No Retreat

Re: # 131

Romair, it is defined differently by different schools, the original (English) by Holyoke is about the opinions based on questions and research (instead of blind faith), so yes separation of Beliefs from Governance. In the US, it meant taxing the Churches.

Separation of Church and State is not just a phenomenon associated with Secularism (even friggin Communists do it).

Societies that suppress free thought process are the ones that are the gravest danger to mankind. All belief systems thrive in Secular societies. In terms of your opinion of the wars and conquest by secular governments, what exactly is your point? Colonizations, ethnic cleansings, genocides, holocausts, are not because of secularism but in spite of it. Atrocities have been committed by all sides (look at what Pakis did to Bengalis?). And what Black Sudanese are doing to Blacker Sudanese, or how Wahabis make it a law in their country for every woman to cover herself in black. Do you see where I am going with this? Yes, exactly. If these societies made an effort to base their opinions thru asking questions and research instead of shytting them out of their ass, things will be much better.

Re: #106
I’m sorry, but you’ve missed the gist of my post. Please re-read to see that this is a NON-ISSUE for me; or the very last at best.

1) Again, please re-read my post to understand my views on the subject; once again same advice as previous; the answer to the last part is covered in the answer to your next question.

2) The three basic things that every country needs:
Education: Since Pakistan is an Islamic country – one of only two in the world which was created on a religious Ideology, and tremendous sacrifices were made to achieve this goal – Proper Islamic education should be the unifying factor. It accords them an identity they deserve. Additionally, it informs them of their God-given rights, teaches civility and their ultimate goal in life. Simultaneously they should have access to up-to-date modern sciences to develop rational thought processes for solutions. It should not be limited to teaching the skills and handing out diplomas to earn a living like a plough horse that works, eat, shits, sleeps and is quickly replaced upon old age or death

Security, in every sense of the word: from corruption, lawlessness, internal and external threats

Employment not including prostitution as some wish for on another board :-)~~

Identity of a nation’s people is critical to progress of that society. These three things are the main ingredients of developing individual and national identities. Each supports the other two, which in effect then foster freedom, prosperity, and bring about greatness for individuals and entire community. Similarly the lack or corruption of one destroys the others as well, which in effect produce the current prevalent condition of endemic corruption, lawlessness, moral bankruptcy, and soon the demise of the entire nation.

As you can discern from this chowk, most of our liberal peers are suffering from a severe identity crisis.

They want to be Muslims, but they don’t want to be Muslims…not the one the current military powers do not approve of

They want a spirit without spirituality

They believe in Allah, but do not believe what He decrees beneficial and harmful for them

They would rather be prey to lust than pray to God

They desire law without the order, and vice versa

They want democracy but only if they get to jerk people around, like the previous four governments of PPP and ML following in the footsteps of ZAB. But then they cry foul when the military and MMA does the same

They desire freedom but do not wish to break away from the slavery of their frivolous
desires and the west.

So on and so forth…

It’s their very mindset and lack of Islamic knowledge which allows the current bought out mullahs – not genuine scholars of True Islam – and military to propagate twisted versions of Islam. Conversely, these groups reciprocate by feeding liberal ignorance. Naturally, the people neither grasp the essence of True Islam nor do they understand the non-Islamic concepts of secularism and democracy.

I hope it gets your gears moving. Thanks.

Kulharee #133: ``Romair, Seculars by definition mean that they stand for every voice to be heard and every belief to be practiced and expressed, to do otherwise won’t be secularists. I think you are a little confused about that.``

Actually this is the not the defintion of secularism. It has nothing to do with every voice being heard. It does have something to do with every belief being practiced. Secularism, by its definition, is, ``The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.``

It is basically separating religion from the State. It does not in any way separate, lets say, ethnicity, from the state. One ethnicity could dominate others. As was the case in the colonisation of India and other countries by secualr European powers. Nor does it in any way, separate inhumanity from the state. Secular govts. can, and have been, very inhumane also. It just ensure the state`s laws are not based on any particular religion`s definition.

Do keep in mind that some of the biggest colonisations, massacres, occupations etc. have been and continue to be committed by secular groups and govts.. As I have always argued, equating secualrism automatically with, ``goodness`` is as dangerous as equating religion automatically with goodness.........

Re: # 132

Yaar do you really think that I give a hoot about what you think?

Re: # 131

Romair, Seculars by definition mean that they stand for every voice to be heard and every belief to be practiced and expressed, to do otherwise won’t be secularists. I think you are a little confused about that.

What Mullas want is to shove their beliefs down everyone’s throat.

Re: # 130
Their is a saying ``Experience is the worst teacher`` as far as i got to know from u now is tht u have worked wid Mullahs in past so i am correct this time your kissing the ass of Ex-Banker and his party league and trying your best to support his regime.

Kulharee #121: ``Romair, why are you wasting so much of your time on these people,``

Actually, I have nothing against mullahs, as such. To each his own. As long as they don`t bother me, I am not bothered.

I do have something against hypocrites, i.e. people violate their personally defined rules, themselves. And still try to implement those rules onto others. Such individuals` double standards should be highlighted........

I also have something against people who think they have the world figured out, and try to preach it to everyone else. And anyone who does not agree with them, is considered lost, by them. There are plenty of such individuals on this site. And they come from all sides. Perhaps moreso from the secular side than the religious side.

People who debate to just change the other person`s point of view, and will never change their own point of view, are a dangerous lot.........

Re: # 128

Stingie..are you talking from experience? What is lifting testicles mean? As far as I know (caz I organize a lot of conferences for Mullahs) they got no balls, so lifting their testicles will mean lifting hilium filled baloon. Meanwhile, feel free to kiss my ass.

Re: # 127
you are moving from your point it will be better of not wasting time in explaining girl body parts.

Re: # 123
kulharee bhai: I have advise for u go and lift the testicals of PML(Q) you will be better of in that becoz they cry like u after every speech.

Re: # 124

Truly.. don’t you wish that there were more Moulvi Abdul Razzaq Sahibs in Pakistan who would stand up to injustice (big deal man, one Mullah in a country of 150 million to stand up to rapists – congratulations). How can you possibly be so touched by my hatred of the Mullahs while not being able to get the point that what has women running any of your (or anyone else’s) concern? Just try putting everything in perspective – if the male people are so sensitive about seeing girls run in shorts, they should stay home. I can’t tell you how touched I am that you are so concerned about my hatred of Mulahs but you totally oblivious to what the women runner might be feeling. It’s a tough life Bro. Try making someone else’s bed and try sleeping in that too. Try standing by the side of your sisters, for once, it is not that hard. They are not whores, and there is a lot of value to their being. Try judging them as a whole package, and you might be surprised to know that there’s a lot more to them than just a pair of tits a wobbly ass and a vagina. I wish you luck.

Re: # 125
I don`t think Urstruly he will get this in his freaky head one can`t help your cause Romair. Your have to know the relation between husband and wife and boy and girl, you are better of with newyork times comics so enjoy that.



Urstruly i just mailed u today from my hotmail account so plz consider that mail.

Re: # 119 Romair

Ok, the only concession that there is, is that a man and his wife can run a marthon if no one is watching.

Re: # 121 kulharee bhai

I beg you to get out of your cocoon of hate. Your damaging no one but yourself.

I don`t want to rub it in your face but I cant help but bring this into your knowledge that the only man who was MAN enough to raise his voice against the oppression and tyrranny that was unleashhed upon helpless MukhtaraN mai was the Imam Sahib of the local mosque - Moulvi Abdul Razzaq Sahib. He was the one who stood up on the pulpit and refuse to surrender to this ultimate tyrrany.

Please read:

http://mukhtaran-bibi.biography.ms/

Re: # 122

Dumbo, I am making a point as to where their priorities lie. Who the hell cares in Pakistan if women run or not (only they do) but they don’t give a jack about women being killed and rapped in the name of honor. It hurts their little heads to see women run in shorts but women being gang rapped and killed makes their belief stronger. You are a friggin moron if you can’t figure this much out. Meanwhile they think that the only way to identify people’s faith is by checking it on a Passport column, and you a perfect nutcase to play into their hands. Explain what one thing have they done right or a deed that has helped people of Pakistan in any way? All these londay baz are concerned about is who was the last prophet and how their tight ass Wahabi bullcrap is the most righteous belief system. They can shove it.

Re: # 121
You are trying to mix Muktharan issue with women marathon and my fellow friend ``Romair`` is also trying to proof the same point to ``Urstruly``. I just wanna say tht how you will feel when some one get rapped in your family will you discuss that issue in public. You mention about Mullah Khutaba every muslim and humanbeing know what rape is if he has some know how about sex.

Re: # 120

Romair, why are you wasting so much of your time on these people, knowing well that they will never come out of Molvi’s ass. If these Momanees and Khutame Nabowat people had raised 1/10th as much voice over gang rape of MukhtaraN Bibi as they are raising over women runners, tribal sanctioned gang rapes and honor killings will be thing of the past. Don’t expect anything from these guys.

I wonder how many Mullahs give Khutba on gang rapes and Honor Killings? How can they, when that`s what they are all about?

Urstruly #various: Since we are on the subject of hadith-based dressed code, I would like to ask you:

Have you ever gone swimming? What did you wear when you swam? Did you maintain the dress code? Was your navel covered at all times? Were the bathing suit down to your knees? Did it ever cling tightly around you?

I am asking this in all seriousness. The reason being that I think Islam is filling up with hypocrites, i.e. people who vioalate dress-codes themselves, quite openly, while pushing them on others..............Such people should be highlighted and exposed.............

Urstruly #113: ``I could help but notice the absurdity of Romairian logic..........

4. Since Prophet (pbuh) once ran a race with his wife and marathon is also a race, therefore, combined marathons are permitted in Islam.``

You have now come full circle. You are now, yourself, arguing against the points you were initially pushing. Let`s look at what you have stated:

You have, yourself, been pushing hadith as the basis of running today`s world. What else is hadith but books written by individuals like Bukhari et. al., describing what they thought was done by Muhammad. They don`t give a reason for doing things. They just say they should be done.

Why have a beard? Why wear shorts to one`s knees? Why wear lose pants above the ankles? No reason, except it is in a book of hadith. And that is considered enough for many people, including you, to follow.

I have always disagreed with that.

Now you, yourself, are stating the opposite, i.e. what the Prophet did, as documented by later, ``scholars`` should not be used in today`s world. If he ran with his wife, that doesn`t mean others should. Make up your mind.......Should hadith be used or should it not be used.............If they should be used, then you should be encouraging marathons, because Muhammad and Ayesha ran together.

And if it is violated, is it enough to just say, ``So sue me.``

I think it should not be used, because it cannot even be validated, through oral traditions. Not even its context can be validated. And people should be allowed to say, ``So sue me.`` Like you did. Infact that is the beauty of Islam. It lets anyone say, ``So sue me,`` to anyone claiming to be a, ``Scholar,`` or clergy, i.e. it does not give anyone a right to pass fatwas, or claim religious superiority (like you try to claim). No one can dictate Islam to anyone. If you want to display your seductive thighs to the American public, and someone complains, on religious grounds, you can actually just say, ``Hey, its between me and my God. If you don`t like it, sue me.``

Similarly, anyone (male or female) running in a marathon should not be bothered one way or the other by whether someone wrote that Muhammad ran in a race or did not run in a race with his wife. And if someone like yourself, displaying their thighs, or committing the sin of wearing pants below their ankles, walks upto them and says, ``Why are you running?`` They should just say, exactly what you said to me, i.e. ``So sue me.``

Re: # 117

``It is romairian logic; remember? ``

Is that so? then where are pie/bar charts and some dose of statistical analysis :)

Re: # 116 Mr net

It is romairian logic; remember?

Re: # 112

Shouldn`t

``2. Since in Islam men are allowed to have sex with their wives and fornication is nothing but sex, therefore, sex is allowed in Islam. ``

Be

2. Since in Islam men are allowed to have sex with their wives and fornication is nothing but sex, therefore, fornication is allowed in Islam.

Urstruly,

Here’s the flowchart of your logic:

1. Quran is the perfect guide for Muslims ( ... good so far … but then …)
2. Somehow this suggests that recorded ahadith too are flawless
3. In case of a conflict between the two … ignore Quran and follow ahadith
4. When in doubt, ignore both, and follow the ullema
5. When losing an argument, declare the other person non-Muslim and bail out
6. Feeling inadequate? Blame Ahamdis ... and remind us that they are non-Muslims (this trait you share with mullah tahmed)

And tha`t the travesty of Muslims of our times ... (sigh)

Re: # 112

Urstruly... are you suggesting that Hadis and Sunat has no place in determining today’s affairs, in terms of what is permissible and what’s not? I think that’s the point everyone here is trying to make. What Mohammad did to his wives (both young and younger) was perhaps normal for that age and that place, but it has no bearing on how women should live their lives today.

Re: # 108 beans bhai

even hindus do not see a merit in your logic, therefore, for your own good I suggest that don`t try to use it in public in pakistan. chowk is good , no one knows who you are.

I could help but notice the absurdity of Romairian logic. This logic is as pathetic as this dictator used when he invoked the Hudabiya pact to justify the murder of Afghan nation.

Romairian logic goes something like this:

1. Cows feed milk to their calves and women also feed milk to their young ones therefore women must be cows.

2. Since in Islam men are allowed to have sex with their wives and fornication is nothing but sex, therefore, sex is allowed in Islam.

3. Since men and women run together during hajj, and since marathon is also running, therefore combined marathons are permitted in Islam.

4. Since Prophet (pbuh) once ran a race with his wife and marathon is also a race, therefore, combined marathons are permitted in Islam.

wah bhai shabash

beans
``Pakistan wasn’t formed on the simple premise of Islam and anyone who knows their history can tell you as much. ``

her we go again... what matters is what most pople understand what the premise is.

#108 by beans on April 28, 2005 10:24am PT



The easiest way for them to gain support from the uneducated poverty stricken masses is by using the “Islamic Card”


When the MMA and related groups were using the ``Islamic card`` to produce Islamic jihadi cannon fodder to fight in Kashmir, it wasn`t just the ``uneducated poverty stricken masses`` who were supporting them...
Now when they take the Islamic path to the next logical level, you want us to forget that a majority of Pakistanis, poor or otherwise, suported the fundamentalists when they produced Islamic warriors to push Pakistan`s interests in Kashmir and Afghanistan...

You can`t be selective....now that you`ve fed the Islamic jihadi snake, you`ll have to deal with the consequences....while a majority of pakistanis might have deluded themselves into thinking they abandoned the taliban out of the goodness of their heart, the rest of the world is a tad smarter...

I cant believe people are still debating whether or not women should run!!

... on second thoughts, I am not surprised.

Okay guys,
i contributed once already, way back when this article was first posted but i guess it never made it here. Enough of this, going through these erroneous posts! There aren’t at all relevant. All this rambling about religion and politics etc is ridiculous. Its not that complicated. Pakistan wasn’t formed on the simple premise of Islam and anyone who knows their history can tell you as much. The fact of the matter is that the MMA, the mullahs and the extremist factions of this country do not pull stunts like they did in Gujranwala because of their love for Islam. This is just another attempt to try and enforce their control using religion as a cover. Everyone knows the odds between the present government and the MMA. The easiest way for them to gain support from the uneducated poverty stricken masses is by using the “Islamic Card” and what better way to use it to their advantage then ridding the society of such “sinful acts as women running”. Please note the sarcasm in quotation marks. Look at who we are dealing with please, the MMA comprising of uneducated men who probably know a lot about Islamic doctrine but little else. I’m not sure if anyone else has mentioned this or not, but women do run in Pakistan. This is not an alien activity in Karachi, Lahore and even in Islamabad. You can go to parks there and see women running, wearing anything that really suits them. They are not tear gassed or harassed. What the MMA did was simply a publicity stunt; nonetheless it should have been dealt with harshly by the present government. All this talk about religion and what is permissible and what is not is so absurd! There are a lot of things happening in Pakistan that are probably not permissible according to Islamic principles but they’re happening and the MMA knows and so does everyone else. Quit the bullshit and get to the point!

Re: # 101

ntsyed,

we all know that democracy as defined by you means:``one man, one vote, one time``


......... and look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/international/europe/28tablighi.html?

Comments to #101, Ntsyed.

That’s an interesting outpour and obviously you have strong feelings on this issue! I have a couple of questions:

1) Are you satisfied with the present status of women in Pakistan? Do you see any problems at all? If so, what are the three most important problems you see?

2) In what ways would you like the country to change (if any)? What would be the three important steps YOU would take to make those changes?

Thanks for your time in providing an answer!

I like this ``navel to kneecap`` funda. Amazing book man, better than Encyclopedia and MBD guides. Those who wrote kuran assumed like you are animals to be telling you how to cover your bodies. Indeed if you take out the kuran your average mullah will look like a wild beast with his dishevelled hair, body odour and all.


The most remarkable thing however is Syed Chacha giving fundas on democracy.

[The first principle of democracy is to accept whichever group wins the elections and not be sore losers. If one looks at the Pakistani population, regardless of their misconceptions of Islam most of them favor the Islamists]

So according to Syed Uncle`s First Law of Democracy, Pakistan wants an islamic theocracy. And he says ``First Law`` as if there are 2nd and 3rd laws of Democracy! Reminds me of Catch22 and Yossarian ROTFL..

Re: # 25
re: prashant123:
///Vertex..too bad man. My heartfelt sympathies. But..that is why Pakistan was created. Why not go there ? Not just you , but the whole lot of you. No more hindu freakazoids to worry about then....///


Because India`s their country as much as it is anyone else`s.

Guys - there is no need to justify your actions by looking at how things were done in 7th century Arabia. These basterdd Molvis want you in a tight spot, and you are playing into their hands by looking towards an outdated Quran. You don’t have to justify anything to them or to anyone else. It is pathetic to look towards Quran for the kind of shorts one can wear. Quran is not a sports magazine, nor is Hadis or Sunat (Hadith and Sunnah for the Araboobs) a manual on running.

You do what you want, and let the bloody Mulla gang live their own life (if they have any) and bang their foreheads as if lifting one’s ass in the air 5 times a day makes someone a better person.

Urstruly: no offense but your definition of bare minimum is very unclear.....first how you find out the center line of the kneecaps..where is it exactly...all kneecaps are not the same shape.... Do we need a doctor or a x-ray machine to acertain that we are not refering to the wrong centerline?..................... secondly 2 fingers is very ambiguous.........who`s two fingers? Romair`s or yours? ...............Woman`s or man`s? ...........Afrikan man`s or a Bengali man`s? ...........It would been better if God made these specifications more clear and exact so that there is no room for mistakes.

more exact like:...... ``length of the shorts shall be minimum 2.5 times the length of male organ of the man wearing the shorts plus/minus 1 millimeter``...... That would have also solved the problem of borrowing eachother`s shorts...just imagine a short that is perfectly legal on Urstruly might be 15 millimeters too short for Romair. ........Just the fear of violating God`s command and ending up in hell would prevent Romair to steal Urstruly`s shorts.

Frankly I beleive this whole concept of centerline is a anglo-saxxon Jeudo-Christian concept and no basis in Islam. Islam does not believe in ``centerline`` world it beleives in a world with a circle around it which forms a boundary...anyone on outside is outside anyone inside is inside. ``centerline`` concept being in the center, on the left or right is a kafir theory.

The nag for an article
The first principle of democracy is to accept whichever group wins the elections and not be sore losers. If one looks at the Pakistani population, regardless of their misconceptions of Islam most of them favor the Islamists. A quick IMPARTIAL survey of the rural and urban Pakistani populace reveals this truth. If it wasn’t for the feudal mindset and connections of PPP and ML etc, they could never win any FAIRLY held elections.

It’s a part of the package called “democracy” – majority opinion counts, not just of the ones who can lament on their defeat through hollow and ill-informed essays in English like this one. Just suck it up and wait for your day in the sun, which you`ve already wasted many times before.

The marathons are just lame excuses for Islam-bashing by the ones who’ve probably never studied this system, let alone with an open mind. This fact has been made abundantly clear on chowk. These crybabies would rather pull “the rug out from under their feet if the “resounding public opinion” suits the ‘mullah’ and their constituency.

Similarly, the decrying of ‘religion’ column on the passport is just as phony. In case the author failed to check the previous and current Pakistani passports, the ‘religion’ column has always been there. However, the “profession” column has been omitted from the new ones. I know so because I just received my renewed passport just a few days ago.

The only people to have a real problem with this are, of course, Ahemdis and Westernized parasites called “Liberals”. It denies them a critical cover in their sinister efforts to corrupt Islam through misrepresentation.

Secondly, while it is wrong to release the violators of law under any pressure, the people with authority should have a backbone of principles instead of politicking and capitulating to pressure. But ‘western’ democracy teaches otherwise: sell your mother if it gets you a vote.

What do the “mixed marathons” hope to achieve anyway? Just that few well-to-do Pakistani men and women could run a track together. How does it help the unabated abuse against women in the lower economic segments of society?

The author and her proponents need to get their act together and priorities straight instead of trying to put the cart before the horse.

Firstly, ALL women – not just the self-proclaimed enlightened liberal ones – need protection in every aspect of life. Then they should be afforded their God-given respect and right to education, economic opportunities, etc. Running marathons shoulder-to-shoulder with men is the least of worries for the majority of Pakistani women trapped in a life and death predicament.

The hoopla is only about allowing women to run outside for the men to cheer and jeer them, when Allah strictly forbids believing women in the Quran from leaving home without the jalabeeb(outer garment). Again, this is not about Mullahs and MMA.

If it was so, the self-proclaimed “self-righteous-secular-westernized-equality-for-all-majority” would have been out there to rescue any woman runner when Armed vigilantes were allowed to hang about outside in `ambush positions`….threatening to teach [any woman runner] a lesson who dared to run outside the stadium. But then again, cowardice is yet another prominent trait of this group. ``Allaaaaaaaah…mein to naee ja sakti naaa….mera nail toooot jaye ga naaaa. And I can’t let my husband go either…. I don’t like to kiss a popla, you know.``

Who died and made Ghinwa Bhutto of the PPP (SB) an authority on Islam?

She’s right about one thing though, Allah does not belong to the MMA or the men alone…. He does not belong to anyone. Instead, we all belong to Him. As His belonging, it is our duty to obey Him as He has ordered us in the Quran and sent His messengers to show us how to do just that. Study the Quran for verification of the preceding claim.

Islam certainly is not anyone’s property to be used at will, particularly NOT of the bunch which has little or no knowledge of Islam, let alone punctually offering 5 prayers and studying Quran regularly. For this group, as one of them recently put, Quran should be kept on a high shelf and only brought down for weddings etc.

The ensuing discussion
If the author and some of the male participants of this discussion wish to put themselves or women of their family on display for non-deserving people, more power to them. They can do it anywhere outside Pakistan where they have all freedom to do so, and knock themselves out.... with .22, .38, .45 or any calibre of bullets when things get out of hand.

But if they expect each and every other man to act like their fathers and brothers when their women are making a spectacle of themselves, then that ain’t neva happenin’, Bubbas and Bubbettes.

Not in Pakistan, not in India (by admissions of Indians themselves on other boards) and not any-doggone-where else on this planet.

It’s simply against human nature. You`re asking for too much.

There’s a reason why Allah made us the way He did and gave us the Rules that He has. Otherwise, He could’ve simply made us progeny of pigs and other four legged beasts to have “mixed marathons” and walk about and do everything else butt-naked. If that`s the freedom one seeks, then zoological gardens, safaris, and plain old jungles are the best places for you...except for the poachers who`ll fry that ``free`` as* in a jiffy.

Like the horrible hindoo fellar here who said ‘prostitutes are most liberal women’ and a horrible moslame fellar who claims ‘so? prostitution is a human need’ while (in the face of such travesty) the “liberal” damsels sat intellectually and morally constipated and their men sat silently sucking on the Western male genitalia as if it was a communal peace pipe of the American Indian, some may respect the women who flaunt their goodies, clothed or otherwise, others may hoot, and yet some others may just ‘reach out and touch’ like A-freakin’-T&T in spite of how much one dislikes such uninvited ‘touching’ (otherwise known as groping and molesting)…and there ain’t nothin’ y’all cud do ‘bout it if you ain’t got the likes of Mr. Smith and Wesson to cover you pseudo liberal behinds in case you lost your temporal temperament... not even the over-weight men, let alone over-weight women, could do anything about it.

In Pakistan we have more pressing issues regarding oppression of women than running freakin’ mixed marathons. These are luxuries and privileges, restricted to haves of the society. Rights of the 99% must be restored FIRST before according such frivolous privileges to 1% of the population. We’ll see about it when the train gets to your station.

Hamidm #95: ``....... i commend you for your efforts to stand up to maulana urstruly........... but don`t you realize the futility of fighting the hadith with the koran ?........... ``

There is something I learnt a long time ago. If one wants to convince someone of something, one must argue within the domain of the other person. No one will listen to logic, if it is not within their own domain. However, most people will listen to logic if it is within their own domain................

If someone wants to use hadith to prove a point, throwing secularism or athiesm at them, is a useless excercise. As useless as throwing hadith at someone pushing secularism or athiesm..............

Specifically within the domain of hadith, itself, women wearing shalwar kameez and running, is a lesser crime than Urstruly wearing shorts and showing his thighs.........or wearing pants below his ankles..........

The former has precedences, which support it; two of which I quoted. The later two (shorts and pants) are forbidden, all together...........

Urstruly #80: ``Now please explain to me, is there an avenue open for women running among men here? You have posted the evidence yourself.``

Here is another example, in addition of the running and walking that men and women do, amongst each other, at Hajj``

``According to Ayesha, the Holy Prophet`s wife, may Allah be pleased with her: “Allah`s Messenger, peace be upon him, raced with me and I won. That was before I grew fat. Later he raced with me when I was a little fat and he won.`` He said: ``tit for tat.” (Imam Ahmad).``

The story is actually quite commonly quoted. A good example of a woman running. It would be kind of hard to find a better one, from a Shariah point of view.

Urstruly #92: ``They have arbitrarily chosen an imaginary horizontal line passing through the center of the kneecap as a line of reference. The liberal group of ulema say that the sattar must be up to about two fingers above that centerline. That puts us approximately where the knee cap start from top. According to these ulema if a person is covered from navel to the two fingers above the kneecap he can offer his prayers. The conservative ulema on one hand do agree with the centerline concept but they contend that in order to be on the safe side the length of attire should be at least two fingers below the centerline.``

I am debating this with you in your own domain. A domain that I don`t even believe in i.e Hadith. Yet I am the one giving you exact quotes and sources. While you are, once again, throwing out concepts, with no rhyme or reason. Please point me to these ulema. And how in the world they decided what is two fingers above and three fingers below. What if someone decides it is six fingers above?

And who in the world gave them the right to define it in the first place. Certainly not the Quran.

Initially you had stated, ``.... defined in no uncertain terms. For men the bare minimum (in jurists terminology it is called ``sattar`` meaning the `covered` or `hidden`.) is an area that starts right below the navel and goes up to right above the knee cap.``

What happened, to the, ``no uncertain terms.`` All of a sudden, it is liberal interpretations vs. conservative ones. Apparently, the terms are not so certain after all. Is it below the knee. In the middle of the knee. Right above the knee. Two fingers above the knee. Or three fingers above the knee?

So far, from what I have heard, your wearing shorts above your knees and wearing pants below your ankle is a far bigger crime than women wearing shalwar kameez and participating in a marathon. What you are doing is strictly prohibited in hadith. What the women are doing has some precedence; specifically during Hajj...........

Urstruly #94: ``Coming back to me, yes I have worn shorts that were about three to four fingers above my knee cap. I admit that I am guilty of this obscenity of showing my knee cleavage, so sue me.``

OK, now we are getting somewhere. I assume you have also worn pants that go below your ankles. Amongst various other things that are forbidden in the hadith.

You answer defines why I find your arguments, so odd. When you commit a crime, as defined by Shariah, you simply state, ``So sue me.`` I have no intention of suing you. Considering the fact, that at one stage of my life, after having arrived in the USA, I was so enamoured with wearing shorts and the freedom they allowed, that I wore them everywhere. Until my wife had to forcefully stop me.

What I am, however, trying to highlight is that people, who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Those who wear shorts above their knees and tight jeans, below their ankles, should not comment on the Shariah what others are doing, and wearing.

What would be your answer, if a future female squash champion of Pakistan, wore shorts and when you complained, she gave you the same answer, i.e., ``So sue me.`` Would you be willing to live with her answer?

``From your post you are trying to convey a message that knee-long knickers are not only non-existent but impractical as well.``

If the guy in the picture you posted stands up, his shorts will go above his knees.
I never conveyed that knee-long knickers are impractical. I just stated that they are relatively non-existent in sports; specifically in Pakistan. In all the sports in Pakistan other than boxing (including soccer, field hockey, swimming, squash, tennis, table-tennis, badminton etc.) no male wears shorts that are that long. That is only a recent NBA fad........

You need to make up your mind. If you want to push hadith, that is your choice. But then, you cannot simply shrug off your own violations, by saying, ``So sue me.`` Specifically when you spend a better amount of your time trying to sue others..........

I think the MMA should arrange a ``Burkha Only`` marathon for interested women. And preferably, it should be arrange in mid July or somewhere around that time. It could yet be a true moment of sporting genius from the bearded sages of wisdom. Just imagine people...a winner...nay even a participant who manages to run the complete 42 KM fully clad in a burkha in 40-45 degree heat...definitely would be a contender for the global crown....Paula Radcliffe be warned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....I think many interactors here have yet again failed to see the immense foresight that these men of god have over us mere mortals.

romair,

....... i commend you for your efforts to stand up to maulana urstruly........... but don`t you realize the futility of fighting the hadith with the koran ?........... one is worse than the other when it comes to providing any meaningful guidance on anything that really matters ..........it is like looking for answers in the communist manifsto instead of das capital .............

.......... but, anyway, it was a good try ..........

Re: # 93

Yes hamidm you are a genius and I am bored

Re: # 92

urstruly,

......... is it also true that you have to keep a sheet between you and your partner while having sex ?.......... i am serious - this is what i learned in our compulsory islamiyat class at uet which was taught by the same genius who taught fluid mechanics .( i forget his name now) ......... needless to say the attendance in his islamiyat class far exceeded that in fluid mechanics ........... it was a source of immense mirth for the boys who wanted to get into the technical details of this maneuver ..............

.......... by the way, i think your shorts are at least six inches above the knee in your club picture ............

Romair #90

The reason that sometimes I do not dignify your pointless and meaningless diatribe is because that is what it is. I have a day job and I intend to keep it. The problem with you is that while writing a post you invent a premise; you assume that it is true without verifying it and build a whole castle around it. The only reason that I am dignifying this particular post of yours with a response is to see whether you are on some sort of drugs or not. You probably spent an hour or so writing your post and I am really taking a big stab in the dark assuming that you spent an hour or so in addition to that on figuring out the logic and the language etc. of the post. So, conservatively speaking you wasted 2 hours of your life building a case on a wrong premise.

Your basic premise in this post is that I somehow had provided wrong or false information in my previous post (#63) regarding the covered area. So here is the crux of your argument where you try to ``correct`` my error or right my wrong. You write `` Let me provide you with the truth: Under any Shariah, with a basis in hadith, it is banned for a Muslim male to expose any portion of his leg, between the navel and knee. This is what is widely acceptable, by, “scholars.”.

Now please explain to me in God`s good name how it is any different from your ``truth`` when I wrote in my post # 63 that For men the bare minimum (in jurists terminology it is called ``sattar`` meaning the `covered` or `hidden`.) is an area that starts right below the navel and goes up to right above the knee cap.

For crying out loud you provided the evidence with not one but two ahadith yourself in your post, writing:

1. Reported Muhammad Jahsh, ``The Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, passed by Ma`mar while his thighs were uncovered. He said, to him, `O Ma`mar, cover your thighs, for they are (part of the) `aurah.`` This is related by Ahmad, al-Hakim and al-Bukhari in Tareekh and in mu`allaq form in his Sahih.

2. Reported Jurhad, ``The Messenger of Allah passed by me when the cloak I was wearing did not cover my thighs . He said, `Cover your thigh, for it (is part of the) `aurah.`` This is related by Ahmad, Abu Dawud and at-Tirmidhi, who called it hassan, and by al-Bukhari in mu`allaq form in the Sahih.

Now had you bothered to read either of these ahadith that you posted you would have noticed that the keyword in both ahadith is the ``thigh``. Now please explain to me how one should define a thigh? Is the knee a part of thigh or the thigh ends from where the kneecap starts? And what exactly is the line from where the kneecap starts. Believe me, these trivial details were discussed by the ulema when defining the `sattar`. They have arbitrarily chosen an imaginary horizontal line passing through the center of the kneecap as a line of reference. The liberal group of ulema say that the sattar must be up to about two fingers above that centerline. That puts us approximately where the knee cap start from top. According to these ulema if a person is covered from navel to the two fingers above the kneecap he can offer his prayers. The conservative ulema on one hand do agree with the centerline concept but they contend that in order to be on the safe side the length of attire should be at least two fingers below the centerline. They contend that while sitting in the Namaz the attire slides up a bit and may exposes the area two fingers above the centerline therefore it is prudent to have a longer attire.

Coming back to me, yes I have worn shorts that were about three to four fingers above my knee cap. I admit that I am guilty of this obscenity of showing my knee cleavage, so sue me.

Now please explain to me how all the boxers and NFL players wear shorts that go well below their knees and perform in these games that require the most agility. From your post you are trying to convey a message that knee-long knickers are not only non-existent but impractical as well. The evidence below makes you false premise fall on its face yet again:

check out ``his`` team ............


urstruly is third from the right

Urstruly #80: ``please explain to me, is there an avenue open for women running among men here?``

Now to answer your question (even though you will not answer mine). There is one avenue that springs to mind. And that is the tawaf around the Kaaba.

But to get to the gist of your question: Depends on what you are using for interpretation. If you are basing your interpretation on Hadith, then women are condemned to hell, regardless of what they do, since most of the people in hell will be women. They cannot even walk amongst men, much less run. Then again, there are stories of women fighting in wars amongst men. At the same time, according to the same interpretations of hadith, men cannot wear shorts or track suits (below their ankles). Or tight clothes (once again track suits). Which means, all sports of any kind are banned for any Muslim human being, unless he wears a dhoti; and that too above the ankles............and a very lose one at that...........So Muslims should not participate in sports, at all - men or women............if you want to follow hadith-based Shariah...........

However, if you interpret from the Quran, there is hardly any restriction on anything (barring a few issues). The Quran is far too abstract, and far too small to start putting restrictions on each and every thing. This, along with the fact that Islam bans the clergy (and pushes egalitarianism at its basic core), is why it has been quite successful over the years. In fact the success of Islam, will always be inversely proportional to the size of the clergy, at any time in history..........

In addition, the Quran requires a context in which it is to be interpreted. That is far too obvious. Since most parts of the Quran are interpreted within a context, already..........

For example, the timings for setting a fast are describe in verse 2:187, as:

``may eat and drink until the white thread of light becomes distinguishable from the dark thread of night at dawn.``

Now suppose I move to Yellowknife, in the Nothern part of Canada, where they have 24 hours of sunlight, at certain times. And 24 hours of darkness. When do I set my fast? And when do I open it?

If I follow the Quran strictly, I will die, if I fast in Yellowknife, because I will not be able to eat for weeks, because the sun will not have come out or set..........

So, maybe, just maybe, men wore dhotis while running in the local sporting events, during the time of Muhammad, because track suits had not been invented............If they had Adidas and Nike back then, they would have opted for for track suits............

My aunt who is in her early forties, teaches at a local Medical College in Lahore. All her life she has been going to Lawrence gardens. Before she heads to lecture, she drops off her daughters at the Convent, and then goes to Lawrence Gardens, runs 3 miles in full shalwar kameez, sneakers and hijab. She normally does not wear hijab but while running in Lawrence Gardens, she always does wear it. She has kept herself in great shape due to this habit, as well as reaped stress lowering benefits in her hectic life. She is a religious and highly spiritual person, and I myself have prayed behind her as she led Maghrib prayer enmasse with her nieces and nephews at a picnic we had in Lawrence Gardens.

The air and the public spaces are not the property of the men, they belong to women equally.
The MMA plays upon the fears and insecurities of men while using the flag of Islam.

Urstruly #80: ``Unlike you people, we Muslims infer jurisprudence from Qura`n and hadith. Now please explain to me, is there an avenue open for women running among men here? You have posted the evidence yourself.``

As usual, you have not answered the question I asked. And are trying to divert the discussion. I asked you to point me to the, ``Islamic jurisprudence (as it is inferred from Qura`n and Hadith),`` which stated that it is legal for you to wear shorts. You did not point me to anything.

The last time we had a discussion, I had challenged you to explain how Hadith could be considered genuine, when they were orally passed, over 200 years, before being written. You stated that they were in written form in a museum in Turkey. I challenged you on that. And you refused to reply, other than the standard declaration of calling me an Ahmedi, or a non—Muslim etc.

You seem to have a habit of throwing around the term, “Quran and Hadith,” unnecessarily, thereby turning Islam into a joke. Apparently, very few people on this site have studied the subject, and thus, you try to bulldoze your ideas, over them. I have spent a lot of time studying Islam and the life of Muhammad. Two things I am quite fascinated by. Which is probably why I am not as turned off by Islam as many people and not as obsessed with it as many. In fact, other than my own profession, much of my book reading is on the history of Islam.

It is also why I can easily see the hollowness of so many arguments that you try to pass of, as if based in Islam. And I challenge you to prove them. And over my four years or more on Chowk, you have yet to prove one. Even though I tend to argue them in your own domain, i.e. Shariah.

Let me provide you with the truth: Under any Shariah, with a basis in hadith, it is banned for a Muslim male to expose any portion of his leg, between the navel and knee. This is what is widely acceptable, by, “scholars.” So wearing shorts is banned in Islam, not only for women, but for men, also. Because even the longest shorts expose something between the navel and knee. So they are banned according to Hadith.

In fact, according to Hadith (I can quote them to you, if you want); men are not wear pants going below the ankle. Do you wear pants? I assume you do. Do they go below your ankles? I assume they do. Then you are in violation of Shariah.

It is also illegal to wear tight pants. Once again, I am sure, you do that as well, if you wear jeans.

So your own dress code is in strict violation of Shariah, because, you wear shorts and pants. What will be the punishment for that? At the very least, don’t you think you should first apply the Shariah on yourself, before targeting women and other entities?

Gotta admit...saris do look rather majestic....as a formal uniform it`s at least striking and impressive albeit not very functional...

are bhau, please drive your santro to a nearby police station in amchi mumbai and you will see plenty of female cops in khakhi saris.

I`m kinda proud of our indian women......they`re cops, firefighters, weightlifters, construction workers, professionals of all disciplines, dancing girls......they span the whole spectrum of occupations.......way to go.......i got another pic pf weightlifter malleswari........cool..........

http://thatscricket.indiainfo.com/olympics/2000/image/indiaathletics.html

Re: # 73

???...Indian female police wear uniform///pants////atleast in the metros///maybe in the towns and villages they wear saris////most of them are butch and with busty bosoms///they chew paan, cuss, swear, are gruff and show no mercy to anyone....especially men. Women in the armed forces are more genteel and well proportioned.Maybe, many of them are the progeny of armed forces personnel.

urstruly to romair ...

``Unlike you people, we Muslims infer jurisprudence from Qura`n and hadith.``

............ so romair is a kafir after all ! .......... and pray, who are ``we`` muslims ? ... are we talking about the murderous mullah brigade that is out to grab power by getting us all excited over bare legs and bosoms ? ............. the koran and the hadith are like das capital and the communist manifesto - divine documents to be exploited by wicked men ...........

Re: # 63
I totally agree with Urstruly here. I just want to add in that there was a photo session of PM with Mukhtaran Mai just recently one wonder`s if same thing occur with the wives of PM or President then the will make that issue Public and do photo sessions in front of press, I feel that t