Mukhtaran Mai vs. the Rest of Pakistan

#180 by sifzal on June 18, 2005 3:51am PT


how about Indian government which hijacked its own commercial place for almost 40 hours and place it under security at the corner of its airport claming that the Muslim Kashmiri militant have hijacjed it, but when no sound story turned out


Hijacked it`s own plane? You mean the plane they thought was hijacked but then found out that they has misread the distress signals?

apples and oranges....mistakes are made when people don`t think...like in the hijack alert for a plane that wasn`t really hijacked....stupidity is when people put a lot of thought into a course of action and then end up with egg on their face...i`m sure mushy put a lot of thought into putting this woman on the exit control list....

yatha raja tatha praja....just like you think pointing out an unrelated incident(and fudging facts when doing that) is a way to make a great point - a point send only pakis into rapturous applause, mushy must have thought his explanation, in NZ, of why he put her on the ECL was a brilliant point that his audience would be floored by....you see...you pakis are used to living in this echo-chamber of self-delusion...when your presidente tells you Pakistanis ahead of India in satellite technology because they took control of a pre-owned satellite, pakis just lap it up...the rest of the world`s going you`re f`king kidding me, right......

there`s a whole world outside this paki echo-chamber of self-selusion...it`s called reality...

does anyone see anything wrong with ntsyed`s fools logic ?

``Sure, women were taken as war booty, but Muslims were not allowed then, nor are they allowed today, to force themselves on any woman, even their wives. So yes, it had to be consensual.``

......... but i guess if kobe bryant can get away with it so can the prophet`s friends ...........

Re: # 186 by dost-mittar

ntsyed:
I did not read Yusuf Ali`s translation of the Quran but an Urdu version by a famous Maulana. If I recall, in one of the verses, Allah says that He is sending this message in a simple language so that simple, ordinary Arabs can understand and follow it. So, it`s not just the people on this website who say that.

The underlined sentence in your statment is true, but my friend you`re missing the context again and sticking to this part to justify your interpretation as some chowkies do.

As I pointed out earlier, the basic tenets are laid out in the Quran in very simple language for ``ordinary Arabs`` to understand and follow in their daily lives. However, as one small example, He did not describe the procedures of Salah and Hajj in the Quran - two of the five pillars of Islam. So, a new reader must wonder what is the correct method of these two forms of worships. And there are many such things. That`s why Allah wants the believers to follow the Prophet (PBUH) in order to follow the Quran properly - i.e. the only acceptable interpretation of the Quran, because that`s how Allah instructed the Prophet (PBUH) to worship and teach the believers.

Quran is a comprehensive document that covers everything there`s to cover about life. But covering doesn`t mean everything should be thoroughly explained. For explanations one has to refer to other resources; in this case the Sunnah.

Secondly, while the Quranic statement may have been referring to the `oridnary Arabs` during the Prophet`s (PBUH) time, today even ordinary Arabs could not follow the Quran and Islam without the knowledge of Sunnah (which explain the background and circumstances as per specific verses), let alone the non-Arabs.

#184: Even with context, do you deny that Islam permits women captured during jihad as a war booty? I hope you do not say that this was consensual sex.

Please pardon my intrusion here, but sir, again I`m sorry to say that you`re ill-informed on the subject. Islam never permits rape - non-consensual sex - of ANY woman. Sure, women were taken as war booty, but Muslims were not allowed then, nor are they allowed today, to force themselves on any woman, even their wives. So yes, it had to be consensual. The why and how of this topic are a separate tangent altogether, which perhaps we can discuss later when I`m not so hard pressed on time.

ntsyed

Re: # 187

tahmed,

... calm down - i never accused you of being a ``real`` muslim because i think you sincerely believe tha religion is a personal matter ....... i was talking about the other billion or so who actually believe that islam is a complete deen and all that .......... you, i and dost-mittar seem to be on the same side - that makes three of us , which is a good start !

Re: # 180 sif
//..Indian government which hijacked its own commercial place for almost 40 hours...//

Pakis are like that fool in Groundhog Day. The story never changes. No matter what happens in the wide world - pakis are still stuck in the same old tired stories and mythologies.

So what other gems do you have? Let me guess:

1. Jews blew up WTC on 9/11/2001.
2. Hinuds staged attack on their parliament.
3. Talibans are just students
4. Jihad is just a word.
5. Cockroach is a bird.

hamidm #159 you write ``which include soft-shoeing apologists like mr tahmed, islam cannot be separated from politics ``

I have lost patience with your constant lies, and the hell with your humor. So let me put it bluntly - you were lying when you wrote the above sentence. In all these years I have been on chowk, I have consistently taken the stand that religion is a personal matter. That by dragging religion into politics, both religion and the political structure are corrupted. And yet you insist on ignoring all this.

As I said, by denying any understanding of islam other than that of the maulvi, you are the unwitting servant of the ``bearded politicians``.

hamidm2#159:

``.......... look, theoretically it might be possible to come up with a new and improved islam that is more tolerant and less totalitarian, but as things stand now it is a pipe dream ........it might be possible in a hundred - maybe two hundred - years, but at this point islam is going through a ``revival`` that seeks to propagate a rather horrible and virulent strain of religion that is at odds with the rest of mankind ........... people like tahmed don`t count ............ ``

Who knows? From what I have read and heard, Islam in your grandfather`s village was not what you see today. They respected local jogis more than they respected the local mullah. I hope you know that Ranjha became a disciple of Jogi Gorakh Nath and instead of killing him they made a legend out of him.

ntsyed:
I did not read Yusuf Ali`s translation of the Quran but an Urdu version by a famous Maulana. If I recall, in one of the verses, Allah says that He is sending this message in a simple language so that simple, ordinary Arabs can understand and follow it. So, it`s not just the people on this website who say that.

sifzal #180 You are like the man who rapes and beats up the maid in his house, locks the door so she cant go out, and when her screams attract the attention of the neighbors says that this none of their business.

This is the line of thinking of a criminal, and I see it is shared by teshah #174 below as well who thinks the rape of a mere ``mai`` is something to laugh at. I can only thank God there are people like the village maulvi who first brought the mukhtar mai case to the attention of the world by bringing it up on friday prayers.

On the rest of your post, I see you assume that the Indian airlines hijacking to Afghanistan some years ago was staged by the Indian government. I remember that hijacking, and there has never been any question that it was done by the mullah thugs. Do you have any proof of what you now claim, or is this another convenient ``fact`` you have cooked up?

Romair#177

Thanks for posting my sentence. Reading your and others` posts it was beginning to look that I had said that the Quran wants Muslims to go out and rape Non-Muslim women. The dictionary meaning of condone is `` to overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.`` This is the sense in which I used, what I repeat was a qualifying clause. People who are so big on emphasisng the context should also interpret the words of a mere mortal like me in context. The context is the gang rape of a woman in a primitive, feudal set up. My post was against those who are blaming Islam for it. I was arguing this but added a qualifying clause, because I am aware of some quranic verses that might be interpreted otherwise, so in the interest of `the whole truth`, I added a qualification. Itni si baat thee jise afsaana kar diya.

Please note that I did not say that Islam allows rape of kafirs under normal circumstances or that it is the only religion that condones rape. That again was your and others` interpretation. Even with context, do you deny that Islam permits women captured during jihad as a war booty? I hope you do not say that this was consensual sex.

As for my comment leading to profiling, people are not profiled for what is in their religious books but by how they behave (thre is no dearth of gory details in other religious books). Muslims were not profiled before 9/11 although the Quran was still there. They are profiled now because there is a good deal of sympathy among Muslims for acts like 9/11

Re: # 178 by Romair

There is, in fact, no mechanism defined in the Quran, that allows one to make a binding interpretation of it

I`m sorry, but in spite of your sincertiy you`ve apparently missed the verses where Allah has ordered us to follow and obey the Prophet (PBUH) if we seek His optimum pleasure.

There is no other way to understand Quran if one sets the Prophet`s (PBUH) authentic traditions (sayingss and actions) aside. Doing so has been the source of evolution of so many fractions within Islam and its politicization.

Also, please do some research on the term Shar`ia.

ntsyed :-)~~

Re: # 168 by sattar2

sattar,

To the contrary, I’ve never been confused about your confusion. Your poking fun at Quran has nothing to do with insecurity. I’m sure you’re just as secure about your mother’s chastity as I am about mine, but can you poke fun at her sexual behavior without disrespecting her? I doubt it. Again, pay attention to context and learn the meaning of the word ‘respect’, as poking fun at something revered by a billion people is very different from doing the same with yourself.

Anyhow, you may have brought up the punishment for anti-state activity and I may have remained silent since it’s a no-brainer. One such no-brainer I presented to you on this board regarding ‘raping other women’, on which you’ve decided to remain silent. Should one assume that you’re deliberately avoiding a reply? Better luck spinning things out of context next time.

I too can give you a detailed explanation of the word “khattam” along with many examples and very easily expose the Ahmedi twist to silence you. But why do so since you seem secure to poke fun at yourself.

Let’s see … since you believe in Quran, know it very well, and are very secure about the interpretation you believe in, please tell me why would there be a need for more prophets when Allah claimed that the religion has been completed in its perfection? Or do you deny that Allah ever said that?

Do you think Allah did not know today’s prevailing circumstances 1400 year ago?

If (ma’z Allah) He didn’t know, then could you direct me to ONE verse where He allows ANYONE to change this religion, which He claims to have completed with perfection, as and when needed?

If no change is required, then what’s the purpose of the prophet?

By the way, I know throughout the history many low-lives have claimed to be prophets and/or justified continuation of prophethood, but who are these ‘well-known’ scholars to have done that? Please don`t tell me Mirza Ahmed is a scholar, because managing my personal check book doesn`t qualify me as an accountant or financial planner.

ntsyed :-)~~

Re: # 163 by HP

For something to be comprehensive, dynamism must cease first. As comprehensive can only be applied to static ideas or things.

Very true!

In this changing world, lifestyle, and needs a religion or a theory cannot be comprehensive or complete and it will have to draw on several sources to just keep up with dynamism that life presents.

Sure the world is changing rapidly, but what is religion? It`s not just a passport, nor does it interfere with technology.

If you study religions, these are ways of life; dealing strictly with the basic human behavior as per the biological composition. Have the humans changed biologically in the last 1400 years, or since Adam & Eve for that matter? Hasn`t that dynamism ceased after the birth of Eve, since we haven`t seen any other form of human reproduction other than what we know today?

Have our innate needs of propagation, eating, sleeping, anger, greed for wealth, lust for power and physical pleasures have changed? . In every era and every community, people behaved in the same manner as they do today with respect to these traits, and that`s primarily what religion deals with. So, from that perspective isn`t life static, thus can be comprehensively addressed by the religion?

What has changed over the years is the technology and the climate. Dynamism. But just because today`s Muslims are technologically inferior, it doesn`t mean they`re against technology. Nor does it mean the Islam denounces technology. Certainly it doesn`t mean the non-Muslims have gained this technological edge because of their freedom of speech, dress, sex, and what have you. They did it with education and research and hard work, while Muslims were either sleeping. Just like early Muslims established Basra as the center of knowledge for the world when the entire west was in dark ages.

So, there`s no need to change the basic Islamic behavioral codes. We just need to learn and practice them as they`re supposed to be practiced. What the Muslims are doing in the name of Islam throughout the Muslim world today is called deviance, and that`s why they`re being kicked around all over.

Thus, no it wasn`t a 20th century prophet who claimed it so. It was the 7th century Prophet (PBUH) who demonstrated it to us. The only thing is, you need to study the subject, and live the life according to those guidelines to be able to see the truth. Otherwise, regardless of what I or even if Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) tell you, it would not make any difference to you. Just as you could not understand medicine, law, engg, etc withouth thoroghly studying the particular discipline.

ntsyed :-)~~

Re: # 131
Arjun you will never understand...ok you want to talk about stupidity...how about Indian government which hijacked its own commercial place for almost 40 hours and place it under security at the corner of its airport claming that the Muslim Kashmiri militant have hijacjed it, but when no sound story turned out (bad homework for the drama!)...a simple statement was made :it was a misunderstanding, and that the plane was not hijacked! All this was done to get closer to USA by showing that they are victims like them too under the hands of Muslim extremists! (just a month after 9/11 incident)...you want to learn more stupidities of your government...but before I go on, let me stop, here I am not for tit for tat. I am only here to reason and put forward my own view points so let me go back...

tahmad #132, its not a weakness, rather it is a way of telling the international agencies that you are not to be taken for granted, and that you have your own soverign ways of doing thing - not to react in the way the international agencies want you to act. They want to ridicule you in regards to your justice system, which they have no right to if they are not doing the same with other countries, especially developed countries. Why don’t these agencies take the defence ministers, army generals or commanders of the developed countries for their human and other rights violations? Sorry pick and choose that is strongly biased against our country should not be allowed rather strongly dealt with. We are capable enough for the justice on our own. Yes, nevertheless, I must add here that there is one positive side of this internationalisation - a positive pressure on the justice system, though it has its the darker side too - acting under pressure and in the name of justice doing what the international agencies desire, which may or may not be the true justice.

He said NGOs are “Westernised fringe elements” which “are as bad as the Islamic extremists”.

......I agree with Mr. Mush on the above statement.However the damage has been done on the PR front.It is futile to blame the officials too.The mullahs are getting a bad rap pn this one.But they have created bad publicity for themselves by coming across as fanatics.They also need to polish their image and indulge insome PR tactics.This is a ``no-win`` situation for all.One cannot prevent such things from happening.Pak should just wait for the dust to settle and everyone forgets about it.

Urstruly #153: ``The following lines comprise the Chapter 105 -``The Elephants`` in the Qura`n. Help me understand what they mean using your own ``Sharia`` and how did you reach to the explanation that you figured ot.``

It is quite time-consuming, fighting a battle with D-M on one side, and with you on the other. But, well, it must be done............

To the best of my knowledge, there is no Chapter in the Quran called, ``Elephants.`` Please recheck your version of the Quran. There is one titled, ``Feel,`` which means Elephant.

I don`t have my own Shariah. That is my whole point. I study the Quran and try to understand it. But I don`t try to force it upon others............There is, in fact, no mechanism defined in the Quran, that allows one to make a binding interpretation of it...........This is the difference between you and me........I try to understand something. You simply ape whatever is told to you by someone............

Re: # 168 sattar

That is ok; relax. You know this is the problem with all heretics, munafiques, and Muslim pretenders like Quadianis, Parvezis (not associated with this insect called Musharaf), Mutazalites and sort that they consider themselves to be the aflatoon and when put to test falter on just four lines of Qura`n. As your post suggests, the Qura`n actually becomes meaningless to them too. That happens when you reject the True Guide (pbuh). I am still waiting what kind of cock and bull explanation will Romair come up with. I asked him this question at another board and he tactfully managed to avoid it, you know thru his usaul modus operandi i.e. tax and immigration tripe.