French Not the Only Offenders on Hijab

malik #180 I am all for civilized dialogue, and civilized dialogue does not require agreeing on everything. While I am prepared to respond in a civilized manner to your latest post since that is the manner in which you have written it, I do so while remaining aware of the fact that you have not apologized for anything you wrote (not for the demeaning and abusive language you used, and not for twisting my words).

This, then, is my response:

You say what I originally wrote on the hijab issue was irresponsible and not something that a fair or balanced person would write. I beg to differ. This is what I wrote in my first post: ``Thus, as I understand it, muslim girls in France who refuse to wear the hijab and who dress in western clothes have been gang raped by ``muslim`` men as a way to keep them in line.``

The above is a statement of fact, not opinion. You may not have liked my pointing it out, and you may not have been aware of this, but that does not make this an irresponsible statement.

I should add that the above is NOT equivalent to saying (as you say I wrote) that ``women who wear hijab have been gang raped into it.`` It is of course reasonable to conclude that at least SOME of the women wearing the hijab are doing it out of social pressure (with gang rapes being an extreme form), but I did not draw that conclusion. And if I had done so, I would still not have been out of line since drawing logical conclusions from facts that are in the public record does NOT make one biased and unbalanced.

What WAS unreasonable was your responding to this statement of fact by calling me a slave of the west. And I was accurate in responding that this ridiculing someone as a slave of the west is a standard mullah technique of suppressing any contrary opinion or statement of fact. Thus, you may not consider yourself a mullah, but you certainly did a great job of writing like one.

While I appreciate your now trying to explain to me why the french are out of line, please note that I never said anything one way or another on that matter. (my original post was limited to the above point). So, I dont think I need to start a discussion on this broader issue (I am not an ahmedi incidentally, although i am furious at the way they have been treated by the pakistan governments from Bhutto onwards and at the jamaatiyas for hounding them.).

I hope you will understand upon reflection that while I disagree with you above, I have sound reasons for doing so. You said that was your final post, and so I will now leave off this discussion wishing you well in your real life.

Malik99 #180,

You had made this comment not so long ago on a different board :

``A language commission, similar to the one that Ataturk created in the 1920s should be set up in Pakistan. The purpose of the commission would be to bring our language more in tune with persian, central asian and arabic......Once we have made our language distinct from the hindi, our generations will be freed from the yoke of hindi films with white-wanna-be actors and actresses who serve as an opium for the tired, hungry and homeless masses.``

Meanderings of a liberal mind, perhaps ? Seems a bit more than that.

#180
malik, say what?
`` My problem with French govt`s decision is the selective enforcement of dress code, where it allows topless girls on beaches but does not allow others to wear hijab.``

They dont allow girls 2 wear hijab on beaches? Damned frogs @$#!

tahmed32 #178 - Now that you have calmed down, let me make a few points:

1 - You have tried to create a smoke screen of me being a `mullah` and thus lumping me with everything they stand for. If you knew me in person, which i hope one day you do, you would realise that I am anything but a mullah in my life. Infact, like you I share my hatred towards those illiterate religious ``leaders`` who use Islam to further their own agenda. You noticed that no where in my postings did I make any claim of having read the Quran or being an authority on any aspect of Islam (a claim you made several times).

2- I am a very liberal person. I have worked for ACLU in my college years. If a girl wants to express her belief by walking topless in street I will support her. By the same token, if a girl wants to express her beliefs by putting a piece of cloth on her head I will support that too. My problem with French govt`s decision is the selective enforcement of dress code, where it allows topless girls on beaches but does not allow others to wear hijab.

3- The reason I hit hard on you was because of your blanket irresponsible statement that women who wear hijab have been gang raped into it. THAT is not the comment from a `reformist` or even a fair and balanced person. It seems to come from a malicious person with little insight into what has made thoursands of educated, independent girls in west to chose hijab in the past decade. Many of these girls have given immense scarifice for their belief. A member of turkish parliament lost her seat because she wore hijab. Many girls in west lost their jobs for wearing hijab. None of them were gang raped into wearing hijab - something you claimed.

4- Lets assume that you are a qadiyani living in Pakistan. Now, that is your belief and you should be at complete liberty to practice it. What if I don`t like what you believe in, and to stigmatize your beliefs I tell you that you were beaten into being a qadyani by your dad, and that you need to be liberated (whether you like it or not)? I am sure you would love for the world to come to your rescue. THAT is the analogy you should keep in mind when you pass a blanket statement on those women who CHOSE to wear hijab.

This is my last post on this topic. I wish you well. I think you made the blanket statement about ``gang rape`` in the heat of the moment and may not have meant it. Lastly, I truly hope that you stand for freedom of expression - regardless of whether it is to your taste or not.

The French conception of citizenship/nationhood is actually very simple. I recall reading many years ago the comments of a French cabinet ministe (education? not sure of his portfolio) where he said words to the effect that ``France welcomes all immigrants as long as they accept the Gauls as their ancestors.`` That is, drop their ``foreign`` ways and become French. As long as you become ``French,`` you are welcome. So it is this willingness to fully adopt ``French`` foreigners that allowed someone like Leopold Senghor, a black African, to be elected the President of the Academie Francaise, probably the highest public honor possible for a French intellectual. The point of banning hijab, yamulka, etc, is that by wearing these symbols, one is explicitly saying that the Gauls are NOT my ancestors. That is, I refuse to become ``French.`` I think it is understandable why the French are not exactly thrilled by this.

Zahra #170 I am afraid this hijacking of islam by the mullahs is a more serious issue than you and many other pakistanis seem to think. Mullahism has reduced muslims from being part of the solution to becoming a part of the problem for themeselves and now for the rest of the world as well. We have failed to recognize and root this cancer out of muslim communities, and now the rest of the world is increasingly having to do it for us.

I have nothing personal against malik or anyone else on this board - but at the same time I refuse to pretend that this issue does not exist. You will notice his foul language and threats - and I have not responded in kind (except to remind him once that I will not be intimated by these standard mullah threats). In real life, it is the same threats that these people use to suppress any one daring to speak up to them. Women are reduced the status of cattle - and many of them go to their deathbeds fully convinced that they are in fact cattle and not human beings deserving of the same respect and opportunities as are available to males. They are the enemies of democracy, and arrogate for themselves and authority that God explicitly denied in the Holy Quran to prophet himself.

It is time we Pakistanis woke up to this evil in our midst and stopped pretending that the problem is not the mullahs but the rest of the world.

fuzair #145 Glad that you and I are on the same wavelength on this issue. Sorry for the delayed response (I got stuck in a polite and thoughtful discussion - ha! ha! - with mr malik99.).

gb #176 nice pictures. which one is pita ji?

PS: Sorry, but my quota for geniuses like you has been used up by malik for this week (after all, your pakistani fellow geniuses on chowk deserve some time too). so i will not be able to do further exchanges on this board.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

fountainheader #171 Thanks for providing the link to the girl who was gang-raped under the standard islamist pretense of imposing ``islamic values`` that I was referring to. You are quite correct in pointing out that malik is either really as dumb as he sounds or else is blindsiding the issues I raise.

IMalik`s posts on this board are the hallmark of the islamists: full of lies, hypocrisy, threats, and filth. They pose as muslims when in fact they are the antithesis of everything Islam is about - they make a mockery of Islam, and malik provides a clear example of how the islamists twist the meaning of the Quran as support for their deceipt. If malik truly was a God-fearing muslim, he would never have made a mockery of the Quran as he does in that post. And yet - it is these individuals, kafirs by any definition, who represent the public face of the muslims!!

It is time we muslims stood up to these scoundrels.

_digit #173
The article posted by nasah #94 talks of other religious communities having to face persecutions and massacres even, in the French state`squest to divorce religion from the state.

In this case, religious symbols have been banned only in government schools -which means that a girl can put on the hijab the minute she leaves the school gates. It is hard to see this as an attack on Islam. It is however an attack on Sikhism, since to comply with this law, those Sikhs who have chosen to be keshdhari, will have to violate their own mandatory religious observance.

I have read Mahathir Mohammed`s whole speech and I strongly disagree with you about it.

He clearly names Europeans and Jews as some of the enemies who are oppressing Muslims. He clearly says of all 1.3 billion Muslims `we are all oppressed, we are all humiliated`. India has 140 million Muslims, more than 10% of the world`s Muslims. So when he says `we are all oppressed, we are all humiliated` he means Indian Muslims too. So Hindus are the enemies.

He also means Pakistani Muslims who are another 140 million Muslims, another 10%. Who exactly is oppressing and humiliating Pakistanis?

He also means Bangladesh, another 120 million Muslims, another 10%. Who exactly is oppressing Bangladeshis? On the contrary it is Hindus who are forced to steadily migrate out of Bangladesh.

That is 30% of Muslims. Take Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, 200 million Muslims. 15% of 1.3 billion Muslims. Who the heck is humiliating and oppressing them? On the contrary in last few years, Christians and Hindus have been target of attacks from fundamentalist groups.

That makes 45% of Muslims.

Next you have Saudi Arabia and the Arab sheikhdoms. Do you know what Arab Sheikhs are doing at this time? Some of them are spending $20 million dollars odd each on houbara bustard hunting expeditions in Pakistan, a bird they hunt with falcons, custom built Mercedes and satellite equipment, followed by petrol tankers and refrigerator trucks. And that is when they are not donating billions of dollars for religious causes in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and other places or building huge amusement parks. Who exactly is oppressing and humiliating THEM?

Take Malaysia. One of the stronger economies in Asia, with a high rate of literacy and full sovereign rights over its own affairs. Malay Muslims have special privileges which other communities donot. Who is humiliating and oppressing Malaysian Muslims?

The fundamental Muslim-nonMuslim divide is implicit and explicit in his words. His exhortations are solely aimed at Muslims being unable to defend themselves in CONFLICT.

If George Bush had made such a speech exhorting Christians, you would be howling to high heaven.

btw, I donot like the mode of this discussion, I put up arguments/info and you get to simply say rubbish. So thanks for the discussion, I am done here.

Sadna wrote:

[Which particular values? That the French have turned their back on their values once Muslims are added to the equation is your interpretation only, for which you provide no basis. ]

Freedom of choice is a value shared by the French and other Western nations. It SEEMS like this value is being made secondary, or rather is being re-defined, in the name of defending the secular nature of France’s state. Fine. It is curious that after such a long time of allowing religious symbols, such as the Jewish Kippa, it is only recently that there is talk of ‘defending’ secularism by banning these religious symbols – a rather weak argument considering activities by the French government that can only be called inherently un-secular. That this ban coincides with a public anxiety over a flood of Muslim migrants into France is more than enough basis for my interpretation.

[Who are these `they`, the `detractors` and `oppressors` and `enemies`` of 1.3 billion Muslims that Mahathir Mohammed is talking of, 1.3 billion Muslims who are all humiliated, all oppressed? NonMuslims, that is who. ]

That’s obvious given the nature of his speech. A little bit of logic for you: the declaration of some non-Muslims as a threat is not the same as a declaration that all non-Muslims are a threat. I have no reason to believe that Dr. Mathir would include, say, Tibet, South Africa, or the Indians (to Pakistani dismey) in his qualifications of ‘they’, which given today’s context clearly refers to the Americans (“Today if they want to raid our country, kill our people, destroy our villages and towns, there is nothing substantial that we can do.hey bomb us, etc.”).

Needless to say, there is no double standard in what he says. He is all for the strengthening of Muslim states so that they will no longer be subservient to foreign interests. His particular ideas on how to do this may be flawed, but that’s not the point.

[ Instead of pointing out how Muslim governments(of which only 2-3 are democracies) need to be more democratic and responsive to their people`s needs, he talks of all Muslims getting ready for the defence of the ummah against nonMuslims and their governments. ]

Don’t be obtuse. Given the clear American aggression in Iraq (please don’t give me this Saddam was dictator nonsense, since that was not the reason why war was waged), his speech was most apropos given the contemporary world situation. If you bothered reading the rest of Dr. Mahtir’s speech, you would find that there was only one group he blamed for the Muslim predicament: Muslims themselves.

[The guy`s speech got a standing ovation from the Muslim heads of state there.]

Yes, because they understood what he was saying.

[Take even calls for war crime trials of Saddam. Arabs and Muslim world ... account for almost none of these calls...Now, if Saddam had been a nonMuslim, there would have, in contrast, been a lot of anger at his mass killings of Muslims, as is seen wrt Bosnia.]

If you mean to imply that Muslims recognize Saddam as a mass killer, and accept his brutish nautre on account of his being a Muslim, then you are out to Lunch. If you are pointing out that Muslims are easily deluded into thinking a person is `good` because he has a Muslim name, then you have a valid critisism. That, though, is not an example of duplicity.

Also, I do not recall a single Muslim country championing a course of action on Milosevic. In typical 3rd world style, they were content with what the power brokers deemed reasonable. There is no double standard here. Rather, a pathetic consistency.

[Angry Muslims didnot go to Iraq to fight a jihad against his government, as they went to fight the jihad in Bosnia. ]

Actually, OBL’s (is he enough an angry Muslim for you?) primary grief with Saudi was that they called in the Americans, in lieu of a rag-tag Muslim army lead by OBL himself, to subdue Saddam. And yes, despite this there were a plethora of obscure Muslim groups out to get Saddam.

malik #168 So, according to you when I write that ``muslim girls in France who refuse to wear the hijab and who dress in western clothes have been gang raped by ``muslim`` men as a way to keep them in line. `` that is equivalent to saying that these women were raped by their own brothers and fathers!!

You would need the brain of an ass to believe this!!

And aside from the stupidity of what you write, you have the nerve to falsely refer to the Quran to support this absurd assertion!! This is one more illustration of the mockery you mullahs make of the Quran and as such one more proof why you mullahs cannot be considered muslims and that you make a mockery of Islam which you have hijacked with your own gutter mindset. The more you write, the more evidence you provide of the primitive and hypocritical mindset of the mullah.

I`ll ignore the rest of your rubbish.

Tahmed and Malik99:

Your scholastic interacts are amazingly inspiring. On glancing through your interacts, I had hard time figuring out the actual audience of the hijab ban under discussion. Then I went back to the article and discovered that women were mentioned by the esteemed writer somewhere around line 15 or 16. That could have caused further confusion. Just a clarification: In my humble opinion, the writer`s context dealt with women`s hijab :)

I understand the snow and wind chill has a bad effect on many moods, but that does not mean that you stop going to your respective gyms and start playing kick boxing on
Chowk`s Interacts.

Happy Snow Season & Wind-Chill!

malik99

I don`t know if you really are that dumb as to not comprehend what tahmed is saying or if you are deliberately blindsiding the issue.

When you make one rape allegation on an innocent girl who chooses to wear hijab

ehh? How is rape an allegation on a girl?

There have been several well documented cases of gang rape being used as a tool for intimidation of many Muslim women in France by many Muslim men. Here`s a link for you from TIME -

Sisters In Hell

Sexual assault is rampant in France`s crumbling housing projects. Now a gang-rape victim has broken the silence. Will society confront the crisis?

A few excerpts

``From the moment a girl steps outside, guys think they have the right to pass judgment and treat us differently. In extreme cases, this leads to violence or aggression.``

Banlieue males may adopt the lifestyles of other French youths — pop music, fast cars and pornography — but they also frequently embrace the traditional prejudices of their immigrant parents when it comes to women: any neighborhood girl who smokes, uses makeup or wears attractive clothes is a whore. Bellil`s attackers targeted her because she dressed as she pleased, mixed with males and liked to dance — and had begun a romance with another teen.

In most cases, the perpetrators don`t seem to realize that they`ve committed a grievous crime. ``They share around girls the way they do a CD or a sweater,`` Bellil writes in her book, a view echoed by Gilbert Collard, a lawyer representing a gang-rape victim from Orléans. ``We`ve allowed a subculture to develop with its own codes and references that have made sexual violence a banality,`` he says. Adds Pierre-Olivier Sur, the attorney of the victim in the Argenteuil trial: ``In this case, the attackers had no consciousness of having broken laws, of having raped a girl. Not only did they deny any wrongdoing, they accused the victim of being a $lut.``

``We`re seeing increased insults of young women wearing jeans, a rise in forced or arranged marriages, more young women obliged to drop out of school and a greater incidence of polygamy,`` she says. ``There comes a point when women must say, `That`s enough.```

``It`s to tell girls that they can survive and see justice done,`` she says. ``And also to urge mothers to break with this infernal vicious cycle of the all-powerful male. It drives me crazy to still hear women say, `Ah, that girl went looking for it.```


So you see, malik, this is what tahmed as referring to.

You can either accept the reality, and think of solving this, which is a much bigger problem for French muslims than a ban on wearing a scarf for 7 hours a day in a public school.

Or you can choose the easy cowardly way out, by terming the above article and the book mentioned in it a fabrication, and a Hindu-Jewish-Neo-Con conspiracy.

It is which choice people like you opt for that will determine the progress of the Muslim community.

tahmed32 # 163: You asked me to cut and paste your previous post. This is what you wrote:

#36 by tahmed32 on January 22, 2004 5:56pm PT
Thus, as I understand it, muslim girls in France who refuse to wear the hijab and who dress in western clothes have been gang raped by ``muslim`` men as a way to keep them in line.

There. Now you have been proved a certified liar on this board. If you were a real man, you would slap yourself so hard that your ears would bleed. As per the Quran that you claim to have read, muslims are brothers/sisters to each other. THAT is the context in which i used the term brothers. When you make one rape allegation on an innocent girl who chooses to wear hijab, 100 fingers will point towards your sisters and what/how they dress.

And again, here is the height of your illiterate way of communicating. You read ONE article, SOMEWHERE on the web, that talked about SOME girl SOMEwhere who says that she was gang raped into wearing hijab. And you take that ONE example and make an allegation that ALL muslim woman have been gang raped into wearing hijab. No wonder you were calling everyone pea-brained, because you yourself are dim-witted and the product of a poor educational system.

You are the worst of the breed of slaves. As for your threats regarding how you would treat me if i were to come to Pakistan, only shows your real mentality. We all know now what kind of ``reformist`` muslim you are. With this kind of mentality, we don`t think you are a stable enough person to lecture anyone on anything, much less on the gigantic topic of reforming islam.