ISNA Thugs

actaully true women freedom came from chemicals..plain and simple... comes in a 28-pioll pack. also liberated some from acne ..

#152, Urs Bhai {``How the hell burning a bra can make women free. What chutyapa.``}

This is much before our time. In the old days, burning bra was an accepted way of breast reduction. It was quite effective as long as it was done carefully and under supervision. Of course, the object was to reduce pounds and not make it disappear altogether.

How the hell burning a bra can make women free. What chutyapa.

Re: # 152 by Urstruly

``How the hell burning a bra can make women free. What chutyapa``

The operative word: chut-ya-pa

`nuff said


:-)~~

DM Sahib, #149,
Did you actually see any real bra-burning?

Was it fun or just a lot of pain? Did they remove the bras first?

These are burning questions.

#149, Helen Reddy (sic) . or something like that.

``I am woman, I am strong
I have never been so wrong.`` :)

Salim_Chauhan:

Betty Frieden wrote her Feminine Mystique in 1963 and founded the National Organization of Women in 1966. I believe even the bra-burning phase of the feminist movement took place in the late sixties. But yes, the movement really came into its own during the 70s, (with that song ``I am a woman`` by Helen somebody) after the anti-war movement died down.

#147, Jang,
Just wait till the Kanucks feel the effects of divine wrath. Pretty soon, the salmon will be gone, the polar bears will eat their young uns, nobody will drink Molson`s, and all the East European lap dancers will start charging in Euros.

finally, canada, the last bastion of tolerance is turning against the religious by turning sharia down. now, we all went to canada because it was nice place to raise kids..where do we go next? mexico?

#135, DM Sahib,
Please don`t be so hasty in gloating over this defeat for the Sharia Law. Shariah Law is not a Muslim thingy. It is for the benefit of all men.
If you Indians keep going the western route, eventually your females will ruin you, they will take all your kids, money, and property and marry Tanzanian foreign students, and you will have to go to the local dhabba every Sunday to be with your own kids.

#142, {``on US civil rights .. they in turn stood on the shoulders of Eisenhower (who sent federal troops to little rock to push aside state officials in Alabama), who stood on the shoulders of Rosa Parks .. who in turn stood on the shoulders ...``}

Tahmed Sahib,
That`s a lot of shoulders! Phew, I started to feel sorry for the poor dude who is at the bottom of the totem pole with all these people standing on top of each others` shoulders.
What was this? History of the World, Part Deux? BTW, did Temporal Sahib write this post? Just asking, because when I went to Little Rock a few years ago, it was in Arkansas. Maybe, back in those days when men were men and women did all the work, Little Rock might have been in Alabama.

Anyway, good post. I liked the dragon part.

hahahaha, please feel free to ignore or not ignore my so-called vulgarity which appears in spite of my upbringing. . . . just keep my upbringing out of it!

moving on. . . .

#141, ana {``i don`t think she, or the ``liberals`` that i know ignore or say that it is peachy for men from a certain group to have affairs, while another group can`t. that is plain ridiculous. it is either not okay for some across the board, or it is, or it is plain none of our bloody business...

i don`t really give a rat`s ass what anyone thinks...``}

Ana,
Thank you for clarifying your position. I agree that if objectivity is maintained then selective adulation can be overcome.

BTW, your remark about a rodent`s posterior was totally unnecessary. I will ignore this vulgarity and give you the benefit of doubt as far as upbringing is concerned.

Thanks

on US civil rights - there is enough credit to go around. it was not just MLK, not just the US clergy, or the jewish liberals who get credit. they in turn stood on the shoulders of Eisenhower (who sent federal troops to little rock to push aside state officials in Alabama), who stood on the shoulders of Rosa Parks (the woman who refused to give up her seat on the front of the bus, as required by law back in the 1950s), who in turn stood on the shoulders of Truman (who ended de-segregation in the armed forces) who in turn stood on the shoulders of the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who died in the US Civil War to put an end to slavery, who in turn stood on the shoulders of those who laid down the ideals of the US in the US constitution, who in turn stood on the shoulders of freethinkers like Stuart Mill and Rousseau who were the ones who slayed the dragon, namely the theory of the Divine Right of Kings.

That dragon that was slayed two centuries ago in europe today stalks the muslim world, as islamists try to reintroduce kingships (khalifates) through islamic sharia. luckily, because democratic ideals are so well entrenched in the world today - thanks to the above-mentioned giants - muslims will not be called upon to do what they are intellectually and morally incapable of doing: namely slaying the dragon of tyranny that walks breathing the ``sharia``. this dragon will die its own death because the rest of the world no longer provides an environment in which it can survive.

salim,

i will try to be as brief and civil with this response as possible. i think it is unfair of you to paint ``liberals`` and ``feminazis`` with one brush just as it is for some to paint ``conservatives``.

i am not helping anyone with any particular agenda except that of inclusion. i agree with samina on certain points, but i`m not pushing any agenda here except that of inclusion. and i am not sure that i appreciate the implication.

a good part of this article deals with how ``minority`` populations within a minority such as the ISNA are treated. that is what samina was trying to express by drawing parallels. i don`t think she, or the ``liberals`` that i know ignore or say that it is peachy for men from a certain group to have affairs, while another group can`t. that is plain ridiculous. it is either not okay for some across the board, or it is, or it is plain none of our bloody business.

some preachers have used their pulpits not to denigrate gays, or ``philanderers`` or to tell women what they should do with their bodies, but to speak of inclusion and loving one another including our enemies, jim bakker, jimmy swaggart and ``moral majority`` folks have done just the opposite. that is when some feel their hypocrisies should be pointed out. there are many people in this world who are hypocrites, and many who have feet of clay. . . .jesse jackson, dr. king, bill clinton, benazir ``pinky`` bhutto, you name `em. the issue here, as some see it, salim, is of inclusion and how groups lack that. that is what umbreen was addressing, if i understood that. now if i support an agenda of inclusiveness, i don`t really give a rat`s ass what anyone thinks but kindly refrain from applying any other agendas to me.

now can we please move on. . . .

#138, {``#138 by tahmed32 on September 12, 2005 9:33am PT
salim #126 greetings my friend. yes indeed...if only mullah omar could read...if only the tin man had a heart...if only the scarecrow had a brain...if only our ``muslim ummah`` brothers had all of the above... ;-)``}

Agreed!
We should start a movement that proclaims that Muslims are and, if necessary, can be just plain normal simple humans. :)