A Journey Through Our Conscience
sajal javid April 7, 2005
#97 Posted by temporal on April 9, 2005 9:52:22 am
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#96 Posted by echoboom on April 9, 2005 9:43:57 am
Is this not what we are looking for?
where faith and gender intersect
Excerpt:
Shahla Haeri, an associate professor of anthropology and director of women`s studies at BU, is a hybrid of a different sort, an Iranian-born Muslim who said her family accepted both tradition and modernity, a possibility she hopes to share as a panelist. ``So many people are interested in knowing about Islam, and yet they know so little about it or are misinformed or disinformed,`` she said.
In Iran, where she lived before coming to the United States in 1968, her father was a an ayatollah and a university professor with a tolerant outlook toward other faiths, she said.
Haeri`s grandmother always wore a traditional veil, but Haeri did not put one on in front of her father. ``People often ask me, didn`t you feel conflicted? No, I did not. It was such a natural part of growing up.``
: More on Shahla Haeri
Shahla Haeri is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology and the Director of Women`s Studies at Boston University. She has written extensively on women, law and religion in the Muslim world, and is the author of Law of Desire: Temporary Marriage, Mut`a, in Iran (1989, 1993). She has conducted fieldwork in Iran, Pakistan, and India, and among her writings on this topic is ``Obedience versus Autonomy: Women & Fundamentalism in Iran and Pakistan.`` Presently, she is writing a book on the relationship between Pakistani women, law, religions, and politics.
Excerpt from an interview:
So going to Pakistan, after having grown up in Iran, where women are required to veil, did you find Pakistani society to be a little more liberating?
This is really very interesting. If I ever get a chance I will write about it [laughing]. You know, before the revolution, of course, [Iranian women] didn’t veil. So we had the experience of not being [forced] to veil. Women wore skirts and sleeveless dresses. So I was brought up under [those] conditions... When I went to Pakistan, on one level I found it liberating, in the sense that I didn’t have to wear the veil [head scarf and long overcoat]. But in another sense I found it very oppressive. Even more so than what you may find in Iran under the present conditions. That is very paradoxical! Because in Iran once you have [on] the veil, the scarf and the long robe, you can basically go anywhere and do anything. Where as in Pakistan, even though I was always dressed in shalwar qameez, if I were to walk out on the street [by myself], I would be stared at. It was apparently something not done. And then, of course, I realized that many of the Pakistanis [from] upper-middle class and middle class have drivers who drive them around. Karachi is a little bit different, in Karachi it was okay but Lahore was oppressive on some levels.
where faith and gender intersect
Excerpt:
Shahla Haeri, an associate professor of anthropology and director of women`s studies at BU, is a hybrid of a different sort, an Iranian-born Muslim who said her family accepted both tradition and modernity, a possibility she hopes to share as a panelist. ``So many people are interested in knowing about Islam, and yet they know so little about it or are misinformed or disinformed,`` she said.
In Iran, where she lived before coming to the United States in 1968, her father was a an ayatollah and a university professor with a tolerant outlook toward other faiths, she said.
Haeri`s grandmother always wore a traditional veil, but Haeri did not put one on in front of her father. ``People often ask me, didn`t you feel conflicted? No, I did not. It was such a natural part of growing up.``
: More on Shahla Haeri
Shahla Haeri is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology and the Director of Women`s Studies at Boston University. She has written extensively on women, law and religion in the Muslim world, and is the author of Law of Desire: Temporary Marriage, Mut`a, in Iran (1989, 1993). She has conducted fieldwork in Iran, Pakistan, and India, and among her writings on this topic is ``Obedience versus Autonomy: Women & Fundamentalism in Iran and Pakistan.`` Presently, she is writing a book on the relationship between Pakistani women, law, religions, and politics.
Excerpt from an interview:
So going to Pakistan, after having grown up in Iran, where women are required to veil, did you find Pakistani society to be a little more liberating?
This is really very interesting. If I ever get a chance I will write about it [laughing]. You know, before the revolution, of course, [Iranian women] didn’t veil. So we had the experience of not being [forced] to veil. Women wore skirts and sleeveless dresses. So I was brought up under [those] conditions... When I went to Pakistan, on one level I found it liberating, in the sense that I didn’t have to wear the veil [head scarf and long overcoat]. But in another sense I found it very oppressive. Even more so than what you may find in Iran under the present conditions. That is very paradoxical! Because in Iran once you have [on] the veil, the scarf and the long robe, you can basically go anywhere and do anything. Where as in Pakistan, even though I was always dressed in shalwar qameez, if I were to walk out on the street [by myself], I would be stared at. It was apparently something not done. And then, of course, I realized that many of the Pakistanis [from] upper-middle class and middle class have drivers who drive them around. Karachi is a little bit different, in Karachi it was okay but Lahore was oppressive on some levels.
#95 Posted by echoboom on April 9, 2005 9:17:11 am
Kind of strange isn`t it that the ones Moose the goose hates the most are always at the forefront where their voices are heard.
This is a sign of the times. The Ba Ba Blacksheep always approves of anything that has an ``imported`` label on it. The Dunkin`-Delusionals are always at the wrong place at the wrong time. This is what happens when you acquire plastic-plant ``education`` and you continue to nourish it with imported water. How come only Rushdiks are sprouting.
And then wonder how come those from the madressas are so bright--even when it comes to writing & speaking english.
First hijab-wearing Muslim MP contesting election in Briton
First hijab-wearing Muslim MP contesting election in Briton
LONDON,
April 4 (Kashar News): The anti-war Respect Party is calling on the
people of Birmingham, central England, to support its candidate Salma
Yaqoob to become the first hijab-wearing Muslim to be elected to the
British Parliament.
``Can you imagine the impact it will have from Fallujah to Palestine to
Kashmir to Pakistan?`` said Respect leader, George Galloway, who set up
the anti-war party following his expulsion from Labour over his
outspoken criticism of the invasion of Iraq.
``All over the world, people will see walking into the House of Commons
with her three small children and her wonderful husband, a Muslim woman
in her hijab standing proud and standing up for what she believes in,``
he said.
Yaqoob, who chair the Birmingham Stop the War Coalition, was chosen as
Respect`s prospective parliamentary candidate for the city`s Sparkbrook
and Small Heath constituency, which has Britain`s largest Muslim
population.
``The very first Muslim woman to walk into the House of Commons and sit
there by you, can you imagine the achievement that will be and how that
will cheer people all over the world?`` Galloway told a local meeting in
Birmingham on Sunday.
``What a blow that will be for (Prime Minister Tony) Blair, who killed
so many women who looked like her - to be haunted by her on the benches
in the House of Commons. It would be a blow from which he would never
recover,`` he said.
Yaqoob, who was born in the northern English city of Bradford but lives
in Birmingham, is contesting the traditionally safe seat held by Labour
MP, Roger Godsiff, with a 16,000 vote majority.
Galloway described Godsiff as having ``the worst-ever`` record of
participating in parliamentary debates over the past century and done
nothing to represent the people`s interests.
People like Godsiff regard Muslim families, like Yaqoob`s of Pakistan
descent, as ``foreigners, as `Pakis`, as `immigrants from whom we`ll
soak votes if we`re lucky and when it suits us we`ll kick them in teeth
before we stab them in the back`,`` he said.
At the last election in 2001, no less than six Muslim candidates
contested the seat, where there is an estimated 27,000 Muslim voters.
The Liberal Democrats, which opposed the Iraq war, have also declared
that they are fielding a Muslim candidate, Talib Hussain, but further
nominations are expected.
Respect, which is contesting the general elections for the first time,
has so far chosen candidates, including nine other Muslims, in 26 seats
selected out of a total of 659 constituencies.
Galloway himself is standing in London`s Bethnal Green and Bow, where
he is considered to have an outside chance of ousting Labour`s Black
Jewish MP, Oona King, who in 2001 challenged voters to unseat her if
they disagreed with her support for the Iraq war.
But as in Birmingham, the biggest disadvantage is the danger of
splitting the vote among opposition parties in Bethnal Green, which has
Britain`s highest concentration of Bangladeshi Muslims.
This is a sign of the times. The Ba Ba Blacksheep always approves of anything that has an ``imported`` label on it. The Dunkin`-Delusionals are always at the wrong place at the wrong time. This is what happens when you acquire plastic-plant ``education`` and you continue to nourish it with imported water. How come only Rushdiks are sprouting.
And then wonder how come those from the madressas are so bright--even when it comes to writing & speaking english.
First hijab-wearing Muslim MP contesting election in Briton
First hijab-wearing Muslim MP contesting election in Briton
LONDON,
April 4 (Kashar News): The anti-war Respect Party is calling on the
people of Birmingham, central England, to support its candidate Salma
Yaqoob to become the first hijab-wearing Muslim to be elected to the
British Parliament.
``Can you imagine the impact it will have from Fallujah to Palestine to
Kashmir to Pakistan?`` said Respect leader, George Galloway, who set up
the anti-war party following his expulsion from Labour over his
outspoken criticism of the invasion of Iraq.
``All over the world, people will see walking into the House of Commons
with her three small children and her wonderful husband, a Muslim woman
in her hijab standing proud and standing up for what she believes in,``
he said.
Yaqoob, who chair the Birmingham Stop the War Coalition, was chosen as
Respect`s prospective parliamentary candidate for the city`s Sparkbrook
and Small Heath constituency, which has Britain`s largest Muslim
population.
``The very first Muslim woman to walk into the House of Commons and sit
there by you, can you imagine the achievement that will be and how that
will cheer people all over the world?`` Galloway told a local meeting in
Birmingham on Sunday.
``What a blow that will be for (Prime Minister Tony) Blair, who killed
so many women who looked like her - to be haunted by her on the benches
in the House of Commons. It would be a blow from which he would never
recover,`` he said.
Yaqoob, who was born in the northern English city of Bradford but lives
in Birmingham, is contesting the traditionally safe seat held by Labour
MP, Roger Godsiff, with a 16,000 vote majority.
Galloway described Godsiff as having ``the worst-ever`` record of
participating in parliamentary debates over the past century and done
nothing to represent the people`s interests.
People like Godsiff regard Muslim families, like Yaqoob`s of Pakistan
descent, as ``foreigners, as `Pakis`, as `immigrants from whom we`ll
soak votes if we`re lucky and when it suits us we`ll kick them in teeth
before we stab them in the back`,`` he said.
At the last election in 2001, no less than six Muslim candidates
contested the seat, where there is an estimated 27,000 Muslim voters.
The Liberal Democrats, which opposed the Iraq war, have also declared
that they are fielding a Muslim candidate, Talib Hussain, but further
nominations are expected.
Respect, which is contesting the general elections for the first time,
has so far chosen candidates, including nine other Muslims, in 26 seats
selected out of a total of 659 constituencies.
Galloway himself is standing in London`s Bethnal Green and Bow, where
he is considered to have an outside chance of ousting Labour`s Black
Jewish MP, Oona King, who in 2001 challenged voters to unseat her if
they disagreed with her support for the Iraq war.
But as in Birmingham, the biggest disadvantage is the danger of
splitting the vote among opposition parties in Bethnal Green, which has
Britain`s highest concentration of Bangladeshi Muslims.
#94 Posted by hamidm2 on April 9, 2005 8:37:02 am
Re: # 92
temporal mian,
......... i think my sister has the right approach ........ there is something terribly wrong with these mullahs - most of them are women haters and child abusers ......... in the last one year my brother has gone through three maulvi sahibs who insisted on twisting my six year old nephew`s ears or pinching his stomach while teaching him the koran - the poor kid is traumatized and is visibly disturbed at the sight of a bearded man ...........
......... maybe that is why god invented daisy-cutters .........
temporal mian,
......... i think my sister has the right approach ........ there is something terribly wrong with these mullahs - most of them are women haters and child abusers ......... in the last one year my brother has gone through three maulvi sahibs who insisted on twisting my six year old nephew`s ears or pinching his stomach while teaching him the koran - the poor kid is traumatized and is visibly disturbed at the sight of a bearded man ...........
......... maybe that is why god invented daisy-cutters .........
#93 Posted by Romair on April 9, 2005 7:55:43 am
Perhaps someday, people will realize that the best way to take on someone is to beat them at their own game. Not to try to just beat them (though that can work in individual situations). If you want to talk to an American Evangelist nutjob on why he is cheering the killings in Iraq, you cannot start quoting Quranic verses to him. You have to point him to the Pope and the Bible...........
If you want to talk with a Pakistani maulvi nutjob, you can`t point him to Gloria Steinam. You have to play his game. Argue it out in his field. In an area in which he claims expertise. And for heaven`s sake don`t try to give a religous fanatic an argument based on Secularism. That is almost as dangerous as givin a Secular fanatic an arugment based on religion.
It is impossible to interpret Shariah in a consistent manner. There can be no single interpretatino of the Quran, specifically because of the way it is written. And because it does not recognize religious clergies. This is probably why Muslims never had the same kind of Inquisitions and powerful Popes, which forced the Christians to give up on religion, all together. This is also why even the most anti-Islam Muslims, rarely change their religion.
The problem starts when one group, or person, tries to force his interpretation on others. It is an easily solved problem. Debate the religion with such a person, and you will soon realize that person is just blowing hot air. I have debated Islam, on so many occassions, with Urstruly, Naqshbandi etc. And every single time, they have run away from the discussion. 100% record...........
The other solution is to abuse, fight and attack. This usually feeds the monster. The more you abuse Fox TV, the more powerful it becomes. And the more its loyalists unite. This is the case with any kind of fanaticism including the religious brigade............
Those who think they have life and the world figured out for everyone (not just for themselves) - be the from the religious side or the secular side or any other side - are a most dangerous species. And they tend to do the most studying also. Because they are motivated by a fanatic and empowering desire to impose their own system on others. And they are more than happy to twist history - be it from Jinnah or Bukhari.
So beating them at their own game requires some effort. But it can be done............
If you want to talk with a Pakistani maulvi nutjob, you can`t point him to Gloria Steinam. You have to play his game. Argue it out in his field. In an area in which he claims expertise. And for heaven`s sake don`t try to give a religous fanatic an argument based on Secularism. That is almost as dangerous as givin a Secular fanatic an arugment based on religion.
It is impossible to interpret Shariah in a consistent manner. There can be no single interpretatino of the Quran, specifically because of the way it is written. And because it does not recognize religious clergies. This is probably why Muslims never had the same kind of Inquisitions and powerful Popes, which forced the Christians to give up on religion, all together. This is also why even the most anti-Islam Muslims, rarely change their religion.
The problem starts when one group, or person, tries to force his interpretation on others. It is an easily solved problem. Debate the religion with such a person, and you will soon realize that person is just blowing hot air. I have debated Islam, on so many occassions, with Urstruly, Naqshbandi etc. And every single time, they have run away from the discussion. 100% record...........
The other solution is to abuse, fight and attack. This usually feeds the monster. The more you abuse Fox TV, the more powerful it becomes. And the more its loyalists unite. This is the case with any kind of fanaticism including the religious brigade............
Those who think they have life and the world figured out for everyone (not just for themselves) - be the from the religious side or the secular side or any other side - are a most dangerous species. And they tend to do the most studying also. Because they are motivated by a fanatic and empowering desire to impose their own system on others. And they are more than happy to twist history - be it from Jinnah or Bukhari.
So beating them at their own game requires some effort. But it can be done............
#92 Posted by temporal on April 9, 2005 7:37:53 am
this for brother brotheruddin hamidm only:
when will you discover the delusional nature of mr. ntsyed?
i have been interacting with him on two boards and on both boards he has been twisting words, making unwarranted assumptions and when i point that out ...in trying to wriggle out digs himself deeper and deeper in things that come out of paper/parchment eating goats...
#91 Posted by Romair on April 9, 2005 7:29:14 am
Corina #81: ``Rumair: I dont think it is just the responsibility of women to stand up against injustice targeted at women.``
I am not saying it is just the, ``responsibility`` of the women. What I am saying, however, is that practically speaking, they are the ones who will have to take their rights. They need to take the initiative. They shouldn`t expect others to give it to them, or get them for them. This is how it always works. The group that is suppressed has to fight it out, for themselves. No one ever voluntarily gives anyone their rights.
I am just defining a real life situation and solution. Not the ideal solution. And I don`t think women should wait around hoping that someone else will give their rights to them..........
I am not saying it is just the, ``responsibility`` of the women. What I am saying, however, is that practically speaking, they are the ones who will have to take their rights. They need to take the initiative. They shouldn`t expect others to give it to them, or get them for them. This is how it always works. The group that is suppressed has to fight it out, for themselves. No one ever voluntarily gives anyone their rights.
I am just defining a real life situation and solution. Not the ideal solution. And I don`t think women should wait around hoping that someone else will give their rights to them..........
#90 Posted by ntsyed on April 9, 2005 7:08:32 am
It`s ironic that the anti-Sharia crowd can`t see the obvious written statements by Ustruly and Romair that they are just as against the current form of Hudood ordinance as everyone else, including myself.
The other thing that eludes this crowd is that this alone, even if perfectly stipulated in the big scheme of Pakistani hodge-podge law, could not be expected to function to its maximum potential to benefit the people.
Why?
Because, the judiciary has to be supported by the legislature, the law enforcement, and the people. Unfortunately, no none of them support this, or any law for that matter, in a positive manner.
In order to effectively implement the Shari`a, the current traditional political bandits, traditional mullahs, and the law-enforcement have to be removed and/or rehabilitated. Although, I prefer outright removal.
Women, children, elderly, as well as a common man, particularly victimized ones, need to be protected by all of the aforementioned. As one lady has righty pointed that it`s not just women`s job to standup to the injustices, both men and women have to work together. The police and legislature also have to do their parts with sincerity. Like Urstruly said, police is wrong to imprison and charge the victimized women when their claim of rape is unproven. The policeman who does that needs to be severely punished. The legislator who turns a blind eye to such corruption needs to be punished equally severely, if not more. The people that witnesses who do not testify need to be held accountable. Most importantly people will have to implement the Shari`a individually on themselves, and only then can expect the other parts of the society to support them. Women can`t walk around unveiled and expect not to be harassed by ill mannered men. Similarly, men can`t go around harassing women just because they`re not veiled.
The problem with the incident reported by Urstruly is that kalashnikovs can be very intimidating for common folks to prevent them from testifying against the perps. Not to mention, commonly such perps are also very well connected in the law-enforcement and legislature, and I can testify to that from my personal experience, at least the law-enforcement part. That`s why they are able to do whatever they want with impunity in broad daylight.
Secondly, the shari`a cannot prosecute a man without evidence, as is the case in any country. The simple reason being, the charge could be fraudulent if there were no witnesses. If there were witnesses, then the judiciary and law enforcement need to protect the witnesses as well as the victim.
The ladies on this board should think of a scenario in which their fathers, brothers, husbands, or sons were falsely accused of rape by a woman? Would they still want the law to prosecute them if these men couldn`t prove their innocence? Please think about it rationally, not emotionally.
The point is that true Shari`a law maintains a balanced approach, so neither party could abuse it. The half-assed implementation of this Hudood law is the main reason men of influence are able to abuse the women, as urstruly and romair have made abundantly clear.
Shari`a is not flawed; it`s the entire machinery of corrupt government which does not allow ANY law, shari`a or secular, to be implemented and enforced properly.
The question is, should we abandon the Shari`a altogether and introduce even more openness into the society, or implement Shari`a in its entirety to ensure protection and justice for all?
In my personal opinion from my study of the western ideals of openness, openning up the society will further exacerbate the situation; especially when the legislature and law enforcement are brazenly corrupt and the populace is scared out of wits. The simple fact of life is that openness causes more vulenrability than security. It will exploit the people, especially women, in ways that we cannot even imagine. Some of my Indian friends tell me that in colleges there, the situation due to openness is such that girls have to get hooked up with a guy or two and provide services in exchange for protection. How much of that is true, I don`t know. But from my experience in the west where date rapes and every conceivable kind of rape is more common than anywhere in the planet, it is a very likely possibility.
Therefore, a comprehensive implementation of Shari`a - not just hudood as its token - is deperately needed here. The first thing true Shari`a accomplishes is the prevention of crimes, as was the case with Taliban even though there may been flaws in their implementation of Shari`a, there were almost no crimes during their reign. It remains the case in KSA, where several of key Shari`s components are missing, very little crime persists as compared to other nations. In both cases, women were/are much more safe at homes and outside, people were/are able to walk around openly with wads of money without any fear of mugging, to name just a couple.
Such prevention is achieved first with the behavior, dress codes, strict measures against authoritative corruption, etc. The second and equally important factor is severe punishements for the offenders.
The only thing is that women will not be able to go out without proper hijab (as prescribed in the Quran) - including the abaya, not just the headscarf - and men will have to keep their gazes low even if a woman is not following that dress code. It is only for the law enforcement to pursue the people in violation of the codes. Others can only report it and cannot take the law into their own hands, except in self-defense.
People think that implementation of Shari`a tomorrow will redden the five rivers with blood. To the contrary, just the nastiest of perpetrators need to be meted out severest sentences according to the law - i.e. public flogging, execution, etc - will keep the rest of the wannabe criminals from pursuing their perverted fantasies.
But that kind of system needs a full-fledged grass-roots revolution, which is already brewing contrary to what people may believe. It`ll not be the fazloos to lead such a revolution. I think they will be the first to be done away with. People are just as much tired of the pseudo gora laws and their corrupt proponents as they are of fake mullahs who exploit Islam and their constituents just to step into the President or Prime Minister`s residence.
The other thing that eludes this crowd is that this alone, even if perfectly stipulated in the big scheme of Pakistani hodge-podge law, could not be expected to function to its maximum potential to benefit the people.
Why?
Because, the judiciary has to be supported by the legislature, the law enforcement, and the people. Unfortunately, no none of them support this, or any law for that matter, in a positive manner.
In order to effectively implement the Shari`a, the current traditional political bandits, traditional mullahs, and the law-enforcement have to be removed and/or rehabilitated. Although, I prefer outright removal.
Women, children, elderly, as well as a common man, particularly victimized ones, need to be protected by all of the aforementioned. As one lady has righty pointed that it`s not just women`s job to standup to the injustices, both men and women have to work together. The police and legislature also have to do their parts with sincerity. Like Urstruly said, police is wrong to imprison and charge the victimized women when their claim of rape is unproven. The policeman who does that needs to be severely punished. The legislator who turns a blind eye to such corruption needs to be punished equally severely, if not more. The people that witnesses who do not testify need to be held accountable. Most importantly people will have to implement the Shari`a individually on themselves, and only then can expect the other parts of the society to support them. Women can`t walk around unveiled and expect not to be harassed by ill mannered men. Similarly, men can`t go around harassing women just because they`re not veiled.
The problem with the incident reported by Urstruly is that kalashnikovs can be very intimidating for common folks to prevent them from testifying against the perps. Not to mention, commonly such perps are also very well connected in the law-enforcement and legislature, and I can testify to that from my personal experience, at least the law-enforcement part. That`s why they are able to do whatever they want with impunity in broad daylight.
Secondly, the shari`a cannot prosecute a man without evidence, as is the case in any country. The simple reason being, the charge could be fraudulent if there were no witnesses. If there were witnesses, then the judiciary and law enforcement need to protect the witnesses as well as the victim.
The ladies on this board should think of a scenario in which their fathers, brothers, husbands, or sons were falsely accused of rape by a woman? Would they still want the law to prosecute them if these men couldn`t prove their innocence? Please think about it rationally, not emotionally.
The point is that true Shari`a law maintains a balanced approach, so neither party could abuse it. The half-assed implementation of this Hudood law is the main reason men of influence are able to abuse the women, as urstruly and romair have made abundantly clear.
Shari`a is not flawed; it`s the entire machinery of corrupt government which does not allow ANY law, shari`a or secular, to be implemented and enforced properly.
The question is, should we abandon the Shari`a altogether and introduce even more openness into the society, or implement Shari`a in its entirety to ensure protection and justice for all?
In my personal opinion from my study of the western ideals of openness, openning up the society will further exacerbate the situation; especially when the legislature and law enforcement are brazenly corrupt and the populace is scared out of wits. The simple fact of life is that openness causes more vulenrability than security. It will exploit the people, especially women, in ways that we cannot even imagine. Some of my Indian friends tell me that in colleges there, the situation due to openness is such that girls have to get hooked up with a guy or two and provide services in exchange for protection. How much of that is true, I don`t know. But from my experience in the west where date rapes and every conceivable kind of rape is more common than anywhere in the planet, it is a very likely possibility.
Therefore, a comprehensive implementation of Shari`a - not just hudood as its token - is deperately needed here. The first thing true Shari`a accomplishes is the prevention of crimes, as was the case with Taliban even though there may been flaws in their implementation of Shari`a, there were almost no crimes during their reign. It remains the case in KSA, where several of key Shari`s components are missing, very little crime persists as compared to other nations. In both cases, women were/are much more safe at homes and outside, people were/are able to walk around openly with wads of money without any fear of mugging, to name just a couple.
Such prevention is achieved first with the behavior, dress codes, strict measures against authoritative corruption, etc. The second and equally important factor is severe punishements for the offenders.
The only thing is that women will not be able to go out without proper hijab (as prescribed in the Quran) - including the abaya, not just the headscarf - and men will have to keep their gazes low even if a woman is not following that dress code. It is only for the law enforcement to pursue the people in violation of the codes. Others can only report it and cannot take the law into their own hands, except in self-defense.
People think that implementation of Shari`a tomorrow will redden the five rivers with blood. To the contrary, just the nastiest of perpetrators need to be meted out severest sentences according to the law - i.e. public flogging, execution, etc - will keep the rest of the wannabe criminals from pursuing their perverted fantasies.
But that kind of system needs a full-fledged grass-roots revolution, which is already brewing contrary to what people may believe. It`ll not be the fazloos to lead such a revolution. I think they will be the first to be done away with. People are just as much tired of the pseudo gora laws and their corrupt proponents as they are of fake mullahs who exploit Islam and their constituents just to step into the President or Prime Minister`s residence.
#89 Posted by rahul_capri on April 9, 2005 7:06:28 am
Re: # 87
Thanks, for a considered response.What I have come to conclude is that there are not one but two basic assumptions or faiths; the existence of Allah and the perfection of Allah, or that allah is good, and that He cannot prescribe anything wrong.and that the concept of ``goodness`` or ``perfection`` can exist outside or prior to the belief in all what Allah says.From these two(Existence of Allah and perfection of Allah) follow the conclusion that whatever Allah said must be believed.It may have been implicit, but for the comprehension of a non believer like myself, I thought I would break it down. Thanks again.
Thanks, for a considered response.What I have come to conclude is that there are not one but two basic assumptions or faiths; the existence of Allah and the perfection of Allah, or that allah is good, and that He cannot prescribe anything wrong.and that the concept of ``goodness`` or ``perfection`` can exist outside or prior to the belief in all what Allah says.From these two(Existence of Allah and perfection of Allah) follow the conclusion that whatever Allah said must be believed.It may have been implicit, but for the comprehension of a non believer like myself, I thought I would break it down. Thanks again.
#88 Posted by hamidm2 on April 9, 2005 6:42:40 am
Re: # 60
ntsyed sahib,
......... i almost missed your silly question since you somehow managed to put poor kaalchakra`s name on it - a mullah pretending to be a sadhu ! ......... there is no end to your devious ways !
......... anyway, you asked what i would do if i heard someone admiring mrs hamidm or my lovely daughters ..... the honest answer is: ``nothing``; unless he was a lewd, crude and rude red-bearded mullah ...... why? ... because mrs hamidm herself would be flattered - the woman spends a small fortune on hairdressers and botox and it would be rather disappointing if nobody noticed !
...... and even when it comes to sex-crazed mullahs, i really don`t have to do anything because most women i know can take care of themselves .............let me tell you a story that should put the fear of al-lah in you :
........a few years ago, on a hot summer evening when wapda had decided to carry out its daily ``load-shedding`` exercise, my sister and i were trying to cool off by walking outside her house in islamabad .......... it was hot, muggy and still - one of those days when not a leaf stirred and sweat just poured down your back and you wanted to walk into a wapda office and kill everyone in sight ..............my sister, who had left her dopatta behind, rolled up her sleeves and proceeded to hike her shalwar up to her knees just as a red-bearded mullah with his dirty white shalwar hiked above his ankles, a topi on his head, and a bedsheet on his shoulder, walked by on the other side of the street ......... suddenly, the man crossed over and started berating my sister for not being dressed properly.........he started, `` aap ko sharam nahin aati ......aurat ka is tarah ghar say bahar nikalna theek nahin hai .... huzoor nain farmaya hai .......``
.... whack!.......before i could say anything the poor guy was reeling from the slap that had terrorized me as a child and, later, my two neices and nephews as they were growing up .........the man was a scrawny little guy, with beady eyes and henna-red beard and my sister, at five eight and hundred and fifty pounds (mashallah!) was more than a match for him...........``ullo kay pathay ! haram zaaday ! teri yeh majal``.......... the poor man backed off a bit and started, ``bhaighartee ki hadd hotey hai !``........ then he looked at me and said, `` jab aadmi apni aurat ko smbhal na sakay ....``............whack! and this time she used the dreaded ``b`` word ......``bh%$n c%#@ !...... dafa ho ja warna jaan say jaye ga``......... i started to feel a little sorry for the poor tortured soul and grabed my sister`s arm as she picked up a brick ``........... ``maulvi sahib, aap jayen, warna yeh aap ko jaan say mar dalay gi``......... the man, his cheek still smarting from the slap and looking a little bewildered, walked away reciting ayat-ul-kursi or whatever it is that mullahs recite to keep the women away ...........
.......... ``aik to garmi itni hai, oopar say in logon ki bakwaas sunni parti hai,``she said as she walked away hiking her shalwar even higher ............. ``she needs to loose a little weight,`` i thought..... but, of course, i didn`t say anything ..........
ntsyed sahib,
......... i almost missed your silly question since you somehow managed to put poor kaalchakra`s name on it - a mullah pretending to be a sadhu ! ......... there is no end to your devious ways !
......... anyway, you asked what i would do if i heard someone admiring mrs hamidm or my lovely daughters ..... the honest answer is: ``nothing``; unless he was a lewd, crude and rude red-bearded mullah ...... why? ... because mrs hamidm herself would be flattered - the woman spends a small fortune on hairdressers and botox and it would be rather disappointing if nobody noticed !
...... and even when it comes to sex-crazed mullahs, i really don`t have to do anything because most women i know can take care of themselves .............let me tell you a story that should put the fear of al-lah in you :
........a few years ago, on a hot summer evening when wapda had decided to carry out its daily ``load-shedding`` exercise, my sister and i were trying to cool off by walking outside her house in islamabad .......... it was hot, muggy and still - one of those days when not a leaf stirred and sweat just poured down your back and you wanted to walk into a wapda office and kill everyone in sight ..............my sister, who had left her dopatta behind, rolled up her sleeves and proceeded to hike her shalwar up to her knees just as a red-bearded mullah with his dirty white shalwar hiked above his ankles, a topi on his head, and a bedsheet on his shoulder, walked by on the other side of the street ......... suddenly, the man crossed over and started berating my sister for not being dressed properly.........he started, `` aap ko sharam nahin aati ......aurat ka is tarah ghar say bahar nikalna theek nahin hai .... huzoor nain farmaya hai .......``
.... whack!.......before i could say anything the poor guy was reeling from the slap that had terrorized me as a child and, later, my two neices and nephews as they were growing up .........the man was a scrawny little guy, with beady eyes and henna-red beard and my sister, at five eight and hundred and fifty pounds (mashallah!) was more than a match for him...........``ullo kay pathay ! haram zaaday ! teri yeh majal``.......... the poor man backed off a bit and started, ``bhaighartee ki hadd hotey hai !``........ then he looked at me and said, `` jab aadmi apni aurat ko smbhal na sakay ....``............whack! and this time she used the dreaded ``b`` word ......``bh%$n c%#@ !...... dafa ho ja warna jaan say jaye ga``......... i started to feel a little sorry for the poor tortured soul and grabed my sister`s arm as she picked up a brick ``........... ``maulvi sahib, aap jayen, warna yeh aap ko jaan say mar dalay gi``......... the man, his cheek still smarting from the slap and looking a little bewildered, walked away reciting ayat-ul-kursi or whatever it is that mullahs recite to keep the women away ...........
.......... ``aik to garmi itni hai, oopar say in logon ki bakwaas sunni parti hai,``she said as she walked away hiking her shalwar even higher ............. ``she needs to loose a little weight,`` i thought..... but, of course, i didn`t say anything ..........
#87 Posted by ntsyed on April 9, 2005 4:35:41 am
Re: #68
Rahul, very good question, and it has a very simple answer.
First of all the faith requires basis, without any basis no one can have any faith in anyone or anything.
But once the basis has been amply established, then the faith is never, and should never be, questioned. Otherwise the whole faith, by virtue of its definition, goes out the window.
Now, limited faith is possible in case of humans or its institutions or other mortal objects as they all have some level of imperfection. For example, when you were a child, after you learned to trust your parents that they`d never let any harm come to you, did you question them on how to eat, walk, talk, and everything else they told you to do? But as you grew older and gradually began to think on your own, you started to notice their imperfections as human beings, albeit their unconditional love and unquestionable sincerity towards you. Thus, then onwards, you did what you thought was the best thing to do under any given situation.
As for Allah, there is no imperfection about Him. Thus, no question of disobeying Him.
With His infinite love He has amply established that He loves us (His believers more than the disbelievers) many times more than our parents could, so we cannot question His wisdom, for the simple fact that we cannot even fathom Who He is.
The following fact illustrates how He keeps His promise even with the disbelievers, out of nothing but infinite justice and mercy: in spite of the fact that some of us wantonly deny His Existence, disrespect Him without any rhyme or reason, flout His Instructions which benefit only us, and even declare war against Him, He continues to fulfill His promise to provide them and their loved ones with their sustenance until their predetermined time on earth ends. Can our parents put up with us if we declared a war against them or even disrespected them?
Therefore, we just have to patiently continue obeying His commands and His wisdoms will appear to us in due time when our minds are ready for them. Just as you used to be patient in spite of your hunger that your parents will bring something for you to eat.
Please don`t mistake the preceding example, as in we`re His children because we`re NOT. Rather we`re only one of His many creations. We are as small and vulnerable to Him as infants are to his/her parents. Just like children think of their adults too big and too old, we cannot even fathom who He is or what He may look like.
Then rationally speaking, we cannot imagine all His wisdom and powers either... not at once. His wisdom only appears to those who obey His commands, because without carrying out any instructions one can never ascertain the benefits/disadvantages even in worldly terms.
Secondly, He has created this whole universe. Each and every component of this universe does exactly what He has instructed them to do, with the exception of human beings. Everything He has permitted us and everything He has deemed prohibited for us, are for our benefit and the benefit of the entire universe.
for example: He told us not to horde but share, and do not plunder, and do not deceive others. But we continue to disobey. It`s not that there isn`t enough food to go around to every single one of 6plus billion people, but some of us become greedy and refuse to share. Some become even more greedy and rob others by deceipt and/or force. And the results of our disobedience is right before us in terms of deteriorating enviroment, starvation, bloodshed, and so forth.
Therefore, believing in Him demands that we obey every single of His commands.
It can be a very lengthy topic, because His Existence is not trivial and requires thinking and continuous search for answers. But I hope my response, which I tried to keep as brief as I could, should answer your question to some extent.
take care.
Rahul, very good question, and it has a very simple answer.
First of all the faith requires basis, without any basis no one can have any faith in anyone or anything.
But once the basis has been amply established, then the faith is never, and should never be, questioned. Otherwise the whole faith, by virtue of its definition, goes out the window.
Now, limited faith is possible in case of humans or its institutions or other mortal objects as they all have some level of imperfection. For example, when you were a child, after you learned to trust your parents that they`d never let any harm come to you, did you question them on how to eat, walk, talk, and everything else they told you to do? But as you grew older and gradually began to think on your own, you started to notice their imperfections as human beings, albeit their unconditional love and unquestionable sincerity towards you. Thus, then onwards, you did what you thought was the best thing to do under any given situation.
As for Allah, there is no imperfection about Him. Thus, no question of disobeying Him.
With His infinite love He has amply established that He loves us (His believers more than the disbelievers) many times more than our parents could, so we cannot question His wisdom, for the simple fact that we cannot even fathom Who He is.
The following fact illustrates how He keeps His promise even with the disbelievers, out of nothing but infinite justice and mercy: in spite of the fact that some of us wantonly deny His Existence, disrespect Him without any rhyme or reason, flout His Instructions which benefit only us, and even declare war against Him, He continues to fulfill His promise to provide them and their loved ones with their sustenance until their predetermined time on earth ends. Can our parents put up with us if we declared a war against them or even disrespected them?
Therefore, we just have to patiently continue obeying His commands and His wisdoms will appear to us in due time when our minds are ready for them. Just as you used to be patient in spite of your hunger that your parents will bring something for you to eat.
Please don`t mistake the preceding example, as in we`re His children because we`re NOT. Rather we`re only one of His many creations. We are as small and vulnerable to Him as infants are to his/her parents. Just like children think of their adults too big and too old, we cannot even fathom who He is or what He may look like.
Then rationally speaking, we cannot imagine all His wisdom and powers either... not at once. His wisdom only appears to those who obey His commands, because without carrying out any instructions one can never ascertain the benefits/disadvantages even in worldly terms.
Secondly, He has created this whole universe. Each and every component of this universe does exactly what He has instructed them to do, with the exception of human beings. Everything He has permitted us and everything He has deemed prohibited for us, are for our benefit and the benefit of the entire universe.
for example: He told us not to horde but share, and do not plunder, and do not deceive others. But we continue to disobey. It`s not that there isn`t enough food to go around to every single one of 6plus billion people, but some of us become greedy and refuse to share. Some become even more greedy and rob others by deceipt and/or force. And the results of our disobedience is right before us in terms of deteriorating enviroment, starvation, bloodshed, and so forth.
Therefore, believing in Him demands that we obey every single of His commands.
It can be a very lengthy topic, because His Existence is not trivial and requires thinking and continuous search for answers. But I hope my response, which I tried to keep as brief as I could, should answer your question to some extent.
take care.
#86 Posted by temporal on April 9, 2005 3:49:42 am
nts: # 84
messing the message: it was a proactive manoeuver to prevent you from being possessed by Sattar & co.
you are delusional
:)
messing the message: it was a proactive manoeuver to prevent you from being possessed by Sattar & co.
you are delusional
:)
#85 Posted by ntsyed on April 9, 2005 3:01:10 am
Re: #60 & 62
hmmm...
kaalchakra, how could that happen? I know #60 is mine. Is someone trying to screw with the system?
that`s the first i`ve ever seen.
Oh well...
hmmm...
kaalchakra, how could that happen? I know #60 is mine. Is someone trying to screw with the system?
that`s the first i`ve ever seen.
Oh well...
#84 Posted by ntsyed on April 9, 2005 2:56:12 am
Re: #59
actually your hopping mad bactracking is so hilarious, I`m in a rush too... to the relieve my bladder so I can laugh even harder.
For bactracking, read your original post again to see the impression emanating from it.
He (pbuh) was indeed a man of flesh and blood, which he sacrificed in many ways to bring civility to you and me. Yet you insist on being a Pseudo Joe Hate. Anyway, in spite of being a human, he (pbuh) was even above archangel Jibraeel (as), for he (pbuh) was invited by his Master for an audience where even Jibraeel (as) could not go lest he be burned. Read the Prophet pbuh`s ascent to the Allah`s Throne for the only audience He has ever allowed anyone.
Therefore, he was even more infallible than Jibraeel (as) and the dearest to Allah among all His creations; not that, m`az Allah, Jibraeel (as) was not infallible... he was beyond any shadow of doubt.
A ``special`` man is restricted to rain man or Hopping Mad Pseudo Joe Hate ABCDs of this mortal world.
messing the message: it was a proactive manoeuver to prevent you from being possessed by Sattar & co.
As for the titles you endow on me so generously... how can a miskeen 3rd world abdul hate like me even try to snatch anything like that from you? the whole suite of which is reserved entirely for the ABCD-Thali-ka-baingans-gora-sarkar-Pseudo-Joe-Hates-Abdul-Hates like you. Paon laagun maharaj, naraaj hoyo, galati huey maray se.
may Allah guide you in anger management!
One word of advice though, if I can, please don`t let your pants drop any lower than it has. The openness comes with vulnerabilities, and if insha Allah abdul hates succeed in their efforts, your exposed behind may be flogged with a whip not of your choice... actually that may not be a bad idea to experience a successful attempt made by a Joe Hate to be pushed back into his mother`s womb. I know it`s unnatural, but the whipping may do the trick. See mj or hamid for proper interpretation.
uh oh... he`s in a rush again... to the bathroom to submerge his lit behind in the toilet bowl to vaporize the entire water therein.
Relax... lay back... have a cigar... chowk is full of hopping mad Joe`s like you.
Ciao hombre!
actually your hopping mad bactracking is so hilarious, I`m in a rush too... to the relieve my bladder so I can laugh even harder.
For bactracking, read your original post again to see the impression emanating from it.
He (pbuh) was indeed a man of flesh and blood, which he sacrificed in many ways to bring civility to you and me. Yet you insist on being a Pseudo Joe Hate. Anyway, in spite of being a human, he (pbuh) was even above archangel Jibraeel (as), for he (pbuh) was invited by his Master for an audience where even Jibraeel (as) could not go lest he be burned. Read the Prophet pbuh`s ascent to the Allah`s Throne for the only audience He has ever allowed anyone.
Therefore, he was even more infallible than Jibraeel (as) and the dearest to Allah among all His creations; not that, m`az Allah, Jibraeel (as) was not infallible... he was beyond any shadow of doubt.
A ``special`` man is restricted to rain man or Hopping Mad Pseudo Joe Hate ABCDs of this mortal world.
messing the message: it was a proactive manoeuver to prevent you from being possessed by Sattar & co.
As for the titles you endow on me so generously... how can a miskeen 3rd world abdul hate like me even try to snatch anything like that from you? the whole suite of which is reserved entirely for the ABCD-Thali-ka-baingans-gora-sarkar-Pseudo-Joe-Hates-Abdul-Hates like you. Paon laagun maharaj, naraaj hoyo, galati huey maray se.
may Allah guide you in anger management!
One word of advice though, if I can, please don`t let your pants drop any lower than it has. The openness comes with vulnerabilities, and if insha Allah abdul hates succeed in their efforts, your exposed behind may be flogged with a whip not of your choice... actually that may not be a bad idea to experience a successful attempt made by a Joe Hate to be pushed back into his mother`s womb. I know it`s unnatural, but the whipping may do the trick. See mj or hamid for proper interpretation.
uh oh... he`s in a rush again... to the bathroom to submerge his lit behind in the toilet bowl to vaporize the entire water therein.
Relax... lay back... have a cigar... chowk is full of hopping mad Joe`s like you.
Ciao hombre!
#83 Posted by ntsyed on April 9, 2005 2:22:54 am
re: #58
dear kaalchakra!
I appreciate your sincere advice... actually that`s very kind of you to do so.
**So even though I think you are a raving fool, and a mad man, ..**
In all seriousness... the above coming from you, I`m touched by these honorary titles! That`s how my beloved Prophet (pbuh) and his companions (ra) were treated when they spoke the truth unabashedly. Hopefully, these honors from you and more from others here will get me closer to them on the Day of Judgement and afterwards.
Salaam.
dear kaalchakra!
I appreciate your sincere advice... actually that`s very kind of you to do so.
**So even though I think you are a raving fool, and a mad man, ..**
In all seriousness... the above coming from you, I`m touched by these honorary titles! That`s how my beloved Prophet (pbuh) and his companions (ra) were treated when they spoke the truth unabashedly. Hopefully, these honors from you and more from others here will get me closer to them on the Day of Judgement and afterwards.
Salaam.
#82 Posted by Corina on April 9, 2005 2:04:14 am
Dear Sajal,
A very well written article. Had a comment for Romair which applies here as well. . .
Rumair: I dont think it is just the responsibility of women to stand up against injustice targeted at women. Those who occupy privileged positions in society are just as responsible as those who arent and in fact occupy more leverage. It is very convenient I am sure to tell your wife if you dont do something about it first I wont either. Finger pointing is childish. I think it needs to be a joint stand - not just women.
Corina
A very well written article. Had a comment for Romair which applies here as well. . .
Rumair: I dont think it is just the responsibility of women to stand up against injustice targeted at women. Those who occupy privileged positions in society are just as responsible as those who arent and in fact occupy more leverage. It is very convenient I am sure to tell your wife if you dont do something about it first I wont either. Finger pointing is childish. I think it needs to be a joint stand - not just women.
Corina
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nkg: Re: # 162 Salim... We love... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- nkg: Re: # 308 DM... "While I... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- MeiraJ08: Sahir, of the Barcelona... Demon
- nkg: Re: # 299 Anil... At least... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- nkg: #342 contd... from biped quadraped... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- MeiraJ08: #100, yes Nb, I... Fathers and Daughters
- nkg: Re: # 296 Masadi... So, you... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- kashkin: Friends, Thank you all for... Cockroaches of Disruption
