promoting western-AIDS(aka `values`) it would be relentless and very discomforting.

Baighairti and nangaa unclish speaking heejraas & khusraas will be handled in accordance with their `class`.

re: saminashah

...jaane do....jaane do...do you try to reason with your walls (might have better luck, but still)?...then why bother with dip$hits like ylh, hobbyty, progressive, etc?...

re: PM # 571

The intolerant are the first to raise the banner of tolerance they are so ready to tear up when the tables are turned against them.

But no entity has a duty to let itself be killed. No tolerant person has a duty to tolerate the deadly intolerant.

There can be no compromise when compromise will result in the death of one of the two parties.

No society that has preached the dogma of tolerating the intolerant has ever remained anything but purely fascist in nature. Heck, that is what worries me most about India too...

Hello Samina

``Would you care to develop and further expand these thoughts?``

I ran across some information, I can`t remember where I had read it - but I thought it was insightful. Women factory workers, usually urban who must travel to a semi rural location for work - the work place and the work itself offers relatively significant opportunity of interaction with men, outside the family melieu - Immediately a level of skills, other than house work, that are marketable, that enable the conception of a measure of economic power and social ``independence`` - also accompanied with greater numbers of ``illegitimate`` births.

Also the emergence of house to house sales persons, usually women. If there is a great depth to the labor market, that is there is demand, there exist a greater recognition of the economic/financial contribution of working women - a recognition of power, a recognition of a certain circumspection it affords - not just outside the family, but most directly in the family. My wife`s mother raised 7 children as a widow and all have a college education and interestingly of the three daughters who were not married, one an architect, the next, my beautiful bride, a conductive education specialist for children with cerebral palsy and the youngest, a fashion designer and entrpreneur - if you think about it, all three Urdu Muslim types, froma very traditional Urdu Muslim type family, all significant contributors to the economic/financial well being of their family, in a depressed labor market like Pakistan -

The expanded or deep labor market lowers the cost of women`s emancipation - because it creates an awareness of the necessity of their labor and a consciousness of the value of their labor - So, to my way of thinking, women`s emancipation in societies such as Pakistan is directly related to how enabled women are to exploit opportunities in a deep labor market.

``I wouldn`t be as quick to stereotype women in what you term the ``elite`` classes.``

Granted, my comment is a generalization, and as such cannot but be a sterotype - but I think, over all it`s valid - it`s more true than less true.

``I also stand by my contention; that it is of great importance that women dialogue among themselves about political platforms before men get into the picture, esp. in Pakistan where, as Hamid pointed out seem use gender inequities as a mechanism of patriarchal control. This basic reality cannot be denied, even with a million cut and pastes of religious prevarication.``

No doubt that it is of great importance for women to dialogue among themselves - but reality is that there are men in most women`s lives - reality is that economic, social, sexual, political power rests primarily in the hands of men, in a society such as Pakistan. Denying this reality cannot help - acknowledging and using this reality will.

Reality of relations between peoples, between sexes, is primarily a negotiation of power or it`s perception AND it`s basis is how persons make a living (their relationship to work) - don`t you think? (see above paragraph)

If we are hard nosed, we can say that ethics is a lesser player - we are left with power - if we shall not include men in our power base, will we not be denying reality? There are men in the society, one can`t just ignore their existence nor the power they can exercise and negotiate.

hobbyty

``Yesterday, perhaps it was acceptable and good to give a girl of 15 years of age in marriage - today, it would be entirely unacceptable -would it not? Is this not evidence of a change in our understanding of the ``good``? ``

.... interesting.... and what about a girl who is six or nine or twelve - would that be an abomination then as well as now?....... and what if tomorrow, astaghfirullah, we discover that homosexuality is ``good`` ..... will we then accept it? ..... take my example - i have discoverd that a little wine is ``good`` and have found nothing in the koran that explicitly forbids it and, according to you, shariah is all heresay and therefore quite unreliable .... so i am a happy camper .....one day, i hope, feminists and gays will be just as lucky .........

AnNyjaaNy 569:

…how can I forget…just wanted to keep my response focused on nyt story … shhhhh…why did you have to mention…am always late;)…niilo is either already here or about to come here…will have her over for dinner and then perhaps after dinner watch that video…want to join?


Sammi:

…have said enough already on dance…

…last evening we were at this unique show…where the artist had covered the past 400 years of urdu poetry…where he had selected verses from the major poets and depicted them in his paintings…these paintings were ‘drawn’ on a pc…this was followed by a mushaira…the usual…wanted to ask the artist to put them up on a web site or contribute to chowk one painting at a time like the cartoon here…but there was too much hangama going on…perhaps later…

bspnd and love,

t

WHAT DID THE GOVERNMENT KNOW AND WHEN DID IT KNOW IT?

The task was simple, deny the evidence, cover-up the embarrassing arrest of two Israelis with an explosives-tainted truck, and give the media a reason to return to the mantra of ``all terror is caused by Muslims`` But what started as a simply attempt to spin the news away from the Israelis arrested in Washington State has backfired on the Bush administration in a big way. In conducting the classic ``limited hangout`` of admitting to foreknowledge of the attacks of 9-11 in order to reassert the link to Osama bin Laden, Bush has handed opponents of his administration and opponents of World War the most damning proof yet that the reality of 9-11 is not what the US Government and media have been telling the American people it is.

The arrested Israelis posed a problem. History records in the Lavon Affair that Israelis willingly use bombs and lay false trails to Arabs for political gain. And it wasn`t too long ago that JDL Chairman Irv Rubin was arrested for plotting to blow up a US Congressman who refused to toe the Israel party line. Then there were the two Mossad agents arrested inside the Mexican Congress with guns and explosives shortly after 9-11. As the battered World Trade Towers collapsed, the very first suspects arrested, caught cheering as the towers fell, were Israelis, later identified as Mossad agents. The arrested spies worked for Urban Moving Systems, whose Israeli owner promptly fled the nation. Still other espionage suspects posed as art students trying to get into federal buildings, while others held cover jobs in mall kiosks selling ``Zoom Copters``, kiosks that sat empty when their entire staffs were thrown into jail on suspicion of espionage. All told, the Israeli spy ring, which had been partly uncovered prior to 9-11, was the largest spy ring ever uncovered in the United States. In California, the ADL was convicted of running a massive spy operation on American citizens.

Coupled with the spies themselves was the discovery of a massive phone tapping operation carried out by yet another Israeli company contracted to place phone tapping equipment on the US phone system to aid US law enforcement authorities. However, those same authorities began to suspect that Israelis were using that very same system to listen in on the phone calls of Americans when high profile drug investigations into Ecstasy rings (run by the Israeli organized crime) were derailed using information only obtainable from police phone calls. In the Kenneth Starr report, it is reported that Bill Clinton was aware that an unnamed foreign power had made recordings of his phone sex sessions with Monica Lewinsky. In the end, three Israeli companies with deep penetration of the American communications infrastructure were implicated in the phone and internet tapping scandal. One of these companies, Odigo, had an office near the World Trade Towers, and received a two hour advance warning of the impending attack. Two hours means the warning was sent before the planes that eventually crashed into the World Trade Towers had even left the ground on their final flights! Someone knew of the plan, someone who decided they needed to warn Israelis working for a company linked to Israel`s spying operation.

Taken together, there is probable cause to investigate just what connection the Israeli spying operation had with 9-11. Such an investigation should have happened, but instead, something very odd took place in the investigation! According to a government official quoted in Carl Cameron`s story on the spy ring, the US Government classified the evidence that links the arrested Israeli spies to 9-11. Rather than treat the arrested spies as Jonathan Pollard had been treated, the US Government hurried to get the arrested Israelis out of the country as quickly as possible, in one case releasing and deporting one Israeli even though he failed his polygraph examination! Pollard had been just one spy. Here was the largest spy ring ever uncovered in the United States and the United States itself was trying to cover it all up! The media went along by downplaying the Rubin story, ignoring the Mexican incident and actually spiking Carl Cameron`s four part story on the spy ring.

As quiet as the media was about the evidence pointing towards Israeli involvement in 9-11, the media was quite the opposite when it came to claims of proof linking ex CIA agent Osama bin Laden with the crimes. The reason was obvious. Long before the attacks on the World Trade Towers the United States had been planning for a war in Afghanistan to create a climate more favorable for American oil companies. John Marcesca, as part of a UNOCAL working group on the Afghanistan pipeline project, had gone before Congress and stressed the necessity of replacing the Afghanistan government before a pipeline from the Caspian sea to the gulf of India could be built. Following 9-11, the US did replace the government of Afghanistan, and the pipeline is under construction. One member of the UNOCAL working group, Hamid Karzai, is the President of the new government in Afghanistan. Another UNOCAL group member, Zalmay Khalilzad, is the US special envoy to Afghanistan. A cozy relationship to be sure!

But there was a problem with the ``Osama did it`` story. As much evidence as existed suggesting Israeli involvement in 9-11 (certainly enough to justify being classified by the US Government), there was none at all to support the official story.

The 19 names of suspected hijackers released by the FBI don`t point to Afghanistan. They come from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates; all across the middle east without a focus in any one region. Indeed, even as the FBI was admitting that its list of 19 names was based solely on identifications thought to have been forged, Saudi Arabia`s Foreign Minister Prince Saudi Al-Faisal insisted that an investigation in Saudi Arabia showed that the 5 Saudi men were not aboard the four jet liners that crashed in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania on September 11. ``It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened,`` Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press in Washington after meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush at the White House. A sixth identified hijacker is also reported to still be alive in Tunisia, while a 7th named man died two years ago!

The 19 names of suspected hijackers released by the FBI don`t even appear on the passenger lists of the hijacked planes.

The FBI list of alleged hijackers

Crew and Passenger lists for the hijacked planes. None of the Hijacker names appear on them.

CNN reported that the men who hijacked those aircraft were using phony IDs, using the names of real people still living in Arab nations in the middle east.

In another development, the BBC reported that the transcript of a phone call made by Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic controls shows that the flight attendant gave the seat numbers occupied by the hijackers, seat numbers which were NOT the seats of the men the FBI claimed were responsible for the hijacking!

FBI Chief Robert Mueller admitted on September 20 and on September 27 that the FBI has no way to prove the true identities of the hijackers. Yet in the haste to move forward on the already planned war in Afghanistan, our government and the FBI (which does not have the best record for honesty in investigations to begin with, having been caught rigging lab tests, manufacturing testimony in the Vincent Foster affair, and illegally withholding/destroying evidence in the Oklahoma Bombing case) are not taking too close a look at evidence that points away from the designated suspect, the people living over the oil fields.

Yet another problem lies with the described actions of the hijackers themselves. We are being told on the one hand that these men were such fanatical devotees of their faith that they willingly crashed the jets they were flying into buildings. Yet on the other hand, we are being told that these same men spent the night before their planned visit to Allah drinking in strip bars, committing not just one, but two mortal sins which would keep them out of Paradise no matter what else they did. Truly devout Muslims would spend the day before a suicide attack fasting and praying. Not only does the drinking in strip bars not fit the profile of a fanatically religious Muslim willing to die for his cause, but the witness reports of the men in the bars are of men going out of their way to be noticed and remembered, while waving around phony identifications.

Because of the facts of the phony identifications, we don`t really know who was on those planes. What we do know is that the men on those planes went to a great deal of trouble to steal the identities of Muslims, and to make sure those identities were seen and remembered, then to leave a plethora of planted clues around, such as crop dusting manuals, and letters in checked baggage (why does a terrorist about to die need to check baggage?) that ``somehow`` didn`t get on the final, fatal, flight. This abundance of dubious evidence pointing to Arabs is the pattern previously established in the Lavon Affair.

More than an absence of proof linking 9-11 to Osama, the proof exists of a deliberate attempt to frame Arabs for terror attacks in the United States. The claimed proofs have all been dismissed as deliberate mistranslations bordering on frauds and in one case a (poorly) faked video tape. The Anthrax letters, written to look like they were from Arab Muslims are actually from a non-Arab source. This proves the existence of a deliberate plot to frame Arabs.

And yet the US Government is not interested in looking at any evidence that does not support the desired outcome.

The public is well aware of the facts that suggest deception on the part of the US Government. Documents declassified in 1994 prove beyond a doubt that Roosevelt not only knew Pearl Harbor would be attacked but that he encouraged and allowed it to happen to get the United States into a war they did not want. The public is well aware that the present government is as eager to get the US into a major war for the oil wealth of central Asia and the Middle East as Roosevelt was to get the nation he ruled into the war against the Axis. The public is well aware of ``Operation NORTHWOODS``, a previous plan by the US (spiked by JFK) to stage fake terror attacks to ignite a war against Cuba. The public is well aware that government throughout history have used fake terror against their own people as a tool of domestic policy.

In such a climate the arrests earlier this week of two Israelis in a truck that tested positive for explosives was sure to attract notice. The FBI moved quickly to quash the story, as protective of these Israelis as of the spy ring itself. Despite the fact that the story had taken almost a week to make the news, it was only after the story broke that the FBI rushed in to conduct their own tests and claim that the bomb dog, and the test sued by the local authorities were all wrong, there were no explosive traces, everyone had been fooled by residue from a cigarette lighter. Given the FBI`s documented frauds in the Vince Foster, OK City, and TWA 800 cases (not to mention the despicable history of COINTELPRO, including the Black Panther Coloring Book ,the smearing of actress Jean Seberg, the spying on celebrities, etc. ), it should come as no surprise that the companies that make the tests used to detect TNT and RDX report that neither tobacco nor butane will false-positive the tests they manufacture. So again the US Government was lying to protect Israelis, the public was aware of this lie, and this set the stage for the current debacle.

No sooner had the FBI given the official ``pooh pooh`` to the arrested Israelis and explosives-tainted truck than a distraction appeared. In order to remind the public that it is Arabs they are supposed to suspect for 9-11 and nobody else, the White House, knowing that another simple declaration of Osama`s guilt would gain no more traction, decided to create a ``confession`` of knowing in advance that the correct villain was behind 9-11 ahead of time, hoping that the public would find this ``confession`` more believable.

There certainly was cause to suspect government foreknowledge. Setting aside Odigo`s warning, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown had received a warning not to fly on 9-11, and Ashcroft had changed from commercial to much more expensive charter planes in July 2001.

But Bush`s attempt to steer public suspicion away from Israel and back onto the designated fall guys has backfired. The admission that there had been advance warning flies in the face of Ari Fleischer`s statement that there had been no warning at all just after the attacks In addition, the claim that there was advance warning contradicts Bush`s claim, repeated twice, to have initially thought the first plane hitting the tower was an accident caused by a bad pilot, a statement that in hindsight appears to have been a (poorly acted) attempt to sell the idea that 9-11 was a Pearl Harbor style surprise attack, even though it clearly was not.

The public, already aware it is being lied-to, is angry at the idea that government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming and like Roosevelt, may have allowed them to happen to further a pro-war agenda. Bush and his cronies, realizing they have hung themselves, are back peddling furiously, claiming now that while the warnings were sufficient to finger Osama bin Laden as the 9-11 villain, that the warnings were simply far too general in all other aspects to prevent the attacks. Yet Ari Fleischer`s briefing after the attack claimed to have detailed and specific information regarding the targets,. Dick Morris, in a Fox TV Interview, revealed that Bush had detailed records of financial transactions by all Muslims groups in the US dating back to 1993, used to justify seizure of their funds. Again, someone is lying!

Even worse, in trying to use this ``limited hangout`` to shift suspicion away from Israel and back to Osama, Bush has, probably without realizing it, sent a message round the world that the United States is weak, and that even with advance warning the US Government was totally outclassed by a small group of terrorists.

Bush and company are struggling to reaffirm the official story, that the US was caught by surprise, just as it was at Pearl Harbor, and the same Air Force that was able to intercept Payne Stewert`s plane just couldn`t seem to get off the ground while four hijacked planes wandered out to Ohio before heading back to hit their targets on the East Coast, and all the work if a tiny group of Arab fanatics.

And if you believe that, I have a watch to sell you.

``Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It`s classified information.`` -- US official quoted in Carl Cameron`s Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.

``By way of deception, thou shalt do war`` -- Motto of the Mossad

05/17/02 NOW LET`S CHANGE THE WORLD Time to make noise!

Urstruly Sahib …

You may deny it all you want … but you have not responded to the Quranic verses I quoted against the Blasphemy Laws. When confronted with these verses, you suggested that if Quran and hadith are not clear, consensus by the ullema should decide on an issue. However, in this case Quran is crystal clear.

If you responded to the verses in question (4:140, 6:68, and last verse of Chapter 13) … feel free to provide a link to your reply …

Ahadith were recorded by humans, as much as 100 - 200+ years after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh) … and therefore the authenticity of several ahadith remain dubious. If a hadith conflicts with Quran, it cannot be considered authentic. It is that simple.

You have also continued to ignore this point … Jesus was also put on the Cross through a “legal process” … so the Jews and the Romans must be right in crucifying him. Same applies to imprisonment of Gallileo for discovering planetary motion … correct?

In absence of concrete arguments to support your position, you are now accusing me of wanting to blaspheme the Prophet (pbuh). This is a shameful, blatant lie. I hold the Prophet (pbuh) in the highest regard … second only to Allah Almighty. I just do not want a person to be killed for blaspheming the Prophet (pbuh). Last verse of Chapter 13 clearly supports my position here.

You are yet to explain why you continue to ignore Quran and support such laws … and then claim these laws have Islamic basis.

Samina Shah:

Thanks for the informative post. Will try to get in a considered response over the weekend. Would you say that Hamidm`s point about your doctrine of exclusivity :) applying more to Pakistani culture than elsewhere is valid?

later,

best regards,

PM

re. Urstruly:

``But anyway, the question is the principle of the matter. If a law imposed by a dictator has hurt so many people, then what makes you think that the result of a law repealed by a dictator will be any different.``

Here`s a test for you. Go look in he mirror and repeat that sentence, trying to keep a straight face and actually BELIEVING what you`re saying. If your IQ/EQ permits you to do the above (I`m guessing it does), try asking yourself why the DEMOCRATIC polity of Pakistan hasn`t outlawed honour killings. Also, for good measure, ask yourself if you`d like to raise your family in FIS controlled Algeria (remember the DEMOCRATIC elections result there back in `92?).

``I want violence to end for good; that means both, the violence of people on people and violence of government on people and vice versa. It can only happen through a democratic process. Are you afraid of a democratic process?``

If you still don`t get the point, here`s it for you in plain English: You`re trying to apply a set of principles (democracy, in this case) to entites that are inherently undemocratic (read: most religions, with their stress, for better or worse, on sovereignity NOT lying with the people.) Add to that the potential for abuse by an ulema upon a largely uneducated populace and their self-interested representatives, and you get some idea why your word games simply reflect the shallowness of your mind.

So long!

P.S. You really should get out a little. I know of a really good shrink in Michigan(?) for the phallic fixated. Want help?

Patrick,

``Often enough I find progressives reposts quite interesting. But when you start seeing 2-3 on every page, each prefaced by wanton name-calling, you`d have to wonder about the guy`s intentions. Debate seems farthest from them.)``

Indeed. Its because Farangi Kush/Afaqui/Progressive has nothing to say that isn`t cursing, sicko name calling and soiling himself in the process. I will not play the martyr in this, and I don`t think anyone should.

In fact, I suggest that interactors who are offended by Afaqui`s toilet mouth should treat him with his own medicine until he slinks away like the cancerous vulture troll that he is.(apologies to vultures, cancer cells and trolls)

re: ``hahahah! you ARE naive my friend. Every time anyone has tried debating with the guy, he`s either answered with a volley of insults (ask Saima Shah)-- completely coopting any discussion, or, as in the case of my most recent rebut, chosen to ignore. So please, spare us the looking-for-discourse argument. doesn`t wash for a sec.``

Ah yes, Patrick and Hobbyty, lets see how our intellectual pygmy Afaqui has (apologies to pygmies) enriched our boards today. Has he been able to even understand or pretend (as you do so well, Hobby bhai)to engage with some of the issues on this board in an intellectually honest way? I`m afraid the answer is nahin nahin nahin. Today`s verbal diahrea (apologies to diahrea) calls feminist women ``sows`` and ``literature spewing`` and god knows what that pathetic piece of trash he`s penned means (apologies to trash)...I just scroll past the sad mess that follows his nicks...

But yes, Chowk Editors, please put a limit on how many articles a single interactor can post in a day, or something like that...

Temporal,

Very interesting interact. Would like to hear the responses of those who are dance interested...

t:

``Officially this government has put a new life in Pakistan National Council of Arts (PNCA); giving them big funding.

The PNCA has already organised whole evenings of dance performances. Sheema is directing the dance programmes.``

my two paisas t

the building we were in all of that week for the art workshop with that wonderful niilofer was the PNCA kee karachi building...also if you remember, during one of the late evening sessions, there was the sound of ghungroos throughout- that was sheema, fasih, and nighat chaudhry practising for a performance the next day...they had all spoken in the morning session (you were as usual late:0)) AND most importantly sheema and naheed siddiqie spoke extensively about how it was for them all these years...the older lady was in tears...but they spoke about how it was all changing and that this was to be one of the first (and pls ask me how bloody expensive)of many to come performances at/with the pnca and how finally dance in pakistan was going to be done without fear or retribution (if thats the right word)

Banjara

Okay I believe you. Then how come ylh called it ``Kathak``. May be Sheema practices Kathak, but the dance that is actually popular in pakistan is Khatak? Anyways since I trust your knowledge of India and Pak, what you say has greater chances of being correct. But dont ever refer me to Ali1`s posts. I never bother to read the posts of that ba$tard.

Progressive

What did including the life of Durer have to do with the post?

In What should be done, part of the post - it is suggested that Modern or present day Muslims do not understand Shariah - If you will consider an alternate view:

It is not so that modern or present day Muslims do not understand Shariah - Shariah has failed to remain relevent. This is tragic for Muslims. Shariah is man made as opposed to Quran - Shariah provides a structure or scaffolding or foundation, for society - yet, this structure is today rejected by Muslims by and large - Why?

If Shariah contains or imparts a morality, a sense of justice - why does not find acceptance among a majority of Muslims?

Consider, perhaps it is because the morality, the sense of justice Shariah imparts to modern or present day Muslims, represents a dysfunction or disharmony - our morality is is disharmony with our ethics. If you will consider the analogy of the wheat and the chaff - we must dispense with the chaff, the morality, the sense of justice that has become fossilized in Shariah -

Yesterday, perhaps it was acceptable and good to give a girl of 15 years of age in marriage - today, it would be entirely unacceptable -would it not? Is this not evidence of a change in our understanding of the ``good``? It is a great misunderstanding of Islam and of the dynamic nature of the society it proposes - Of course as you are aware, obscuritanists, in reality Utopians, influenced by Aflatoon and Marx as they are, seek to arrest society, they must by virtue of their ideology arrest change - change that is the heart of society as represented in Quran: Did not Musa worship the same God, did not the same God hod him as His beloved? Did not the same follow for Eissa and was this not also different from the understanding, the morality, the sense of justice, from that which prevailed in the time of Musa and is this sameness and difference reflected in His choice of experience for Mohammed (may Allah Bless him and shower him peace)? Shariah at a point ceased to become a evolving, changing, human endeavor and instead became a blue print that not only captures a morality and a sense of justice, but also culture specific to a particular geography, in time - perhaps this is the greatest misfortune to befall Muslims.

Yet the obscuritanist utopians claim Shariah itself is the equivalent of the Quran, that it is Divine, eternal, non-human - can anything be more vile than such a conception, what can be more arrogant, more objectionable?

Obscuritanist utopians argue that society is going from bad to worse, they argue that they have a blue print for the perfect society - is this not arrogance? is this not blasphemy of sorts? Because society is going from bad to worse - change must be arrested - because a perfect society is established, change must be arrested. In both cases, tyranny and a deep rooted anti-Islamic sentiment is at work.

These conceptions of ``closed`` society are in direct contradiction to the ``open`` society that is both the impulse of Islamic understanding and the study of social transformation. How? Islam offer the individual moral choices at any, every step, and as a requirement of conscience, these choices must be free - that is to say, the conception of society in Islam, is one that is INDETERMINATE - free will/free choice ensure it will remain indeterminate, that is subject to continuous change, in morality, in the sense of justice, depending on the conception of morality and justice, prevailing at any given time.

Many persons mistake this for relativism or positivism - yet they overlook the anchor of this continuous change is both religious faith and a rational conception of the ``good`` - at any given point in a circle, the distance to the center is the same, yet one point different from the other point. The religious faith, the center of the circle, the rational conception of the ``good``, the understanding enabling, negotiating, the transition from one point on the circumfrence to the next.

So what does this have to do with the understanding of feminism? The first point is that feminism by itself does not represent a movement that Muslims can regard with suspicion. Feminism is merely a change in the understanding of how women see themselves, their relationship to men and to work. Are there other ideas that travel in disguise, incognito, in this movement? without a doubt. Do these ideas challenge the traditional conception of family? without a doubt - these ideas seek to redefine the notion of family.

How should Muslims respond to the feminist movement? In my opinion, examine, accept and incorporate those understandings that do not conflict with the understanding of Islam and reflect the changes in how women view themselves, their relatioship to men and work - and dessiminate arguments to counter abominations such as homosexuality as rational,legitimate and acceptable choice in society.

YLH.

You said: ``but still don`t you think declaring outright that `Dancing is Prohibited by Pakistan`s law` is a huge lie?``

AND

You said: ``She said it is in Writing, in Penal Code of Pakistan that Dancing is Banned.``

Where has she made this specific claim ...and in writing? (I couldn`t find it in the NY Times article... see my reply 523 on this board. If it is from some other source, please point it out.)

To Sattar2

Sattar2

I have ``watched`` you argue the Blasphemy Laws and related issues with a certain person more times than I can recall. I am impressed by your knowledge, your logic, your use of language and your unfailing civilised behaviour in the face of...well, what can I say?

Let me also say that I think I recognise what drives you to take your stand so publically, and so decently, again, and again, and again. It`s the same thing which motivates me to respond to people who question my rights as an Indian because I am not Hindu. (I hope that you do not find this comparison offensive, that is not my intention.) Certainly you take your stand with a dignity and fluency that I wish I had myself.

Equally, I recognise the attitude in the responses you get (and I do not care if a certain person does find that offensive). The same self-aggrandising and self serving prejudice, the same intellectual dishonesty, the same refusal to even admit the possibility that a certain understanding of the world does not translate into an immutable fact which makes them ``more`` than you. One could let it go, if these were just the views of an individual, but these attitudes actually support (perhaps even encourage, certainly justify) discrimination, and violence, and death, and that, I think, is what drives you in your passion to enlighten and convince.

I realise that the positions of Pakistani Ahmedias and Indian Muslims are different in many, many ways. I admit that I feel Indian Muslims are more fortunate, for despite what prejudice (and far more, I`m not avoiding mention of Gujarat) that we face, at least the law does not discriminate (in theory, and though fact is not faithful to theory, is usually somewhat constrained by it). I also feel, on chowk and elsewhere, that I get far more active and regular support from many many decent non-Muslim Indians than I see you getting from decent non-Ahmedia Pakistanis.

There are some honourable exceptions (Yasser Hamdani and TAhmed among them), but I suspect that the others do not properly understand how you need to hear their voices. Perhaps they are not so aware that making their voices heard clearly and consistently changes the centre of gravity for the paradigm, and that even in a small environment such as chowk this is valuable. I also think that you deserve their support, and that they have a duty to give it, and to give it more generously than they seem to be doing.

I realise that our issues are in many ways different. Again, please accept my apology if you find the similarities I see nonexistent, or the comparison offensive.

Best regards

Zafar

Hobbyty,

re`` ``...It seems the rules one observes elsewhere do not apply in Pakistan, in particular, I have in mind the role of women of elite class - elsewhere, women from such class have been instrumental in creating public awareness - in Pakistan, it is the economic benefit and social interaction of women factory workers and women from less privelaged backgrounds that are effecting a change in values. It is in the process of industrialization and labor creation that those interested in effecting the emancipation of women ought to invest in. The deeper the labor market, the greater the opportunity and the lower the cost of the emancipation of Pakistani women.``

Would you care to develop and further expand these thoughts?

However, I wouldn`t be as quick to stereotype women in what you term the ``elite`` classes. I know quite a few who have spent their lives working together with women of rural and working classes on eco development projects. They seem to be quite cognizant of their class inquities.

I also stand by my contention; that it is of great importance that women dialogue among themselves about political platforms before men get into the picture, esp. in Pakistan where, as Hamid pointed out seem use gender inequities as a mechanism of patriarchal control. This basic reality cannot be denied, even with a million cut and pastes of religious prevarication.

Progressive, (Pig Member Breath,)

What do you want from us khabees admi? Your opinions are not respected or wanted, your cut and pastes are slightly more intellectual than your puerile posts...you couldn`t string together a half comprehensible sentence if your life depended on it...why are you writing pathetic little posts to people who are actually debating a topic in a decent manner? Go curse yourself silly...

Reply Hobbyty # 548

“Last 40 or 50 post we have not heard from progressive - who is served by limiting the field?”

It was too good to last. I wish he’d at least read some Fatima Mernissi before deciding on whom to plagiarise…

Samina (various interacts):

…anyone with professional integrity who has spent time in a major daily’s news desk knows about questioning the sources and quotes and firing off queries to the originating new-service or source…and i know some who have chosen to kill major stories if they are not satisfied rather than be one up on their competition…

…that is professional integrity…

…what she said or did not say intrigued me…and I sent out feelers…and received this feedback from a mutual friend who knows sheema and khaled and was a former director of human rights in pakistan…that i would like to share with you…



[…The NY Times article published last friday is full of disinformation and misquotes. This reporter called from Islamabad and wanted to meet Sheema. It so happened there was a dance performance of her arranged by the horticultural society. So he saw the performance. Later he came over to Sheema`s place and had a kind of a social chat with her. During all this time he never took any notes! It appears that while in Pakistan he never switched on any Pak tv channels. There`s a 24-hour Indus Music channel which like V, MTV,MM,MMM does nothing but play songs and of course there`s a lot of dancing. The other 4 channels also have a big chunk of their time taken up by music and dances. During the referendum all day there were songs and dances. There are regular dance performances as well. Then culturally every wedding, be of the poor or rich has days of dancing prior to the Nikah. Hey why am I telling you this? This gora just poured out his hidden racist feelings and distorted vision about Pakistan.

Sheema had mentioned about:

1, dance being banned in !981 during Zia dictatorship;
2, The difficulties one faces to get an NOC an archaic law dating back to over 100 years;
3,and classical dancing a sort of dying art just as classical music because of today`s trends.

Sheema does not recollect saying certain things that he has quoted as if he was taking notes.This man made a story as if to dance in Pakistan is a grave criminal act! Officially this government has put a new life in Pakistan National Council of Arts (PNCA); giving them big funding.

The PNCA has already organised whole evenings of dance performances. Sheema is directing the dance programmes.

Every year national and international dance festivals are held in Karachi or Lahore or Islamabad. I have the copy of the article. It is very cleverly and well written except that it paints a largely false picture of the reality. Even the reporter demoted by two ranks Sheema`s father to Major! He was
Brigadier General…]

love,

t

_________________________________________________

ps:

Yasser: (various)

…views are one thing…language another…sheema is your mother’s age…and her dedicated track record in the service of tehreek-e-niswaan and many other causes spans a longer time frame than your age!

…dissent as vehemently as you want but do not let go of decency at any cost…that is what distinguishes an ‘insaan’ from an ‘aadmi’…(you mentioned somewhere you are above all a ‘human being’…but this term does not fully do justice to ‘insaan’ aur ‘aadmi’…

YLH

What makes you think that I disagree with you.

PM

This was exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that post; but I was expecting it to come from sattar. But anyway, the question is the principle of the matter. If a law imposed by a dictator has hurt so many people, then what makes you think that the result of a law repealed by a dictator will be any different. I want violence to end for good; that means both, the violence of people on people and violence of government on people and vice versa. It can only happen through a democratic process. Are you afraid of a democratic process?

And since I have your attention, what happened to the cardinal of your parish, is he in the slammer or still dating you in the rectory.

Sattar

I have had a detailed debate with you, on the topic of Blasphemy Law, on the following thread. Your accustaion that I keep quiet on ``certain`` issues is a dileberate lie.

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?aamirali_aug1601


During a debate, usually you lower yourself down to a level where it becomes difficult for you to keep a decent discourse. I will debate with you some other time on this issue; I hope when you will be able to concentrate on the subject rather than my personality.

Keep in mind that Holy Prophet did punish people who disrespected him, it is well documented; and he also forgave people who mangled the corpses of his loved ones. The message simply is that, in order to create order in the society sometimes it is necessary to use a stern hand and sometime compassion is enough.

One thing I never understand, why you yearn so passionately to blaspheme him (pbuh). Why you find it difficult to have a decent discourse. There are no secrets, no taboos in his life, and his life is like an open book. No other personality in the history of mankind has been scrutinized so closely not just by his friends but also by his foes. There are no myths, no mysteries, no missing pages from his life. Everything is very well documented. The accounts of his life are not based on ``recently`` found scrptures and scrolls from caves and from under the seas. Most people who find faults in Islam find it through the writings of his staunchest diciples (by selective quoting, out of context presentation etc.)-the ahadith that describe his life. Does this openness bother you? Is that why you want to resort to insulting him?

And in case your point is that the Blasphemy Law has a potential to persecute people on the basis of their reliigious views, then is it a problem with the law or with the ``due process``. Virtually, any law of the land can be used to persecute anyone. For example, the POTA law of secular India is targeted right at the Muslims (problem is the due process). Or the string of laws in secular USA, based on the recently approved Protection of Freedom Act, which institutionalize the anti-Muslim bigotry and anti-muslim witch-hunt through neo-McCarthyism (problem again is that the targets are not given due process). Are you afrais of the due process?

samina,

there`s plenty more (silent) support where that came from...nowadays i just don`t have it in me to try and reason with people, i`d much rather eat something instead :) i read about bush being warned on salon.com, didn`t catch the story on the nytimes website...incidentally a reporter from the nytimes showed up at my workplace as well, wanting to meet young pakistani urbanites...we told him we didn`t know any. but he did stick around for a couple of hours, and sent a norwegian photographer to take pictures a few days later. and the photographer wanted to see what young pakistani urbanites did for fun...and we told him we didn`t have any. or rather we took him crabbing, and had lots of fun, and he told us how after his time in karachi he now felt people across the world had a totally distorted image of what pakistan was like. they thought it was a war zone populated by fundamentalist lunatics whereas everyone was so normal, nice and friendly and he`d tell everybody pakistan was a great place to live. then we dropped him off at his hotel (the sheraton) because he had a flight to ny the next morning. and the next morning the explosion outside the sheraton happened. thank god he was in the bathroom, the windows in his room blew in. i wonder what he`s saying about pakistan now.

sorry...rambling etc

anika zaidi (anita zaidi?),

ya know i heard that too :) never been on the mailing list though, just brought it up because of samina`s earlier comment about women needing a womens only space to talk sometimes. i guess the only foolproof way to do that is face to face, but if you`ve ever seen a katoy even that might not guarantee estrogen as the lead player :) the waddling gait gets more pronounced day by day, and old friends keep bursting into laughter when they see me :(

shandana

Re#538

Thank you cutandpaste

This is one hair raising cut and paste -- one won’t mind reading from beginning to end.

Riedel expose raises some very grave questions about Mr. Musharraf ‘s sanity, decision making process and strategic thinking.

Who is Mr. Musharraf? -- a diabolically cunning Chameleon – or a certifiable village idiot – someone like that fabled wood cutter Kalidasa – cutting the SAME branch that he was sitting on?

Mr. Musharraf committed some very serious treasonous crimes – when he prepared for secret nuclear war with India -- without informing the Prime Minister of the country. That idiocy and insubordination in this nuclear age is mind boggling – where does he come from?.

In Jay Leno famous question to Huge Grant – what the hell were you thinking – General?.

Then he had the gall to throw that government by force.

Nawaz Sharif was 100% within bounds when he FIRED this insubordinate and a very dangerous general.

Nawaz Sharif should have done it as soon he came back from Cinton’s meeting – he should have fired General Musharraf – or -- made him Corporral Musharraf -- on the spot right after reaching Islamabad -- for such a monumental breach of military discipline and insubordination.

I hope by now -- under the tight leash of General Tommy Frank and Bush’s tutoring -- Mr. Musharraf has wizened up to graduate from the Village Idiot to Poet Kalidasa.

If Mr. Musharraf past performances are any guide – the shorter the tenure of Mr. Musharraf “Presidency” – the safer Pakistan -- and for that matter the subcontinent -- will feel.

Someone on this board suggested sometime back that Mr. Mushrraf is a SECURITY RISK –Riedel’s column says Mr. Musharraf may indeed be a SECURITY RISK – for the whole subcontinent.

Reply Shah # 514

Deepka, ist hat you? Why you are pretend?

“And you yourself crying big crocodile tears…”

It is MEEEEwho iscry big tears.!!! W hy you donot take repsonbilty for jahil behaviours and APOLGISE IMMEDATELY?

Whyy ouare ignfore me, haiN? Iamalso humanbeng like you, I desarving better, more respact!

“IT DOESNT PROVE THAT I DID ANYTHING TO YOU OTHER THAN NORMAL CRTIQUE ,YOU CRIED & CHOWK FELT SAFE TO SIDE WITH YOU BEING WOMAN CLAIMING `THE PROTECTION PROVIDED & PRIVILEGED UNDER ISLAM`”

Yesyes, you7talking alltime BIG About being decant. Butif youar re so DECANT WH?YYOU ARE SLUNDER ME???? HAIN?

WHY YOU ARE WRITE LIESFALSEHOODAND NASTINESS ABOUT MEEEEE?

Billee sattar choohay kha kay haj kau chalee, thut is why.

You should apolgise, Deepka. Iam ask nicely.

MONKEYS UP TO THEIR USUAL PEA BRAINED BUSINESS OF OBFUSCATION:

Urstruly wrote:

``1. If some ulema have done Ijtehad and declared it UnIslamic, then in order to repeal this law, there has to be an Ijma`a, i.e. consensus after debate. In consensus the majority rules according to the Islamic injunctions. Where is the debate? where is the concensus? where is the assembly to reach the concensus.``

O Gee, how wonderfully democratic we are! Wonder where all this stress on Ijtehad, Ijma`a and consensus was when the frikkin` law was IMPOSED upon the people of Pakistan by a DICTATOR (yes yesm throught the aegis of his majlis) back in `85 (?).

But I suppose it is too much to expect chimpanzees to understand the concept of manufactured consent

Urstruly, here’s my response on blasphemy laws …

Before you hide behind “Ijtehad” and “Ijma” by the mullah ... be mindful that Islam is defined by Quran … and not by the consent of mullah! Implicitly you are suggesting that you do not have a clue of Islamic teachings on the issue of blasphemy … and count on mullah to decide for you. This I can believe.

Quran is clearly against blasphemy laws. I have repeatedly shown this … while you continue to remain silent. If you believe in Quran, then respond to the verses against such laws …they are 4:140 and 6:68 (Quran). Also, check the last verse of Surah-e-Raad (Chapter 13) for further clarification.

[You will probably continue to steer clear of Quran here. Your continued silence on Quran suggests that you do not have much of an argument here. Go ahead … prove me wrong if you can …]

So why do mullahs insist on unIslamic practices in the name of Islam? I can only guess … they are mainly interested in political power, and use Islam as a shield for their hidden agendas. By the same token, I also do not have any idea why they, and you, believe in a two-thousand year old prophet who will one day descend to earth and fight the one-eyed giant riding a fire-breathing donkey. Is this also Islam? Certainly not! Perhaps you can explain this to me [you will … if you have faith in your Islam].

Another point … that you have continued to ignore …

If consent of clergy is relevant and adequate in legal matters … then Jews and Romans were fully justified in putting Jesus on the Cross. Since there was no “counter-Ijtehad” or “counter Ijma” in favor of Jesus, therefore he was rightfully put on the Cross … correct?

In reality, the corrupt Jewish clergy feared Jesus for creating a revolution among the people, and conspired and charged him with blasphemy against God. They then pressured the reluctant Roman judge into passing the death sentence against Jesus. The parallel between “then” and “now” is striking!

Gallileo was imprisoned for stating that the earth revolves around the sun. Since the clergy consented against him, Gallileo must have been wrong! Or was he?

And finally …

Blasphemy Laws highlight the fanaticism that led earlier nations to their downfall. In the case of Islam, this fanaticism and jihalaat have caused Muslim nations to become backward, violent, and bankrupt.

Allah has not fallen asleep on the controls of this universe. Muslims nations in general, led by the mullahs, have rebelled against God’s commandments of compassion, human dignity, and morality. This is the reason why they continue to be humiliated all over the world … while they themselves are at a loss to explain what went wrong.

Urstruly

With all due respect

`Pakistan will not be a theocracy to run by priests with a divine mission` M.A.Jinnah

What do ulema have to do with Pakistan`s Governance... here is the point where you and I differ...

-YLH

Samina, anny,

Now I understand where both of you are coming from, but still don`t you think declaring outright that `Dancing is Prohibited by Pakistan`s law` is a huge lie?? I`ll explain how once more:

Samina Writes to Sarwari:

``Kirmani`s statement may be looked in in several contexts. If she says that dancing has been outlawed in Pakistani and it there is indeed no law in writing that has passed through Pakistani legal channels, my hazard is that she means that has gained such a social.....``

Again this is all not what she was saying. She has made a very specific claim. I gave her an opportunity at Yale to clarify herself but she did not ! She said it is in Writing, in Penal Code of Pakistan that Dancing is Banned.

She further continues in her post to Sarwari:

``I think the goal of any nation (and I don`t necessarily approve of the idea of a nation-state) is to encourage a diversity of thought within and outside its borders. Pakistan can of course remain hostage to terrible religious and military strongholds; but ultimately we all want a Pakistan that ylh envisions, with some fine tuning, of course.``

Agreed.. and I totally am for that. You are welcome in reading my articles and writings, and you will see that I more than anyone else want a diverse and multicultural Pakistan. Yet in another post you accused me of being a `Central Asian`wannabe... Was that Fair?

Seriously Instead of making condescending references to me, cracking up one me .. declaring that you find me laughable ... why not for a minute step down from the pedestal that you have placed yourselves on, and try to look at things from my point of view..

How long are the `Muslim collective` and the `South Asian collective` going to overshadow the legitimate interests of Pakistan? If think of Pakistan first is dysfunctional nationalism, than I am proud to be an adherent of it...

Hamidm,

Sheema Kirmani is a Liar. Had she spoken of the real problems that she faces as an artist, I would have gladly died for her right to dance but to make up stuff... Never will I ever accept a lie like this! I am sorry, unlike you I will not denigrate my country simply to look `Modern` and `Liberal`.. or to get a few laughs and endear myself to the Indians... Like any country Pakistan has its problems... they have been identified time, and again.. there is no question of arguing over that.

Call me hotblooded, stupid, bad tempered, `laughable`, crazy, mad, whatever you want to... But more important to me than my own person is the honor of Pakistan. After all, all of you cheer me on, when I do this to the Mullahs... is it fair for me to be tempered in my approach with fools like Kirmani?

-YLH

Akash # 526

``Banjara

How come you made a mistake about Kathak/Khatak.

So apparently it is not `khatak` as you claimed but ``Kathak``.

There is no mistake from my side.I still stand

by what I wrote,which is further co