Caught In Between Excellent reply Zahra,

I totally agree with you, that it just baffles me why this `` certain group of clergy`` would actally want Pakistan to descend into chaos, which is what it would do by following the example of any extremist regime.

I do not think they have the best interests of the country at heart, all they are concerned with is gaining power by any means, even if they have to pretend that they are carrying out God`s will to do it. They don`t care, they never cared about this country. And they never will. And if they decide that enforcing their own personal interpretation of religion down everybody else throat is more important to them, that the fact that the country should make intelligent rational decisions which are in line with the reality that exists today, then what they are really saying is that the existence of this country as a nation state is not something that interests them. So what they say, likewise, should not interest us, certainly their opionions should not be allowed to actually effect national policy, although they may retain the right to express it.

Loves loved {some not so loved} zehra, anyone

good stuff; I just need to ask a question here, if the author is the same person who wrote `` growing up an american muslim `` way back sometime, and if so how come the radical difference in the two personnas and the attitude to life -among other things? I understand about how the I in narration is supposed to be seperate from the I in real life but even those earlier posts seem to be from a completely different individual. sorry about being so uninformed, I just started interacting here a short while ago.

The Making of a Successful Marriage studebaker #11-?

look, for some reason you find this female`s - whose article you have pasted in here - views on the wonder of the hijab very attractive but a lot of what she says not only makes no sense but just sounds logically wrong.

And why is that? because she`s doing it for the wrong reasons. Her real reason actually comes out between the lines namely `` feeling that one has to meet impossible male standards of beauty is tiring and often humiliating `` She then goes on to give the very salient features of the hijab like not have to fight with your tresses for hours on a bad hair day, which being a woman I have to agree with to some extent ; it would be nice if I simply didn`t have to bother about doing my hair just to go to work/study every day, but if I want to avoid the hassle and just tie a scarf over my head that day, why should I claim religious reasons for doing so - just so I can get credit and approval from the religious right?

She then goes on to complain about how women who don`t wear makeup and shave their legs and expose are somehow ridiculed and put down until they do - someone should just ask her `` who exactly is insisting you do all that? If you can`t be bothered, don`t. If shaving your legs is such a huge problem for you, wear jeans, or long skirts, and as long as your face is basically clean I don`t think anyone is going to throw you out of the room. Exposure isn`t de rigeur for going to work or the grocery mart either. In fact in some work places, too much exposure works against you.``

She then declares `` the hijab is a women`s assertion that the judgement of her physical person is to play NO ROLE whatsoever in social interaction`` Excuse me? NO ROLE WHATSOEVER? I`m all for believing with the Quran that our soul is the most important part of us, but to deny the physical element completely is to deny part of ourselves. Certainly physical beauty shouldn`t be the basis for how we treat others, but I personally would not want to work with or even be with some one who was completely unconcerned with their physical self and hadn`t bothered to groom themselves be it men or women ( letting their stubble grow, not using proper deodarants which A LOT of desis don`t do, wearing messy clothes, unwashed hair , the list goes on - this has nothing to do with personal beauty, just common courtesy for those around you )

Finally in the end she makes this pointless ( it`s completely POINTLESS because civilized self-respecting women DO NOT bare their breasts in public or in any public capacity WHATSOEVER no matter what faith they happen to be, and as for muslim women doing so, the whole idea is just laughable ) assertion that `` women are not going to achieve equality with the right to bare their breasts in public ...... that will only make us party to our own objectification ``

So according to this woman, equality HAS been definetively achieved in a society if you DON`T need to defend your decision to keep your body (as represented by your hair and neck) to yourself and equality HASN`T been achieved if you DO have the right to bare any part of your body other than your face in public( I absolutely refuse to use her ``breasts`` example because in North America women don`t have the right to do that in the open -and that`s they way it should - and will- stay because breasts are basically a sexual body part).

Her argument sounds very kind of one sided to me. Her right to cover is more important to ensure female equality then someone else`s right not to? Why are her rights more important? and why this paranoid obsession that she`s being objectified?

Women will achieve equality when they can wear whatever they like as long as remains within the bounds of decency.

The hijab is not going to be the tool that gives back women control over their bodies - although that`s what the male counterparts of these women would like them to believe. Only societies can do that - by making stricter laws for sexual harassment, and enforcing them so women never have to feel objectified, and the men who do it should know that the onus of responsibility is on them, and they can and will be held responsible if they do it.

Soulmate?



While it may be true that we are where we in life to a great extent because of the care our parents have given to fullfilling our needs, I cannot agree with the people (Aiesha, a few others ) who think that that automatically gives them the supreme right to make such a life-enveloping ( although I doubt that`s a word)desicion like who their by now adult ``child`` should marry.

Aeisha, maybe you see the parent-child relationship as similar to the loan dividends, and paybacks relationship, but I don`t think human relationships are, or should be that cut and dry. When people make the DECISION to have a baby, they should FIRST think long and hard just how they plan to give that child everything - the care, the attention, the facilities - that every child is entitled to. If they are not in a position to ensure that, they should just forget about having a child until they can. Children are not just children. Parents have to remember that THIS IS A PERSON THEY`RE MAKING HERE. And if they simply say ``oh, we`ll just have the baby , and worry about all these things later``, have the kid anyways, and then complain forever about the sacrifices that they made, well then the kid has a right to ask, ``well, who asked you to? I wasn`t even born so it certainly wasn`t me, it was your decision, now don`t go on about it`` ; sorry, I don`t think that they sacrifices they made because they had babies first and thought about how to raise them later, entitles them to decide how their ADULT progeny chooses to spend the rest of his/her life ( UNLESS they choose to do something very obviously dangerous and life threatening - since they participated with God in giving them life, they do have a say in them playing recklessly with it ), as LONG as she/he fullfills his filial obligations by taking care of his parents needs, which I agree with TAHMED321 are their EMOTIONAL and FINANCIAL needs, NOT their vicarious ones.

And please don`t try to trivialize the right to pick and choose one`s spouse, which every human being should have, by saying that anyone who doesn`t marry their parent`s choice is only interested in their biological needs. (and btw boy`s parents never shop for aesthetically challenged brides for their sons, so the biological need thing is taken care of right there - at least for the boys )If that`s how narrow your concept is of what people look for in their ``soulmate`` then you can`t understand just what kind of marriage I`m advocating in the first place, I certainly don`t know how to make you understand it, and you shouldn`t pass judgements about it until you start giving serious thought to how different a complete marriage can be as opposed to the half baked ones people`s parents make for them.

Soulmate? I think one aspect most people miss out in their anaylsis of why families are opposed to their boys marrying on their own when they leave the home country is that basically the same reasons apply as to why they don`t allow just plain social interaction between their kids and the opposite sexes even in Pakistan. They want control. They desperately desperately want control. If they don`t have it they become physically ill.

True, most parents would be appalled at their son marrying a gori or some unknown american female of pakistani origin, but you can bet those same parents who spout religious reasons for why they want a girl who understands their ``traditions and culture`` would be equally horrified if he turned up with some (local) Pakistani Muslim female who they didn`t approve of. The choice given to these guys isn`t `` come home honey and pick whoever you want, we`ll be fine with it`` , it`s `` come home honey and be happy with who we picked for you, you`ll love her, we promise!`` . The bottom line is control. And should they have it? should they have the power to singlehandedly decide who you would be happy to spend the rest of your life with? Who you would be happy to spend the whole day sitting with, talking to, making plans that will affect the rest of your life with? should you give them that right at all? Their intentions certainly don`t merit a closer look. It`s one thing for girls raised in Pakistan who are all brought up to be, and to an extent, have to be, fairly dependent on their families, to go along with this routine, because they can`t go out of their way and pick guys to marry without some measure of family support. But as for financially and socially independent men who are living in another COUNTRY by themselves for god`s sake, to meekly say yes, ami and abu, I`ll hop on the next plane so YOU can decide pretty much how I`m going to live the rest of my life, that is just sad.

Just Another Stupid Love Story

Nicely written article. Very real emotions. What happened afterward the reunion?

About the poem by Parveen Shakir, I think the idea of one woman actually praying for the other is the most unrealistic ---- I`ve ever heard. Unless they happen to be on something, I can`t any pakistani woman doing that, which would pretty much negate the point of praying, since it wouldn`t be accepted.. even if you do happen to be generous enough to be able to put yourself in her position, who would be masochistic enough to actually wish her well?

I agree with urstruly that woman are sometimes masochistic, but their masochism extends to men, not to other woman, unless that woman happens to be his mother/sister/boss.

It`s true that men do tend to be more possessive in their attitude towards women, and would probably act first and think later when it comes to the other man - whether this is because of cultural reasons, or the territorial instinct is simply stronger in them, I can`t say. You`d have to do some pretty long-term experiments on raising boys completely differently to figure that one out.