Whither Democracy?
Art van Delay
``! Allah guideth wrongdoing folk``
I can make it even better Art,by selective quoting!!!!!!!!!
IT DOESNT WORK ANYMORE ,TO QUOTE QURAN ,AS PER ARUN SHOURIE,ANWAR SHEIKH,SITARAM,MUNSHI,etc.etc.etc.
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 8, 2001 02:51 pm
Reply #: 157 Art van Delay
``! Allah guideth wrongdoing folk``
I can make it even better Art,by selective quoting!!!!!!!!!
IT DOESNT WORK ANYMORE ,TO QUOTE QURAN ,AS PER ARUN SHOURIE,ANWAR SHEIKH,SITARAM,MUNSHI,etc.etc.etc.
In Search of the Moderate Muslim
Islam Is For Peace And Not Terrorism
FIROZ BAKHT AHMED
O umpteen non-Muslim friends of mine, Islam is an intolerant and aggressively proselytising religion whose followers enforce conversion under the threat of death, destroy shrines and idols of other religions and indulge in terrorism in the name of religion.
This is because religions are often judged by what their most debased, fanatical and intolerant followers do.
This holds true in the case of Islam. Whenever there’s a tragedy of the kind like the Afghan war, the Babri Masjid imbroglio, the triple talaq or the cases of fatwas against author Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses or Taslima Nasreen’s Lajja, a quarrel over Islam begins and it appears that there are many Islams and as many forms of jehad.
There is the Islam that Osama bin Laden follows. Then there is the Islam adhered to by the Muslim intellectuals or moderate clerics like Mufti Mukarram, the Imam of the ‘Shahi’ Masjid Fatehpuri.
Yet another form is propagated by politicians. The question is what exactly is real Islam? Whatever the answer to that may be, Islam is certainly not what the Osama bin Ladens practise or what the so-called Kashmiri jehadis espouse.
Some might even ask whether Islam is a conglomeration of all these forms? Certainly not. Islam propagates peace. It means submission before the Almighty. It is not submission to terrorism.
Besides, terrorists are neither Muslims nor Christians; neither Hindus nor Sikhs. The religion of terror is quite unlike the traditional religions. It’s altogether a different concept.
Terrorism is the murder of the innocent as happened in the case of mass murder at the World Trade Center. It is the violence American forces are perpetrating on innocent Afghan civilians.
There can be no excuse for such acts whichever quarter they may come from.
Besides, terrorism is not the pursuit of legitimate complaints by illegitimate means.
All acts of terror are anti-Islam and anti-jehad. The terrorist will claim one or another religious or social grievances as a cover for his insidious and ulterior motives. All killers do so ‘‘for building a better world’’.
It is mentioned in the holy Qur’an that the needy, the handicapped, the orphans and the hapless be helped. It has never said that a follower of Islam should be not helped or sympathised with.
In fact, it is bigotry and hatred that results in enmity. A man blinded by nationalistic bigotry can never be tolerant and sympathetic towards other religions and nations.
Islam is opposed to this. It considers all creatures of God as one family. Prophet Mohammed once told Hazrat Mohammed Abdullah bin Masood that all creatures constitute the family of God and man is God’s most beloved. It finally implies that he who serves God’s creation, is nearest to Him.
When we speak of human rights, peace and service to mankind in Islam, we really mean that these rights have been granted to us by God and not by any king or any legislative assembly.
Therefore, no one has the right to abrogate or withdraw them. They are not like basic human rights that are written on paper and denied in actual life.
They are concrete sets of laws for peace and mutual co-existence. They are not like the shariah courts.
True, Islam symbolises the security of life and property, protection of honour and the right to protest against tyranny towards men, women and children.
For the eternal goal, the path is that our faith must be true and sincere. We must be prepared to show it in deeds of charity to our fellow beings no matter what faith they follow. We must be good, law-abiding citizens supporting social causes and organisations.
Our own individual soul must be firm and unshaken in all circumstances. This is the standard by which a particular mode of conduct is judged as good or bad.
This standard of judgment provides the nucleus around which the entire moral conduct should revolve. Thus by setting God’s pleasure as the objective of man’s life, Islam has furnished the highest possible standard of morality.
And God is most pleased when he sees that humanity is involved in mutual co-operation and harmonious co-existence.
This is bound to provide limitless avenues for the moral evolution of our race. It ensures that the affairs of life, instead of being dominated by selfish desires and petty interests, must be regulated by norms of compatibility.
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 7, 2001 12:07 am
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=151449Islam Is For Peace And Not Terrorism
FIROZ BAKHT AHMED
O umpteen non-Muslim friends of mine, Islam is an intolerant and aggressively proselytising religion whose followers enforce conversion under the threat of death, destroy shrines and idols of other religions and indulge in terrorism in the name of religion.
This is because religions are often judged by what their most debased, fanatical and intolerant followers do.
This holds true in the case of Islam. Whenever there’s a tragedy of the kind like the Afghan war, the Babri Masjid imbroglio, the triple talaq or the cases of fatwas against author Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses or Taslima Nasreen’s Lajja, a quarrel over Islam begins and it appears that there are many Islams and as many forms of jehad.
There is the Islam that Osama bin Laden follows. Then there is the Islam adhered to by the Muslim intellectuals or moderate clerics like Mufti Mukarram, the Imam of the ‘Shahi’ Masjid Fatehpuri.
Yet another form is propagated by politicians. The question is what exactly is real Islam? Whatever the answer to that may be, Islam is certainly not what the Osama bin Ladens practise or what the so-called Kashmiri jehadis espouse.
Some might even ask whether Islam is a conglomeration of all these forms? Certainly not. Islam propagates peace. It means submission before the Almighty. It is not submission to terrorism.
Besides, terrorists are neither Muslims nor Christians; neither Hindus nor Sikhs. The religion of terror is quite unlike the traditional religions. It’s altogether a different concept.
Terrorism is the murder of the innocent as happened in the case of mass murder at the World Trade Center. It is the violence American forces are perpetrating on innocent Afghan civilians.
There can be no excuse for such acts whichever quarter they may come from.
Besides, terrorism is not the pursuit of legitimate complaints by illegitimate means.
All acts of terror are anti-Islam and anti-jehad. The terrorist will claim one or another religious or social grievances as a cover for his insidious and ulterior motives. All killers do so ‘‘for building a better world’’.
It is mentioned in the holy Qur’an that the needy, the handicapped, the orphans and the hapless be helped. It has never said that a follower of Islam should be not helped or sympathised with.
In fact, it is bigotry and hatred that results in enmity. A man blinded by nationalistic bigotry can never be tolerant and sympathetic towards other religions and nations.
Islam is opposed to this. It considers all creatures of God as one family. Prophet Mohammed once told Hazrat Mohammed Abdullah bin Masood that all creatures constitute the family of God and man is God’s most beloved. It finally implies that he who serves God’s creation, is nearest to Him.
When we speak of human rights, peace and service to mankind in Islam, we really mean that these rights have been granted to us by God and not by any king or any legislative assembly.
Therefore, no one has the right to abrogate or withdraw them. They are not like basic human rights that are written on paper and denied in actual life.
They are concrete sets of laws for peace and mutual co-existence. They are not like the shariah courts.
True, Islam symbolises the security of life and property, protection of honour and the right to protest against tyranny towards men, women and children.
For the eternal goal, the path is that our faith must be true and sincere. We must be prepared to show it in deeds of charity to our fellow beings no matter what faith they follow. We must be good, law-abiding citizens supporting social causes and organisations.
Our own individual soul must be firm and unshaken in all circumstances. This is the standard by which a particular mode of conduct is judged as good or bad.
This standard of judgment provides the nucleus around which the entire moral conduct should revolve. Thus by setting God’s pleasure as the objective of man’s life, Islam has furnished the highest possible standard of morality.
And God is most pleased when he sees that humanity is involved in mutual co-operation and harmonious co-existence.
This is bound to provide limitless avenues for the moral evolution of our race. It ensures that the affairs of life, instead of being dominated by selfish desires and petty interests, must be regulated by norms of compatibility.
A Journey Into Afghanistan
Baby Laden! There`s much in a name
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sao Paulo, Nov 2
An out-of-work Brazilian construction worker who used to live in Iraq and says he hates the United States is set to go to court to fight for the right to name his sixth child Osama bin Laden.
Oswaldo Oliveira`s son was born September 8 and after the September 11 terror strikes on the United States, the 46-year-old had no doubt what his son`s name should be: Osama bin Laden Feliciano de Oliveira Soares.
Authorities in Embu, just outside South America`s largest city, nixed Oliveira`s idea, arguing that the name could put the child in an uncomfortable situation for his entire life. ``That is what his name is going to be, because of the hatred my wife and I feel for Americans,`` said Oliveira who lived in Iraq for nine years working for a Brazilian construction company.
``I am not giving up on the name, and if they don`t give me permission to name my son that I am going to appeal to every authority possible,`` the father told local media. ``I am quite fond of Osama bin Laden. He is a good person and not the terrorist they say.``
The determined dad says if officials don`t change their tune, ``he will be baptized Mateus Oliveira Soares, but in my home he will always be known as Osama bin Laden``.
Much ado about a name is nothing new to Oliveira who also clashed with authorities after he tried to name another son Saddam Hussein Oliveira Soares
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 3, 2001 02:01 am
Baby Laden! There`s much in a name
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sao Paulo, Nov 2
An out-of-work Brazilian construction worker who used to live in Iraq and says he hates the United States is set to go to court to fight for the right to name his sixth child Osama bin Laden.
Oswaldo Oliveira`s son was born September 8 and after the September 11 terror strikes on the United States, the 46-year-old had no doubt what his son`s name should be: Osama bin Laden Feliciano de Oliveira Soares.
Authorities in Embu, just outside South America`s largest city, nixed Oliveira`s idea, arguing that the name could put the child in an uncomfortable situation for his entire life. ``That is what his name is going to be, because of the hatred my wife and I feel for Americans,`` said Oliveira who lived in Iraq for nine years working for a Brazilian construction company.
``I am not giving up on the name, and if they don`t give me permission to name my son that I am going to appeal to every authority possible,`` the father told local media. ``I am quite fond of Osama bin Laden. He is a good person and not the terrorist they say.``
The determined dad says if officials don`t change their tune, ``he will be baptized Mateus Oliveira Soares, but in my home he will always be known as Osama bin Laden``.
Much ado about a name is nothing new to Oliveira who also clashed with authorities after he tried to name another son Saddam Hussein Oliveira Soares
Reporting on Afghanistan
What if there are two parallel govt.extending from Kabul to Srinagar through Islamabad?
P.M. Parvez Musharaff can rif raff in english about protocol of UNO ,negotiations ,democraticization,& aspiring to be accepted by western countries like still waiting Turkey for admittence in the ECM-european common Market.
After all if muslims men ,women,children,old & young form a human chain from Kabul to Sri Nagar let jewish,Hindu ,American Nixus ,do whatever they want .
In to-days HINDU .paper 27th oct 2001
`Taliban are welcome in Kashmir`
SRINAGAR, OCT. 27. Ms. Asiya Andrabi is the only wanted woman leader in Kashmir. Just before the terrorist strikes in the United States, police did not spare any effort to apprehend her for alleged involvement in the much-publicised burqa (veil) campaign launched by the Lashkar-e-Jabbar(LeJ).
A staunch pro-Pakistan leader of the Dukhtaran-e- Millat (DeM or daughters of nation), Ms. Andrabi believes that the armed struggle in Kashmir is not nationalistic, but part of the Islamic movement worldwide. A bitter critic of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference, she is all praise for the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda. The DeM, radical women`s group, had also been banned in 1990. Often referred to as a militant group, none of its activists has taken to the gun. But it is a strong supporter of militants. The Hindu Special Correspondent Shujaat Bukhari managed an hour-long conversation with Ms. Andrabi under the shadow of police chasing her. Here are the excerpts of the interview:
Question: Something about you and your organisation?
Ms. Asiya Andrabi: In fact, I started the movement in 1981 when I was a student of B.Sc. I came across a book consisting writeups by newly-converts to Islam. I read an article by Maryam Jameela who had converted to Islam from Christianity and my desire for learning Islam started from that day. I changed my subjects and did B.A.(Hon.) in Arabic. Initially, I founded the Dukhtaran-e- Fatima, which was later on renamed the Dukhtaran-e-Millat in `90.
You have been vociferously pursuing the teachings of Islam and want to implement the Islamic code of conduct strictly, particularly among women. But there has been little success.
No, we always have not been strict in the sense you refer to. From 1981 to 1992, we took recourse to awareness through preaching but, yes, in 1992 we sprinkled colour on women to enforce the ``purdah`` but that too after a declaration by Islamic scholars. It continued for two months. Those who adhered to it continue to do so, and those who did it under fear discontinued it afterwards.
Islam in Kashmir is being practised in a different way and not essentially like the Taliban do. Don`t you think it will not help you in influencing a larger chunk of people?
We are not bothered how many people follow us. We want Islamic teachings to be followed strictly. If I would have listened to people in the past, I would have been the most popular leader of Kashmir.
You are a staunch supporter of Kashmir`s accession to Pakistan, but you have turned against the Government of Pakistan on its support to the U.S.
We are for a united Muslim world, that is why we want Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. We are not the puppets of the Government of Pakistan nor are their paid agents. We are with the people of Pakistan, who have publicly resented Gen. Musharraf`s decision to support the U.S. He has done wrong. We do not care for the Pakistan Government.
What about the Hurriyat Conference?
Its place is in nowhere but in a dustbin. It claims to be representatives of people, but Kashmiris have rejected it. It does not exist anywhere and people have full faith in ``Mujahideen``.
What will be the impact of developments in Afghanistan on Kashmir?
It will be positive. The people of Pakistan, who have supported the Taliban, also support Kashmir militancy. The U.S. will be defeated and they have admitted that they cannot get Osama bin Laden. If the Taliban succeeds, it will give a fillip to militant activities and if they lose, they will turn to Kashmir as well.
But don`t you think that Kashmir militancy will be hijacked if forces like the Taliban come?
No, it is not the question of Kashmiriat or nationalism. We are part of Islamic movement worldwide. So any of our brethren, including the Taliban, are welcome in Kashmir.
You supported the Lashkar-e-Jabbar in its campaign on the ``purdah`` but it faded away.
The developments in Afghanistan took everything. We support their campaign and it is basically our agenda.
The LeJ, many people believe does not exist at all, who are they?
No, they exist. They are not sponsored by Pakistan or anybody else, but may be the members of some other group.
An impression goes that Pakistan will try to bargain with the U.S. on Kashmir.
We do not want ``azadi`` at the cost of the people of Afghanistan even if we remain slaves for whole life. The U.S. can never be a friend of any Muslim country as history speaks for itself. That is why we are opposed to the U.S. intervention in Kashmir. It has the arrogance of power and I hope Afghanistan will break that pride of the U.S.
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 28, 2001 04:33 am
What if there are two parallel govt.extending from Kabul to Srinagar through Islamabad?
P.M. Parvez Musharaff can rif raff in english about protocol of UNO ,negotiations ,democraticization,& aspiring to be accepted by western countries like still waiting Turkey for admittence in the ECM-european common Market.
After all if muslims men ,women,children,old & young form a human chain from Kabul to Sri Nagar let jewish,Hindu ,American Nixus ,do whatever they want .
In to-days HINDU .paper 27th oct 2001
`Taliban are welcome in Kashmir`
SRINAGAR, OCT. 27. Ms. Asiya Andrabi is the only wanted woman leader in Kashmir. Just before the terrorist strikes in the United States, police did not spare any effort to apprehend her for alleged involvement in the much-publicised burqa (veil) campaign launched by the Lashkar-e-Jabbar(LeJ).
A staunch pro-Pakistan leader of the Dukhtaran-e- Millat (DeM or daughters of nation), Ms. Andrabi believes that the armed struggle in Kashmir is not nationalistic, but part of the Islamic movement worldwide. A bitter critic of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference, she is all praise for the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda. The DeM, radical women`s group, had also been banned in 1990. Often referred to as a militant group, none of its activists has taken to the gun. But it is a strong supporter of militants. The Hindu Special Correspondent Shujaat Bukhari managed an hour-long conversation with Ms. Andrabi under the shadow of police chasing her. Here are the excerpts of the interview:
Question: Something about you and your organisation?
Ms. Asiya Andrabi: In fact, I started the movement in 1981 when I was a student of B.Sc. I came across a book consisting writeups by newly-converts to Islam. I read an article by Maryam Jameela who had converted to Islam from Christianity and my desire for learning Islam started from that day. I changed my subjects and did B.A.(Hon.) in Arabic. Initially, I founded the Dukhtaran-e- Fatima, which was later on renamed the Dukhtaran-e-Millat in `90.
You have been vociferously pursuing the teachings of Islam and want to implement the Islamic code of conduct strictly, particularly among women. But there has been little success.
No, we always have not been strict in the sense you refer to. From 1981 to 1992, we took recourse to awareness through preaching but, yes, in 1992 we sprinkled colour on women to enforce the ``purdah`` but that too after a declaration by Islamic scholars. It continued for two months. Those who adhered to it continue to do so, and those who did it under fear discontinued it afterwards.
Islam in Kashmir is being practised in a different way and not essentially like the Taliban do. Don`t you think it will not help you in influencing a larger chunk of people?
We are not bothered how many people follow us. We want Islamic teachings to be followed strictly. If I would have listened to people in the past, I would have been the most popular leader of Kashmir.
You are a staunch supporter of Kashmir`s accession to Pakistan, but you have turned against the Government of Pakistan on its support to the U.S.
We are for a united Muslim world, that is why we want Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. We are not the puppets of the Government of Pakistan nor are their paid agents. We are with the people of Pakistan, who have publicly resented Gen. Musharraf`s decision to support the U.S. He has done wrong. We do not care for the Pakistan Government.
What about the Hurriyat Conference?
Its place is in nowhere but in a dustbin. It claims to be representatives of people, but Kashmiris have rejected it. It does not exist anywhere and people have full faith in ``Mujahideen``.
What will be the impact of developments in Afghanistan on Kashmir?
It will be positive. The people of Pakistan, who have supported the Taliban, also support Kashmir militancy. The U.S. will be defeated and they have admitted that they cannot get Osama bin Laden. If the Taliban succeeds, it will give a fillip to militant activities and if they lose, they will turn to Kashmir as well.
But don`t you think that Kashmir militancy will be hijacked if forces like the Taliban come?
No, it is not the question of Kashmiriat or nationalism. We are part of Islamic movement worldwide. So any of our brethren, including the Taliban, are welcome in Kashmir.
You supported the Lashkar-e-Jabbar in its campaign on the ``purdah`` but it faded away.
The developments in Afghanistan took everything. We support their campaign and it is basically our agenda.
The LeJ, many people believe does not exist at all, who are they?
No, they exist. They are not sponsored by Pakistan or anybody else, but may be the members of some other group.
An impression goes that Pakistan will try to bargain with the U.S. on Kashmir.
We do not want ``azadi`` at the cost of the people of Afghanistan even if we remain slaves for whole life. The U.S. can never be a friend of any Muslim country as history speaks for itself. That is why we are opposed to the U.S. intervention in Kashmir. It has the arrogance of power and I hope Afghanistan will break that pride of the U.S.
Reporting on Afghanistan
SPECIAL
Father of Pak nuclear programme arrested
Charged with working on Osama bin Laden’s bomb project
Rajeev Sharma
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, October 26
Pakistan’s security agencies have arrested yet another nuclear scientist, third in last one week, on suspicion of working on a top secret project of helping Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida outfit to prepare a nuclear weapon, well-placed sources said here today.Though the name of the third arrested scientist has not been revealed, it is suspected that he could be either Dr A Q Khan himself — the father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme — or one of his close associates.The arrests have taken place on pressure from the USA which provided solid intelligence to the Pakistanis about the scientists’ secret and dangerous activities, which if unchecked, could have armed Islamist terrorists with “the ultimate weapon” in the near future, sources said. Dr Khan, former Chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), is a Mohajir from Bhopal (India) and of late has been based in Lahore since his removal from the country’s top nuke job by the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. He could never have a smooth relationship with Mr Sharif and after his abrupt removal from the PAEC chairmanship, his relatives, who are living in Karachi, were allegedly tortured by the security agencies.Dr Khan is said to be a rabid fundamentalist and close to Bin Laden’s Al Qaida network as well as Afghanistan’s ruling militia Taliban.Sources said the third scientist, believed to be picked up in last 24 hours, is suspected to be linked with Ummah-Tamir-e-Nau (Reconstruction of Muslim Community). The Ummah is affiliated with the now-banned Al Rasheed Trust that, in turn, has links with Jaish-e-Mohammad and Al Qaida.The Ummah, registered as a non-government organisation, was floated by Osama bin Laden for development projects in Afghanistan. However, the three arrested Pakistani scientists are suspected to be using the Ummah for pursuing their private nuclear programme. Two Pakistani nuclear scientists arrested earlier in the past one week were Sultan Bahiruddin Mehmood and Abdul Majeed.Mehmood, who was arrested from Islamabad, helped Pakistan to become a nuclear power.He was conferred the prestigious Sitara-e-Imtiaz award in 1988. Sources said his family admitted to the Pakistani security agencies that Mehmod had been working recently on certain projects in Afghanistan “including land development, education reformsBefore his retirement last year, Mehmood was Project Director of Pakistan’s nuclear programme and had always remained in key positions. Abdul Majid, who was arrested in Lahore, was also retired last year from the PAEC.[]
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 27, 2001 10:25 am
http://www.tribuneindia.com/20011027/main1.htmSPECIAL
Father of Pak nuclear programme arrested
Charged with working on Osama bin Laden’s bomb project
Rajeev Sharma
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, October 26
Pakistan’s security agencies have arrested yet another nuclear scientist, third in last one week, on suspicion of working on a top secret project of helping Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida outfit to prepare a nuclear weapon, well-placed sources said here today.Though the name of the third arrested scientist has not been revealed, it is suspected that he could be either Dr A Q Khan himself — the father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme — or one of his close associates.The arrests have taken place on pressure from the USA which provided solid intelligence to the Pakistanis about the scientists’ secret and dangerous activities, which if unchecked, could have armed Islamist terrorists with “the ultimate weapon” in the near future, sources said. Dr Khan, former Chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), is a Mohajir from Bhopal (India) and of late has been based in Lahore since his removal from the country’s top nuke job by the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. He could never have a smooth relationship with Mr Sharif and after his abrupt removal from the PAEC chairmanship, his relatives, who are living in Karachi, were allegedly tortured by the security agencies.Dr Khan is said to be a rabid fundamentalist and close to Bin Laden’s Al Qaida network as well as Afghanistan’s ruling militia Taliban.Sources said the third scientist, believed to be picked up in last 24 hours, is suspected to be linked with Ummah-Tamir-e-Nau (Reconstruction of Muslim Community). The Ummah is affiliated with the now-banned Al Rasheed Trust that, in turn, has links with Jaish-e-Mohammad and Al Qaida.The Ummah, registered as a non-government organisation, was floated by Osama bin Laden for development projects in Afghanistan. However, the three arrested Pakistani scientists are suspected to be using the Ummah for pursuing their private nuclear programme. Two Pakistani nuclear scientists arrested earlier in the past one week were Sultan Bahiruddin Mehmood and Abdul Majeed.Mehmood, who was arrested from Islamabad, helped Pakistan to become a nuclear power.He was conferred the prestigious Sitara-e-Imtiaz award in 1988. Sources said his family admitted to the Pakistani security agencies that Mehmod had been working recently on certain projects in Afghanistan “including land development, education reformsBefore his retirement last year, Mehmood was Project Director of Pakistan’s nuclear programme and had always remained in key positions. Abdul Majid, who was arrested in Lahore, was also retired last year from the PAEC.[]
Reporting on Afghanistan
SPECIAL
Father of Pak nuclear programme arrested
Charged with working on Osama bin Laden’s bomb project
Rajeev Sharma
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, October 26
Pakistan’s security agencies have arrested yet another nuclear scientist, third in last one week, on suspicion of working on a top secret project of helping Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida outfit to prepare a nuclear weapon, well-placed sources said here today.Though the name of the third arrested scientist has not been revealed, it is suspected that he could be either Dr A Q Khan himself — the father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme — or one of his close associates.The arrests have taken place on pressure from the USA which provided solid intelligence to the Pakistanis about the scientists’ secret and dangerous activities, which if unchecked, could have armed Islamist terrorists with “the ultimate weapon” in the near future, sources said. Dr Khan, former Chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), is a Mohajir from Bhopal (India) and of late has been based in Lahore since his removal from the country’s top nuke job by the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. He could never have a smooth relationship with Mr Sharif and after his abrupt removal from the PAEC chairmanship, his relatives, who are living in Karachi, were allegedly tortured by the security agencies.Dr Khan is said to be a rabid fundamentalist and close to Bin Laden’s Al Qaida network as well as Afghanistan’s ruling militia Taliban.Sources said the third scientist, believed to be picked up in last 24 hours, is suspected to be linked with Ummah-Tamir-e-Nau (Reconstruction of Muslim Community). The Ummah is affiliated with the now-banned Al Rasheed Trust that, in turn, has links with Jaish-e-Mohammad and Al Qaida.The Ummah, registered as a non-government organisation, was floated by Osama bin Laden for development projects in Afghanistan. However, the three arrested Pakistani scientists are suspected to be using the Ummah for pursuing their private nuclear programme. Two Pakistani nuclear scientists arrested earlier in the past one week were Sultan Bahiruddin Mehmood and Abdul Majeed.Mehmood, who was arrested from Islamabad, helped Pakistan to become a nuclear power.He was conferred the prestigious Sitara-e-Imtiaz award in 1988. Sources said his family admitted to the Pakistani security agencies that Mehmod had been working recently on certain projects in Afghanistan “including land development, education reformsBefore his retirement last year, Mehmood was Project Director of Pakistan’s nuclear programme and had always remained in key positions. Abdul Majid, who was arrested in Lahore, was also retired last year from the PAEC.[]
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 27, 2001 10:25 am
http://www.tribuneindia.com/20011027/main1.htmSPECIAL
Father of Pak nuclear programme arrested
Charged with working on Osama bin Laden’s bomb project
Rajeev Sharma
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, October 26
Pakistan’s security agencies have arrested yet another nuclear scientist, third in last one week, on suspicion of working on a top secret project of helping Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida outfit to prepare a nuclear weapon, well-placed sources said here today.Though the name of the third arrested scientist has not been revealed, it is suspected that he could be either Dr A Q Khan himself — the father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme — or one of his close associates.The arrests have taken place on pressure from the USA which provided solid intelligence to the Pakistanis about the scientists’ secret and dangerous activities, which if unchecked, could have armed Islamist terrorists with “the ultimate weapon” in the near future, sources said. Dr Khan, former Chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), is a Mohajir from Bhopal (India) and of late has been based in Lahore since his removal from the country’s top nuke job by the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. He could never have a smooth relationship with Mr Sharif and after his abrupt removal from the PAEC chairmanship, his relatives, who are living in Karachi, were allegedly tortured by the security agencies.Dr Khan is said to be a rabid fundamentalist and close to Bin Laden’s Al Qaida network as well as Afghanistan’s ruling militia Taliban.Sources said the third scientist, believed to be picked up in last 24 hours, is suspected to be linked with Ummah-Tamir-e-Nau (Reconstruction of Muslim Community). The Ummah is affiliated with the now-banned Al Rasheed Trust that, in turn, has links with Jaish-e-Mohammad and Al Qaida.The Ummah, registered as a non-government organisation, was floated by Osama bin Laden for development projects in Afghanistan. However, the three arrested Pakistani scientists are suspected to be using the Ummah for pursuing their private nuclear programme. Two Pakistani nuclear scientists arrested earlier in the past one week were Sultan Bahiruddin Mehmood and Abdul Majeed.Mehmood, who was arrested from Islamabad, helped Pakistan to become a nuclear power.He was conferred the prestigious Sitara-e-Imtiaz award in 1988. Sources said his family admitted to the Pakistani security agencies that Mehmod had been working recently on certain projects in Afghanistan “including land development, education reformsBefore his retirement last year, Mehmood was Project Director of Pakistan’s nuclear programme and had always remained in key positions. Abdul Majid, who was arrested in Lahore, was also retired last year from the PAEC.[]
Right Burqa, Wrong Lips
Felt like trying to be funny to western audience with frequent reference to stereotyped icons Julia Roberts,Sharon Stone,Sophia ,made up abreviations of CIA.MI6 etc etc.
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 20, 2001 06:46 pm
A bit too prolonged.Only one joke with sharp punch line could have ended it 1/3 the way most or even less.Felt like trying to be funny to western audience with frequent reference to stereotyped icons Julia Roberts,Sharon Stone,Sophia ,made up abreviations of CIA.MI6 etc etc.
A Time for Renewal
Our sincere condolences to Indians affected by natural catastrophic cyclone.Those in Florida ,can surely relate to devastating force of such ruthless natural firce
Deadly Indian cyclone wreaks havoc
October 17, 2001 Posted: 7:46 PM HKT (1146 GMT)
HYDERABAD, India (AP) -- At least 27 people were killed when a cyclone, accompanied by the heaviest regional rainfall in 40 years, struck coastal towns in southern India.
Trees were uprooted trees and houses smashed, a state relief official said Wednesday.
The people died Tuesday when they drowned or their houses collapsed upon them in four towns, said Andhra Pradesh state relief commissioner D.C. Roshaiah.
The worst hit town was Cuddpah, where 18 people were reported killed, 450 kilometers (280 miles) south of Hyderabad, the state capital.
Most parts of the town were under four feet (1.20 meters) of water from the flooded Buggavanka dam, Roshaiah said.
The cyclone disrupted telephone lines and power supply to Cuddpah. Uprooted trees blocked the movement of rescue vehicles.
Other deaths were reported from the towns of Chittoor, Kurnool and Nellore.
News reports said another 15 people were reported missing after they had taken shelter atop a temple in Panyam, 270 kilometers (170 miles) south of Hyderabad. Roshaiah said he didn`t know what happened to them.
Transport cut
Using mechanized boats, authorities evacuated nearly 10,000 people from low-lying areas to relief camps on high ground.
``Relief measures are being taken up on a war footing,`` Roshaiah said.
Sullurpeta and Nellore, 500 kilometers (310 miles) south of Hyderabad, received 26 centimeters (10 inches) of rain in 24 hours after the cyclone in the Bay of Bengal hit the coast on Tuesday.
``It was the highest rainfall in the past 40 years,`` C.V.V. Bhadram, the meteorological department director, said in Hyderabad.
The roads connecting Nellore with Madras and the Madras-Calcutta highway were closed after trees were knocked across the lanes by gales with a wind speed of 65 kilometers (40 miles) per hour.
Several trains were canceled after stretches of track were submerged by flood waters.
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 18, 2001 08:48 pm
Our sincere condolences to Indians affected by natural catastrophic cyclone.Those in Florida ,can surely relate to devastating force of such ruthless natural firce
Deadly Indian cyclone wreaks havoc
October 17, 2001 Posted: 7:46 PM HKT (1146 GMT)
HYDERABAD, India (AP) -- At least 27 people were killed when a cyclone, accompanied by the heaviest regional rainfall in 40 years, struck coastal towns in southern India.
Trees were uprooted trees and houses smashed, a state relief official said Wednesday.
The people died Tuesday when they drowned or their houses collapsed upon them in four towns, said Andhra Pradesh state relief commissioner D.C. Roshaiah.
The worst hit town was Cuddpah, where 18 people were reported killed, 450 kilometers (280 miles) south of Hyderabad, the state capital.
Most parts of the town were under four feet (1.20 meters) of water from the flooded Buggavanka dam, Roshaiah said.
The cyclone disrupted telephone lines and power supply to Cuddpah. Uprooted trees blocked the movement of rescue vehicles.
Other deaths were reported from the towns of Chittoor, Kurnool and Nellore.
News reports said another 15 people were reported missing after they had taken shelter atop a temple in Panyam, 270 kilometers (170 miles) south of Hyderabad. Roshaiah said he didn`t know what happened to them.
Transport cut
Using mechanized boats, authorities evacuated nearly 10,000 people from low-lying areas to relief camps on high ground.
``Relief measures are being taken up on a war footing,`` Roshaiah said.
Sullurpeta and Nellore, 500 kilometers (310 miles) south of Hyderabad, received 26 centimeters (10 inches) of rain in 24 hours after the cyclone in the Bay of Bengal hit the coast on Tuesday.
``It was the highest rainfall in the past 40 years,`` C.V.V. Bhadram, the meteorological department director, said in Hyderabad.
The roads connecting Nellore with Madras and the Madras-Calcutta highway were closed after trees were knocked across the lanes by gales with a wind speed of 65 kilometers (40 miles) per hour.
Several trains were canceled after stretches of track were submerged by flood waters.
A Time for Renewal
POOR IMRAN KHAN TO HOW MUCH LENGTH THIS CHARITABLE KIND GENEROUS & BENEVOLENT FARISHTA GOES TO REPORT SUFFERINGS!!
Orissa: Over 50 tribal children die of malnutrition
Imran Khan in Bhubaneswar
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Over 50 tribal children have died in an impoverished block of drought-prone Kalahandi district in Orissa in the last two and half months either due to malnutrition or hunger while some fell victim to diseases like diarrhoea.
Most of the deaths were reported from half a dozen villages in Thuamul Rampur block.
This shocking revelation was made by Kalahandi-based Sahbhagi Vikash Abhiyan (SVA), an organisation working among landless farmers and poor tribals.
Last week, the NGO had conducted an investigation after rediff.com reported the death of about two dozen tribals, including 13 children, in this block recently.
``A survey of just a few villages showed up deaths of not less than 50 children due to malnutrition and diseases in a span of two and a half months,`` said Jagdish Pradhan, president of SVA.
The investigators have made a list of children who died along with all relevant details - age, village, name of parents and date of death.
The children were between a few days old to eight years old.
In Melrapa village in Kerpai gram panchayat, which has 45 households, 10 children have died. Porpai village, which is almost inaccessible, has seen the death of four children while in Kachalakha village, about six children have died.
Though SVA could not reach all the villages, every village where it did go reported the death of at least one child, while some villages reported the death of adults.
Malnutrition, diarrhoea caused by consuming unhealthy food and lack of healthcare facilities were said to be the reasons for the casualties.
Even otherwise, adults and children in this area are underweight, Pradhan said.
Generally, tribals in the Kalahandi area suffer due to food shortage between July and September. Added to this, last year the crops failed resulting in a drought while this year saw an early monsoon followed by excess rains.
The untimely and excess rains not only damaged the crops, but also destroyed some wild fruits and minor forest products, which the tribals depend on during the rainy season.
Purnamati Nayak, a member of the Kerpai gram panchayat, told the SVA team during the survey that the toll may touch the hundred mark if they cover all the remote villages.
Ironically, state government-run health centres have no information about the malnutrition deaths.
According to a report of the chief district medical officer (CDMO) of Bhawanipatna (Kalahandi district headquarters), only nine tribal children had died in the period when the SVA undertook the survey.
Officially, three children died in Melghasa village under Nak Ruder gram panchayat, three in Podapali village under Kenpari gram panchayat, one each in Kacha, Levha and Majkhigaon villages under Kerpai gram panchayat.
Pradhan said that despite coming the Integrated Tribal Development Agency project, tribals in Thuamul Rampur block have hardly received any development assistance.
Tribals told the SVA team that despite reports of deaths, no government official has visited their villages till date, not to talk of the District Collector or the local MLA or MP.
Notably, the death toll of children in Thuamul Rampur block has surpassed that due to starvation in Kashipur block of Rayagada district.
Like in several other inaccessible pockets in backward western and southern Orissa where the poorest of the poor live, the public distribution system (PDS) does not exist in these villages.
Though rice is available in the open market in nearby areas, the tribals do not have the money to buy it.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO READ:
Hungry villagers hurl mango kernels at Patnaik
No starvation deaths: Patnaik
Probe ordered in Kashipur welfare projects
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 17, 2001 09:44 am
POOR IMRAN KHAN TO HOW MUCH LENGTH THIS CHARITABLE KIND GENEROUS & BENEVOLENT FARISHTA GOES TO REPORT SUFFERINGS!!
Orissa: Over 50 tribal children die of malnutrition
Imran Khan in Bhubaneswar
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Over 50 tribal children have died in an impoverished block of drought-prone Kalahandi district in Orissa in the last two and half months either due to malnutrition or hunger while some fell victim to diseases like diarrhoea.
Most of the deaths were reported from half a dozen villages in Thuamul Rampur block.
This shocking revelation was made by Kalahandi-based Sahbhagi Vikash Abhiyan (SVA), an organisation working among landless farmers and poor tribals.
Last week, the NGO had conducted an investigation after rediff.com reported the death of about two dozen tribals, including 13 children, in this block recently.
``A survey of just a few villages showed up deaths of not less than 50 children due to malnutrition and diseases in a span of two and a half months,`` said Jagdish Pradhan, president of SVA.
The investigators have made a list of children who died along with all relevant details - age, village, name of parents and date of death.
The children were between a few days old to eight years old.
In Melrapa village in Kerpai gram panchayat, which has 45 households, 10 children have died. Porpai village, which is almost inaccessible, has seen the death of four children while in Kachalakha village, about six children have died.
Though SVA could not reach all the villages, every village where it did go reported the death of at least one child, while some villages reported the death of adults.
Malnutrition, diarrhoea caused by consuming unhealthy food and lack of healthcare facilities were said to be the reasons for the casualties.
Even otherwise, adults and children in this area are underweight, Pradhan said.
Generally, tribals in the Kalahandi area suffer due to food shortage between July and September. Added to this, last year the crops failed resulting in a drought while this year saw an early monsoon followed by excess rains.
The untimely and excess rains not only damaged the crops, but also destroyed some wild fruits and minor forest products, which the tribals depend on during the rainy season.
Purnamati Nayak, a member of the Kerpai gram panchayat, told the SVA team during the survey that the toll may touch the hundred mark if they cover all the remote villages.
Ironically, state government-run health centres have no information about the malnutrition deaths.
According to a report of the chief district medical officer (CDMO) of Bhawanipatna (Kalahandi district headquarters), only nine tribal children had died in the period when the SVA undertook the survey.
Officially, three children died in Melghasa village under Nak Ruder gram panchayat, three in Podapali village under Kenpari gram panchayat, one each in Kacha, Levha and Majkhigaon villages under Kerpai gram panchayat.
Pradhan said that despite coming the Integrated Tribal Development Agency project, tribals in Thuamul Rampur block have hardly received any development assistance.
Tribals told the SVA team that despite reports of deaths, no government official has visited their villages till date, not to talk of the District Collector or the local MLA or MP.
Notably, the death toll of children in Thuamul Rampur block has surpassed that due to starvation in Kashipur block of Rayagada district.
Like in several other inaccessible pockets in backward western and southern Orissa where the poorest of the poor live, the public distribution system (PDS) does not exist in these villages.
Though rice is available in the open market in nearby areas, the tribals do not have the money to buy it.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO READ:
Hungry villagers hurl mango kernels at Patnaik
No starvation deaths: Patnaik
Probe ordered in Kashipur welfare projects
Whitman’s World
It is related that one day Shaqiq al-Balkhi asked his student Hatim
al-Asamm, ``How long have you kept my company?``
``Thirty-three years,`` he replied.
``And what have you learned from me in all this time?``
``Eight things,`` he said.
``We belong to Allah and we return to him!`` exclaimed Shaqiq.
``You have spent your whole life with me and only learned eight things! What
are they?``
``Firstly,`` replied Hatim, ``I looked at mankind and I saw that everyone loves
something and continues to do so. When he goes to his grave, whatever he
loved leaves him. Therefore I made my good actions what I love, for when I
enter the grave they will enter it along with me.``
``You have done well,`` said Shaqiq. ``What is the second?``
``The second is that I examined the words of the Almighty,
`But as for him who feared the Station of his Lord and forbade the self its
appetites, the Garden shall be his refuge.` (79:40-41)
Knowing that the words of the Almighty are true, I strove against myself to
keep my appetites at bay until I was firm in Allah Almighty.
The third is that I looked at people and saw that everyone has something of
worth which they value and protect. Then I looked at the words of the
Almighty,
`What is with you comes to an end. But what is with Allah is everlasting.`
(16:96)
So whenever something of value comes to me, I direct it to Allah Almighty so
that it may remain with Him for me.
The fourth is that I looked at Allah`s creatures and saw that all of them
set much store by property, reputation, honour, and lineage. I examined
those things and found them to be nothing. Then I looked at the words of the
Almighty,
`The noblest among you in Allah`s sight is the most godfearing of you.`
(49:13)
So I set much store by fear of Allah so that I might be noble in His sight.
The fifth is that I looked at people and I found that some of them attacked
others and some of them cursed others; and I realised that the reason they
did that was envy. Then I looked at the words of the Almighty,
`It is We Who portion out between them their livelihood in the life of this
world.` (43:32)
So I abandoned envy and enmity towards creation, knowing that what is
allotted to me will and must reach me.
The sixth is that I saw that people fought and were hostile to one another.
I looked for my true enemy and found it to be Shaytan and indeed Allah
Almighty says, `Shaytan is an enemy to you, so treat him as an enemy.`
(35:6) So I made him my enemy and loved everyone else.
The seventh is that I looked at mankind and found them seeking excessive
wealth and abasing themselves because of it. I looked at the words of the
Almighty,
`There is no creature on the earth whose provision is not with Allah alone.`
(11:6)
I realised that I am one of those who are provided for and so I busied
myself with Allah Almighty and abandoned everything else besides Him.
The eighth is that I looked at people and I saw that they relied on
different things: one on his commerce, another on his profession, and yet
another on his health. Every creature was relying on another creature! I
looked at the words of the Almighty,
`And whoever puts his trust in Allah, He is enough for him.` (65:3)
Therefore I put my trust in Allah Almighty.``
``Hatim,`` said Shaqiq, ``Allah has given you sucsess, and you have left
nothing out. `He gives wisdom to whomever He wishes
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 9, 2001 01:07 pm
It is related that one day Shaqiq al-Balkhi asked his student Hatim
al-Asamm, ``How long have you kept my company?``
``Thirty-three years,`` he replied.
``And what have you learned from me in all this time?``
``Eight things,`` he said.
``We belong to Allah and we return to him!`` exclaimed Shaqiq.
``You have spent your whole life with me and only learned eight things! What
are they?``
``Firstly,`` replied Hatim, ``I looked at mankind and I saw that everyone loves
something and continues to do so. When he goes to his grave, whatever he
loved leaves him. Therefore I made my good actions what I love, for when I
enter the grave they will enter it along with me.``
``You have done well,`` said Shaqiq. ``What is the second?``
``The second is that I examined the words of the Almighty,
`But as for him who feared the Station of his Lord and forbade the self its
appetites, the Garden shall be his refuge.` (79:40-41)
Knowing that the words of the Almighty are true, I strove against myself to
keep my appetites at bay until I was firm in Allah Almighty.
The third is that I looked at people and saw that everyone has something of
worth which they value and protect. Then I looked at the words of the
Almighty,
`What is with you comes to an end. But what is with Allah is everlasting.`
(16:96)
So whenever something of value comes to me, I direct it to Allah Almighty so
that it may remain with Him for me.
The fourth is that I looked at Allah`s creatures and saw that all of them
set much store by property, reputation, honour, and lineage. I examined
those things and found them to be nothing. Then I looked at the words of the
Almighty,
`The noblest among you in Allah`s sight is the most godfearing of you.`
(49:13)
So I set much store by fear of Allah so that I might be noble in His sight.
The fifth is that I looked at people and I found that some of them attacked
others and some of them cursed others; and I realised that the reason they
did that was envy. Then I looked at the words of the Almighty,
`It is We Who portion out between them their livelihood in the life of this
world.` (43:32)
So I abandoned envy and enmity towards creation, knowing that what is
allotted to me will and must reach me.
The sixth is that I saw that people fought and were hostile to one another.
I looked for my true enemy and found it to be Shaytan and indeed Allah
Almighty says, `Shaytan is an enemy to you, so treat him as an enemy.`
(35:6) So I made him my enemy and loved everyone else.
The seventh is that I looked at mankind and found them seeking excessive
wealth and abasing themselves because of it. I looked at the words of the
Almighty,
`There is no creature on the earth whose provision is not with Allah alone.`
(11:6)
I realised that I am one of those who are provided for and so I busied
myself with Allah Almighty and abandoned everything else besides Him.
The eighth is that I looked at people and I saw that they relied on
different things: one on his commerce, another on his profession, and yet
another on his health. Every creature was relying on another creature! I
looked at the words of the Almighty,
`And whoever puts his trust in Allah, He is enough for him.` (65:3)
Therefore I put my trust in Allah Almighty.``
``Hatim,`` said Shaqiq, ``Allah has given you sucsess, and you have left
nothing out. `He gives wisdom to whomever He wishes
A World Upside Down
TAhmed321 Fatimah # 139
I quoted SuRah Nisa & Noor last time about hijab.Check that again .
On Oprah101 Islam more than 1/2 the educated,articulated shut every body up oooon there option & choice to wear hijab.
Problem with PAKISTANI MUSLIM & INDIAN MUSLIMS IS THAT IN ORDER TO COMPETE IN RACE WITH HINDU HAEGONOMY THEY JUST ADOPTED MOST OF HINDU WAYS THINKING WRONGFULLY THE CAUSE OF THERE EDUCATIONAL ADVANTAGE FROM THE BEGINNING .SO IF SAROJINI NAIDU,PUNDIT VIJAY LAXMI SHUSHILA NAYER,EARLY HINDU LADY WHO WERE TOO MUCH EDUCATED LEAD ALL EDUCATED MUSLIM WOMEN LIKE NAJMA HEPTULLAH,SALMA SIDDIQUE,QURAITULAINE HAIDER,ASMAT CHUGTAI,Zehra Sehgal all copied bad habits of drinking ,smoking & unislamic habits
The War of the Women
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By Yahiya Emerick & Reshma Baig
A popular English saying says that ``Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.`` The meaning being that if a woman feels like something unfair happened to her, her anger will be limitless. I`m not going to say that that is necessarily true or not, but I have seen shades of it in the world-wide war between women who wear the Hijab (head-scarf) and those who want to oppose it.
Why do I describe it as a war? If you have to ask then you haven`t been paying much attention to what women talk about in public meetings, articles, lectures, and even among themselves. The battle consists, quite interestingly, of four distinct war-fronts.
There are
1) the women who wear Hijab out of conviction that it is the Islamic thing to do.
Then there are
2) the women who wear it only because their mothers and grandmothers wore it; unaware of its true Islamic significance.
The third group,
3) the non-Muslim feminists, rally against anything that covers up even one inch of the female form, but we already expected this from them.
And finally,
4) there are the secular ``Muslim`` women, who almost never practice Islam anyway, but who have Muslim names and roots, who make it a point to appear at all Muslim gatherings with hair fashionably styled in full public glory.
For the sake of this article, one issue must be clear from the outset (so as not to ruffle the feathers of too many readers): An operative definition of the Hijab-wearing woman must be constructed. Albeit, as described above, not all Hijab wearers are alike. Women wear the Hijab for varying reasons. In reality, there also exists those noble and true Muslim sisters who wear Hijab because it is Islamically correct. They perceive it as intrinsically empowering. In addition, the Hijab is not a facade (the ``I`ll wear Hijab then do whatever I like`` attitude).
The operative definition of a true Hijab wearing Muslim woman is one who correctly follows the guidelines of Qur`an and Sunnah and whose only motivation is to please Allah. (Qur`an 33:59) This type of Hijab wearing woman is intelligent, Allah-fearing, overcoming the temporal trappings of the life of this world, and ultimately very happy with her decision. She is not out to please anyone except her Creator.
Now as stated previously, there are the four groups in this Battle of the Scarf. But it`s not a fair war. Although it would seem that there are two factions on each side, in fact, the culturally-based Hijab wearing women are no help to their Islamically-oriented sisters. The cultural Hijab-wearers don`t look at their Hijab as an Islamic duty, but rather as an affiliation with some old-country culture. And in fact, they wear it only out of habit.
Obviously, then, the daughters of such women, feeling more ``American`` than Arab, Indian, Nigerian (or any culture transmitted by family origin), never wear the Hijab themselves because it`s just ``culture`` and thus, the cultural women are no help in the Islamic struggle. Their own offspring become some other ``culture`` just as they are only motivated by what they grew up with themselves.
Have you ever seen the women, walking in ``full`` Hijab, but then their two or three daughters, even if they`re teenagers, are dressed completely like non- Muslims? It`s incredibly common. I feel like asking those mothers. Why are you even wearing Hijab if it wasn`t important enough for you to pass on to your daughters?
So the Islamically-oriented Hijab-wearers are quite alone in the face of the assault by the feminists/secular ``Muslimahs``. The relationship between those two erstwhile allies is strange. The agenda of the Western feminists has always been puzzling. They cry about equality and respect but then push for things that dehumanize women and put them at the mercy of merciless men. They`ll say women should be respected for their minds rather than for their bodies, but then they`ll say that women should go around in mini-skirts and g- strings. It`s funny how some ultra-Feminists argue with pride that the only professions in which women earn more money than men are prostitution and fashion modeling--then, while complaining against violence towards women, they try to encourage more women to be ``empowered`` by disrobing (utilizing work- place fashions that place more emphasis on the female figure rather than intelligence and qualifications).
Men are an aggressive lot. If you take away clothes from a woman, the man is not suddenly going to start respecting her. Rather he`s going to take it as a green light to chase after her. It`s interesting how so many male fashion designers are worshipped by Western, European, and now even ``Muslim`` women. (Armani, De La Renta, Gucci, Mizrahi, Lauren, etc...)
It doesn`t take an analyst from Fashion Avenue to figure out that a man will design clothes for women that fits one main criteria: That the outfit be pleasing and attractive to the eyes of a man. From this arises the catch- phrase: ``powerful and sexy``. Some cultural ``Muslims`` with more of an interest in fashion (rather than their love for Allah) heed the call of Vogue, Glamour, and Cosmopolitan rather than the guidelines for dress in the Qur`an and Sunnah.
Unfortunately, both ``Muslim`` men and women have fallen prey to the paradigms of worldly dressing. (Is it really dress for success or dress for sex?). Some brothers are ashamed of their wives and daughters wearing the Hijab in public (the ``you look too dowdy with that thing on your head`` syndrome.) Some women discourage their own Muslim sisters from wearing the Hijab saying that they`ll ``never succeed`` or ``just look old-fashioned and oppressed``, or as I`ve overheard time and time again, ``you only need to wear Hijab on Eid or at Jumu`ah prayer``.
It must be added here that Muslim women are not being encouraged to dress dowdy, sloppy, or out of the ``mode``. It is merely being asserted that what is touted as fashionable is not necessarily empowering--or flattering-- in the real sense of the word. Islam arrived on the scene more than 1400 years ago to fortify a woman`s dignity; introducing the concept of ``covering the parts that elicit desire``. Time and time again it is implored that ``Allah is beautiful and loves beauty.`` Our Creator made us beautiful and the dictates of ``modern`` fashion morph that beauty into something exploitative and ugly.
The feminists say that women should be free and independent, never relying on any man. So the message men extract from this is that now they can have as many lovers as they want and never have to be tied down to one woman ever again. Consequently, a woman who dates can expect to go from man to man for twenty years or more before she can succeed in tying one down in marriage. And now women have to dress even more alluring to attract men, and have to work harder to keep them around lest the ``roving eye`` spots another, younger, prettier catch. Women, as polls have shown, are more harried, stressed and suffering from acute eating and other disorders than ever before.
Feminists say that all spiritual traditions are male-oriented and have worked to keep women down. While this may be true in the case of Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism, these feminists have no knowledge of Islam. All they see is the stupid, chauvinistic cultural traditions of backward X,Y or Z Muslim country and they equate that with the teachings of Islam. Then pseudo- scholars from the West quote ayat and Hadith out of context and paint a picture of a barbaric religion which seeks death for all.
On the same level, there are also ethnic ``Muslim`` women out there who do more to disparage Islam and present apologetic misinformation than their non-Muslim associates. Case in point: In a recent New York Times article about the growing number of Hijab wearing women in America, a ``Muslimah`` doctor from Chicago is quoted as saying that ``Hijab has nothing to do with Islam.`` Her justification was that she was from Pakistan and it`s not important over there. This makes one wonder: Which version of Islam is that? Oh, the abridged version. (Qur`an 33:64-68)
At the same time there is the wave of Muslimahs in America who assert their identities as Muslims and are cognizant that the Hijab is a requirement. These are the sisters on the frontlines who you see in various workplace settings with their Hijabs. The Hijab, as many sisters have commented, changes everything. Peoples are compelled to see you as a Muslim and therefore must assess their own feelings about Islam and Muslims. Ill feelings and sincere understanding of the faith are put through the sieve that is the Hijab.
You can imagine the outrage feminists feel when they hear that women are leaving ``liberated`` Western-secular culture and accepting Islam. I once overheard one feminist say, ``Why are they entering a religion that will oppress them.`` It is so wired. If a woman walks down the street in a french- style head-wrap, nobody blinks an eye. If an old woman has a scarf or net wrapped around her head, nobody even looks. But the minute a woman walks in public with a scarf worn in typical Muslim style, people, women mostly, absolutely freak out. Otherwise nice women will start muttering insults or even yelling.
Of course, no one says anything bad when they see a statue of Mary wearing a veil- and she always has a veil on. And no one yells at nuns, many of whom dress more Islamically than most Muslim women. So why the anger at the Hijab? You know, there`s an interesting experiment you can try, and it may also save you from committing sins. Whenever a pretty girl walks by, almost every man looks at her, right? In Islam this is discouraged, for obvious reasons. But the next time you see a pretty woman walking by a stationary group of people, don`t look at the pretty woman, (save yourself from a sin,) instead, look at the faces of the other women as the pretty woman passes by them. You`ll be amazed to see that it`s the women who are most blatantly and closely watching the young debutante prance by. And the glances of the women will follow long after the men have lost interest.
It`s amazing! Women judge each other by their looks and appearances more than you would imagine. Especially non-Muslim women, who see the new female as a potential rival for male attention. When a Muslim woman, dressed according to her conscience, walks by, you see these same women grimace and make ugly faces. Why are they so threatened by a covered woman even more so than a half-naked one?
Because the half-naked woman is only a rival for a man. The covered woman is a direct challenge to any woman`s whole being, sense of self and way of life. A modestly dressed, covered woman is a walking, talking challenge to the women (and men) who are sacrificing their Akhira for success on the terms of Dunya. A woman in Hijab who is a functioning member of society is a clarion call to everyone around her. She symbolizes a woman who is empowered by Allah (swt) rather than by the shabby, eclectic, pop-cultural, spiritually bankrupt throngs who pass as the icons of contemporary society.
The average non-Muslim woman sees nothing wrong with unmarried sexual relations, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, dancing with men, walking around half-naked, maybe taking drugs, gossiping, lying, using foul language, etc... (Who are all those immigrant Muslim men who race to marry such women and ignore their noble Muslim sisters?)
While the Muslim woman, in Hijab, radiates the exact opposite! She doesn`t engage in those things and rather tries to be humble, self-controlled, full of nobility and goodness and spiritually motivated. Non-Muslim women freak out because they feel so much shame deep down that they are so rotten and unclean! (Culturally-oriented Hijab-wearers don`t threaten them much because they usually are rude, loud and without inner-purity, as well. There is a style of Hijab and a look of inner-purity which distinguishes the conscientious Muslimahs from all others. You can see Taqwa in a person`s face!)
A Muslim woman, whose inner-purity is reflected in her behavior, is more beautiful than even the most sensually dressed non-Muslim. So many men I know have said this, both Muslim and non-Muslim! Men love to run after the easy women for ``conquests`` but they want to marry someone who is pure more than anything else in the world! Non-Muslim women are filled with their shame/rage and it makes them attack Islam and things Islamic with a venom more deadly than any Orientalist ever had.
So many Western women, despairing of the lifestyle in which women have been reduced to mere sex-objects for men, are leaving the immoral lifestyle for the Islamic one in huge numbers. It doesn`t matter if they find good husbands or not. They`re accepting Islam because it`s real, because it speaks to them as women.
But still the non-Muslim women twist their hands in rage. Now, because there is a whole class of Muslim immigrants who grew up worshipping America and the West, associating its technological advancements with its values, the non- Muslim feminists have a useful new tool in their fight against the one thing that shows them how wrong they are. These allies are the women with Muslim names who don`t practice Islam, or who at the very most consider Islam to be a praying and fasting ``religion`` and little else.
These ``Muslim`` women, who may be victims of backward cultural traditions, think that the ``Muslim`` culture they came from is what Islam is about. Well, if that was true, I wouldn`t like Islam either. I`m sure you`ll agree that Muslims are sometimes the worst examples of what Islam categorizes as bad. But most of us are intelligent enough to realize that just because I have to pay a bribe to the policeman or if a woman has to abort her daughter in favor of a male child in the future-- it doesn`t mean that Islam teaches that.
But there are a whole class of ``Muslims`` who can`t seem to make such distinctions. They can`t seem to understand where culture ends and Islam begins; they can`t seem to let go of cultural values and adhere to the teachings of the Qur`an; they can`t seem to wash away the taint of culture to expose the illumination of Islam. That would require a sacrifice on their part. (Oh my god! If they followed true Islam they might have to allow their daughters to marry people of a different ethnic group. Can`t have that now!)
Already the feminists have destroyed Christianity and Judaism. Read that sentence over one time. Those two religions are now in the dust-bin of history, despite a cough from them every now and then, because they`re effectively marginalized. The feminists, without even understanding that Islam is best for them, have brought secular ``Muslim`` women into their ranks to show the world that Islam should become as quaint and marginalized in society as Christianity is now.
Just on a side note, you know how Christian missionaries are roving all over the world and making thousands of new converts every day? They brag about it and Muslims complain about it because countries like Indonesia and Nigeria are in danger of becoming ``Christian`` countries in a few decades. But wait a minute! Who are the Christians converting and who is becoming Muslim?
The Christians are converting ignorant villagers, uneducated natives and people with Muslim names who don`t know anything about Islam. While those who are accepting Islam are Jews and Christians- Westerners who are highly educated and have lived the secular way of life all their lives! The dumb become Christian while the educated become Muslim! There`s some food for thought!
Back to the war of the women: How have the feminists used these ``secular Muslim`` women? They have convinced some ``Muslim`` women that the path to money and power in this country is through bastardizing your own soul. By conforming to the heathen wishes of the majority, you can achieve loads of worldly success. That if you`re a working professional (in any field), that success can only be attained by ripping off the ``oppressive weight`` of your Hijab and donning a ``powerful and sexy`` power suit.
As many Hijab wearing, practicing Muslim sisters have commented, the Western feminist ideology only hurts those who are ready to sacrifice their Next Life for the success of the world. Our practicing, Hijab wearing sisters have proved time and time again that they can wear their Hijab and become teachers, doctors, nurses, accountants, principals, economists, professors, etc... On the same level, without sacrificing their identity as Muslims; they are accepting the challenge of success while not simultaneously sacrificing their Islam.
But the feminists have their ready slaves: there are ``Muslim`` women who are brought by the feminists to their seminars and meetings to give the ``Muslim`` voice (read: token ``Muslim`` woman who will lash out against Islam and emerge as the Renaissance Woman Who Emerged From Behind The Veil.) Because these women had no real belief anyway, they almost always parrot, quite shamelessly, the views of the feminists. Then these ``Muslim`` women become filled with the idea of a crusade against ``oppression`` in their ethnic communities. An Arab secular ``Muslimah`` will work her agenda in the Arab community; an Indo-Pak in that community, etc...
It`s easy for them to do this given that most of the Muslims who immigrated to this country are as of yet, unorganized and unaffiliated with any Masjid or organization. What`s more, we shoot ourselves in the foot because some of our centers are run by people who are also secular in their outlook and just want to be important in the eyes of their associates. (Qur`an 9:107-108)
The feminist ``Muslimahs`` set up clinics with free counseling (toward non- Muslim values), abortion facilities, women`s shelters and the like. (They get grants from universities, local governments and feminist organizations.) They say they`re helping, but by promoting values in the minds of the women they serve which are unIslamic, they really cause harm in the long run.
They literally make it seem as if all you have to do is remove the Hijab, wear a mini-skirt and give up Islamic teachings then all your problems will be solved. When the root of the problem to begin with is almost always someone in their lives, maybe themselves or their husbands, were not following Islam to begin with! The cure can never be the poison.
The culturally-based Muslim Hijab wearers are the most vulnerable. They are usually, and you know this is true, uneducated village-style women who will listen to anything that sounds ``sophisticated``. Their Islam is usually a mixture of folklore, cultural traditions, superstitions and the like. They are the majority of women in the Muslim world. They`re not bad or evil or anything, they`re just completely unaware of real Islam. The feminists and the secular ``Muslimahs`` want to ``liberate`` them into the great world of today`s used, worn-out, vulgar, ``modern`` Western woman.
The women who have either accepted Islam or who rediscovered it after living in a Muslim family are often quite alone. Those who love Allah by their own conviction and who seek to follow Islam truly are the enemies of the feminists, and by extension, of the Shaitan. The Shaitan calls people to forget Allah, to forget that they`re responsible for their actions and to forget that this life is a short time of testing. He lures people with their animalistic desires and their cravings for the best in life. He whispers that there are no moral standards and that you can do as you please. Those who accept this call, whether with Muslim names or non-Muslim ones, descend to the level of intelligent beasts. (See Qur`an 7:16-17)
I have personally witnessed confrontations between those who wear Hijab by conviction and those secular ``Muslimahs`` who say it`s not required. Every single time, the secular ``Muslimahs`` have utilized an insulting and nasty tone. Arguing with their worst faces. Of course, one of the signs of a hypocrite is that they`ll get nasty in a disagreement, but then again, they don`t accept the Hadith usually anyway, unless it seems to agree with their positions. (Qur`an 33:36)
The Muslim women who don`t yet wear Hijab, but who desperately want to, sometimes may become afraid of the mean-spirit of the secular ``Muslimahs.`` Nobody wants to be pointed out and nobody wants to be yelled at. I feel bad for these women. Their hearts and minds are tugging them towards true Islam but the nastiness of mean, shame/rage filled people make them afraid to wear Hijab. And sometimes the conscientious Hijab wearers don`t always know when to be gentle and don`t always encourage their sisters in a thoughtful, sisterly way. This as a result of always having to be on the defensive.
This war will go on for as long as there are women who believe in and love Allah. Many a Muslim man, whose own faith was weak, has fallen to it and pressured his wife or daughters not to wear Hijab. But in the end, the purity is the proof. A Muslimah in Hijab always looks purer than a woman in a mini- skirt. And a Muslimah in Hijab who practices Islam, will always be happier and free of shame, while a ``liberated`` woman has nothing but the empty standards of fashion magazines, western-style therapy, and empty and temporary ``love`` affairs to look forward to.
There is one incident that we`ll never forget. We were once at a Muslim youth rally on the east coast. There were hundreds of Muslim college students in attendance. As we were moving through the crowd we came upon a group of Hijab wearing sisters. One of the sisters, a young woman of about 18 or 20 was stating, ``One thing that scares the heck out of everyone is an articulate, well dressed, intelligent, and professional Muslim sister wearing Hijab``. It`s true. Because they present the alternative that every woman can attain. That is the real equality and the real standard of respect. (See Qur`an 33:35) The trouble is, so many people are so trapped in the sinful, immoral lifestyle of lies, substance abuse, irresponsibility and chaos, that their shame drives them merely further into rage.
We know of one mother, a Muslim woman, who sent her daughter to an Islamic school in Michigan. The daughter opened her eyes to Islam and wanted to wear her Hijab outside of school, in public, also. But her mother, who was a secular ``Muslimah`` forbade her to wear Hijab saying, ``I won`t have my daughter being better than me.`` May Allah help us and the Muslim women who strive to please their Maker and ultimate judge. Amin.
* * * The authors would like to state that this article is not intended to disparage those Muslim sisters who do not take Hijab for whatever personal reason. It is understood that a sister will take Hijab when she is ready since there is no compulsion in Islam. At the same time, according to the Qur`an, Hijab is a fard and this fact cannot be overlooked. (Qur`an 33:59) Allah (swt) is the final judge. May he give us all courage.
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 8, 2001 03:39 am
#162TAhmed321 Fatimah # 139
I quoted SuRah Nisa & Noor last time about hijab.Check that again .
On Oprah101 Islam more than 1/2 the educated,articulated shut every body up oooon there option & choice to wear hijab.
Problem with PAKISTANI MUSLIM & INDIAN MUSLIMS IS THAT IN ORDER TO COMPETE IN RACE WITH HINDU HAEGONOMY THEY JUST ADOPTED MOST OF HINDU WAYS THINKING WRONGFULLY THE CAUSE OF THERE EDUCATIONAL ADVANTAGE FROM THE BEGINNING .SO IF SAROJINI NAIDU,PUNDIT VIJAY LAXMI SHUSHILA NAYER,EARLY HINDU LADY WHO WERE TOO MUCH EDUCATED LEAD ALL EDUCATED MUSLIM WOMEN LIKE NAJMA HEPTULLAH,SALMA SIDDIQUE,QURAITULAINE HAIDER,ASMAT CHUGTAI,Zehra Sehgal all copied bad habits of drinking ,smoking & unislamic habits
The War of the Women
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By Yahiya Emerick & Reshma Baig
A popular English saying says that ``Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.`` The meaning being that if a woman feels like something unfair happened to her, her anger will be limitless. I`m not going to say that that is necessarily true or not, but I have seen shades of it in the world-wide war between women who wear the Hijab (head-scarf) and those who want to oppose it.
Why do I describe it as a war? If you have to ask then you haven`t been paying much attention to what women talk about in public meetings, articles, lectures, and even among themselves. The battle consists, quite interestingly, of four distinct war-fronts.
There are
1) the women who wear Hijab out of conviction that it is the Islamic thing to do.
Then there are
2) the women who wear it only because their mothers and grandmothers wore it; unaware of its true Islamic significance.
The third group,
3) the non-Muslim feminists, rally against anything that covers up even one inch of the female form, but we already expected this from them.
And finally,
4) there are the secular ``Muslim`` women, who almost never practice Islam anyway, but who have Muslim names and roots, who make it a point to appear at all Muslim gatherings with hair fashionably styled in full public glory.
For the sake of this article, one issue must be clear from the outset (so as not to ruffle the feathers of too many readers): An operative definition of the Hijab-wearing woman must be constructed. Albeit, as described above, not all Hijab wearers are alike. Women wear the Hijab for varying reasons. In reality, there also exists those noble and true Muslim sisters who wear Hijab because it is Islamically correct. They perceive it as intrinsically empowering. In addition, the Hijab is not a facade (the ``I`ll wear Hijab then do whatever I like`` attitude).
The operative definition of a true Hijab wearing Muslim woman is one who correctly follows the guidelines of Qur`an and Sunnah and whose only motivation is to please Allah. (Qur`an 33:59) This type of Hijab wearing woman is intelligent, Allah-fearing, overcoming the temporal trappings of the life of this world, and ultimately very happy with her decision. She is not out to please anyone except her Creator.
Now as stated previously, there are the four groups in this Battle of the Scarf. But it`s not a fair war. Although it would seem that there are two factions on each side, in fact, the culturally-based Hijab wearing women are no help to their Islamically-oriented sisters. The cultural Hijab-wearers don`t look at their Hijab as an Islamic duty, but rather as an affiliation with some old-country culture. And in fact, they wear it only out of habit.
Obviously, then, the daughters of such women, feeling more ``American`` than Arab, Indian, Nigerian (or any culture transmitted by family origin), never wear the Hijab themselves because it`s just ``culture`` and thus, the cultural women are no help in the Islamic struggle. Their own offspring become some other ``culture`` just as they are only motivated by what they grew up with themselves.
Have you ever seen the women, walking in ``full`` Hijab, but then their two or three daughters, even if they`re teenagers, are dressed completely like non- Muslims? It`s incredibly common. I feel like asking those mothers. Why are you even wearing Hijab if it wasn`t important enough for you to pass on to your daughters?
So the Islamically-oriented Hijab-wearers are quite alone in the face of the assault by the feminists/secular ``Muslimahs``. The relationship between those two erstwhile allies is strange. The agenda of the Western feminists has always been puzzling. They cry about equality and respect but then push for things that dehumanize women and put them at the mercy of merciless men. They`ll say women should be respected for their minds rather than for their bodies, but then they`ll say that women should go around in mini-skirts and g- strings. It`s funny how some ultra-Feminists argue with pride that the only professions in which women earn more money than men are prostitution and fashion modeling--then, while complaining against violence towards women, they try to encourage more women to be ``empowered`` by disrobing (utilizing work- place fashions that place more emphasis on the female figure rather than intelligence and qualifications).
Men are an aggressive lot. If you take away clothes from a woman, the man is not suddenly going to start respecting her. Rather he`s going to take it as a green light to chase after her. It`s interesting how so many male fashion designers are worshipped by Western, European, and now even ``Muslim`` women. (Armani, De La Renta, Gucci, Mizrahi, Lauren, etc...)
It doesn`t take an analyst from Fashion Avenue to figure out that a man will design clothes for women that fits one main criteria: That the outfit be pleasing and attractive to the eyes of a man. From this arises the catch- phrase: ``powerful and sexy``. Some cultural ``Muslims`` with more of an interest in fashion (rather than their love for Allah) heed the call of Vogue, Glamour, and Cosmopolitan rather than the guidelines for dress in the Qur`an and Sunnah.
Unfortunately, both ``Muslim`` men and women have fallen prey to the paradigms of worldly dressing. (Is it really dress for success or dress for sex?). Some brothers are ashamed of their wives and daughters wearing the Hijab in public (the ``you look too dowdy with that thing on your head`` syndrome.) Some women discourage their own Muslim sisters from wearing the Hijab saying that they`ll ``never succeed`` or ``just look old-fashioned and oppressed``, or as I`ve overheard time and time again, ``you only need to wear Hijab on Eid or at Jumu`ah prayer``.
It must be added here that Muslim women are not being encouraged to dress dowdy, sloppy, or out of the ``mode``. It is merely being asserted that what is touted as fashionable is not necessarily empowering--or flattering-- in the real sense of the word. Islam arrived on the scene more than 1400 years ago to fortify a woman`s dignity; introducing the concept of ``covering the parts that elicit desire``. Time and time again it is implored that ``Allah is beautiful and loves beauty.`` Our Creator made us beautiful and the dictates of ``modern`` fashion morph that beauty into something exploitative and ugly.
The feminists say that women should be free and independent, never relying on any man. So the message men extract from this is that now they can have as many lovers as they want and never have to be tied down to one woman ever again. Consequently, a woman who dates can expect to go from man to man for twenty years or more before she can succeed in tying one down in marriage. And now women have to dress even more alluring to attract men, and have to work harder to keep them around lest the ``roving eye`` spots another, younger, prettier catch. Women, as polls have shown, are more harried, stressed and suffering from acute eating and other disorders than ever before.
Feminists say that all spiritual traditions are male-oriented and have worked to keep women down. While this may be true in the case of Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism, these feminists have no knowledge of Islam. All they see is the stupid, chauvinistic cultural traditions of backward X,Y or Z Muslim country and they equate that with the teachings of Islam. Then pseudo- scholars from the West quote ayat and Hadith out of context and paint a picture of a barbaric religion which seeks death for all.
On the same level, there are also ethnic ``Muslim`` women out there who do more to disparage Islam and present apologetic misinformation than their non-Muslim associates. Case in point: In a recent New York Times article about the growing number of Hijab wearing women in America, a ``Muslimah`` doctor from Chicago is quoted as saying that ``Hijab has nothing to do with Islam.`` Her justification was that she was from Pakistan and it`s not important over there. This makes one wonder: Which version of Islam is that? Oh, the abridged version. (Qur`an 33:64-68)
At the same time there is the wave of Muslimahs in America who assert their identities as Muslims and are cognizant that the Hijab is a requirement. These are the sisters on the frontlines who you see in various workplace settings with their Hijabs. The Hijab, as many sisters have commented, changes everything. Peoples are compelled to see you as a Muslim and therefore must assess their own feelings about Islam and Muslims. Ill feelings and sincere understanding of the faith are put through the sieve that is the Hijab.
You can imagine the outrage feminists feel when they hear that women are leaving ``liberated`` Western-secular culture and accepting Islam. I once overheard one feminist say, ``Why are they entering a religion that will oppress them.`` It is so wired. If a woman walks down the street in a french- style head-wrap, nobody blinks an eye. If an old woman has a scarf or net wrapped around her head, nobody even looks. But the minute a woman walks in public with a scarf worn in typical Muslim style, people, women mostly, absolutely freak out. Otherwise nice women will start muttering insults or even yelling.
Of course, no one says anything bad when they see a statue of Mary wearing a veil- and she always has a veil on. And no one yells at nuns, many of whom dress more Islamically than most Muslim women. So why the anger at the Hijab? You know, there`s an interesting experiment you can try, and it may also save you from committing sins. Whenever a pretty girl walks by, almost every man looks at her, right? In Islam this is discouraged, for obvious reasons. But the next time you see a pretty woman walking by a stationary group of people, don`t look at the pretty woman, (save yourself from a sin,) instead, look at the faces of the other women as the pretty woman passes by them. You`ll be amazed to see that it`s the women who are most blatantly and closely watching the young debutante prance by. And the glances of the women will follow long after the men have lost interest.
It`s amazing! Women judge each other by their looks and appearances more than you would imagine. Especially non-Muslim women, who see the new female as a potential rival for male attention. When a Muslim woman, dressed according to her conscience, walks by, you see these same women grimace and make ugly faces. Why are they so threatened by a covered woman even more so than a half-naked one?
Because the half-naked woman is only a rival for a man. The covered woman is a direct challenge to any woman`s whole being, sense of self and way of life. A modestly dressed, covered woman is a walking, talking challenge to the women (and men) who are sacrificing their Akhira for success on the terms of Dunya. A woman in Hijab who is a functioning member of society is a clarion call to everyone around her. She symbolizes a woman who is empowered by Allah (swt) rather than by the shabby, eclectic, pop-cultural, spiritually bankrupt throngs who pass as the icons of contemporary society.
The average non-Muslim woman sees nothing wrong with unmarried sexual relations, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, dancing with men, walking around half-naked, maybe taking drugs, gossiping, lying, using foul language, etc... (Who are all those immigrant Muslim men who race to marry such women and ignore their noble Muslim sisters?)
While the Muslim woman, in Hijab, radiates the exact opposite! She doesn`t engage in those things and rather tries to be humble, self-controlled, full of nobility and goodness and spiritually motivated. Non-Muslim women freak out because they feel so much shame deep down that they are so rotten and unclean! (Culturally-oriented Hijab-wearers don`t threaten them much because they usually are rude, loud and without inner-purity, as well. There is a style of Hijab and a look of inner-purity which distinguishes the conscientious Muslimahs from all others. You can see Taqwa in a person`s face!)
A Muslim woman, whose inner-purity is reflected in her behavior, is more beautiful than even the most sensually dressed non-Muslim. So many men I know have said this, both Muslim and non-Muslim! Men love to run after the easy women for ``conquests`` but they want to marry someone who is pure more than anything else in the world! Non-Muslim women are filled with their shame/rage and it makes them attack Islam and things Islamic with a venom more deadly than any Orientalist ever had.
So many Western women, despairing of the lifestyle in which women have been reduced to mere sex-objects for men, are leaving the immoral lifestyle for the Islamic one in huge numbers. It doesn`t matter if they find good husbands or not. They`re accepting Islam because it`s real, because it speaks to them as women.
But still the non-Muslim women twist their hands in rage. Now, because there is a whole class of Muslim immigrants who grew up worshipping America and the West, associating its technological advancements with its values, the non- Muslim feminists have a useful new tool in their fight against the one thing that shows them how wrong they are. These allies are the women with Muslim names who don`t practice Islam, or who at the very most consider Islam to be a praying and fasting ``religion`` and little else.
These ``Muslim`` women, who may be victims of backward cultural traditions, think that the ``Muslim`` culture they came from is what Islam is about. Well, if that was true, I wouldn`t like Islam either. I`m sure you`ll agree that Muslims are sometimes the worst examples of what Islam categorizes as bad. But most of us are intelligent enough to realize that just because I have to pay a bribe to the policeman or if a woman has to abort her daughter in favor of a male child in the future-- it doesn`t mean that Islam teaches that.
But there are a whole class of ``Muslims`` who can`t seem to make such distinctions. They can`t seem to understand where culture ends and Islam begins; they can`t seem to let go of cultural values and adhere to the teachings of the Qur`an; they can`t seem to wash away the taint of culture to expose the illumination of Islam. That would require a sacrifice on their part. (Oh my god! If they followed true Islam they might have to allow their daughters to marry people of a different ethnic group. Can`t have that now!)
Already the feminists have destroyed Christianity and Judaism. Read that sentence over one time. Those two religions are now in the dust-bin of history, despite a cough from them every now and then, because they`re effectively marginalized. The feminists, without even understanding that Islam is best for them, have brought secular ``Muslim`` women into their ranks to show the world that Islam should become as quaint and marginalized in society as Christianity is now.
Just on a side note, you know how Christian missionaries are roving all over the world and making thousands of new converts every day? They brag about it and Muslims complain about it because countries like Indonesia and Nigeria are in danger of becoming ``Christian`` countries in a few decades. But wait a minute! Who are the Christians converting and who is becoming Muslim?
The Christians are converting ignorant villagers, uneducated natives and people with Muslim names who don`t know anything about Islam. While those who are accepting Islam are Jews and Christians- Westerners who are highly educated and have lived the secular way of life all their lives! The dumb become Christian while the educated become Muslim! There`s some food for thought!
Back to the war of the women: How have the feminists used these ``secular Muslim`` women? They have convinced some ``Muslim`` women that the path to money and power in this country is through bastardizing your own soul. By conforming to the heathen wishes of the majority, you can achieve loads of worldly success. That if you`re a working professional (in any field), that success can only be attained by ripping off the ``oppressive weight`` of your Hijab and donning a ``powerful and sexy`` power suit.
As many Hijab wearing, practicing Muslim sisters have commented, the Western feminist ideology only hurts those who are ready to sacrifice their Next Life for the success of the world. Our practicing, Hijab wearing sisters have proved time and time again that they can wear their Hijab and become teachers, doctors, nurses, accountants, principals, economists, professors, etc... On the same level, without sacrificing their identity as Muslims; they are accepting the challenge of success while not simultaneously sacrificing their Islam.
But the feminists have their ready slaves: there are ``Muslim`` women who are brought by the feminists to their seminars and meetings to give the ``Muslim`` voice (read: token ``Muslim`` woman who will lash out against Islam and emerge as the Renaissance Woman Who Emerged From Behind The Veil.) Because these women had no real belief anyway, they almost always parrot, quite shamelessly, the views of the feminists. Then these ``Muslim`` women become filled with the idea of a crusade against ``oppression`` in their ethnic communities. An Arab secular ``Muslimah`` will work her agenda in the Arab community; an Indo-Pak in that community, etc...
It`s easy for them to do this given that most of the Muslims who immigrated to this country are as of yet, unorganized and unaffiliated with any Masjid or organization. What`s more, we shoot ourselves in the foot because some of our centers are run by people who are also secular in their outlook and just want to be important in the eyes of their associates. (Qur`an 9:107-108)
The feminist ``Muslimahs`` set up clinics with free counseling (toward non- Muslim values), abortion facilities, women`s shelters and the like. (They get grants from universities, local governments and feminist organizations.) They say they`re helping, but by promoting values in the minds of the women they serve which are unIslamic, they really cause harm in the long run.
They literally make it seem as if all you have to do is remove the Hijab, wear a mini-skirt and give up Islamic teachings then all your problems will be solved. When the root of the problem to begin with is almost always someone in their lives, maybe themselves or their husbands, were not following Islam to begin with! The cure can never be the poison.
The culturally-based Muslim Hijab wearers are the most vulnerable. They are usually, and you know this is true, uneducated village-style women who will listen to anything that sounds ``sophisticated``. Their Islam is usually a mixture of folklore, cultural traditions, superstitions and the like. They are the majority of women in the Muslim world. They`re not bad or evil or anything, they`re just completely unaware of real Islam. The feminists and the secular ``Muslimahs`` want to ``liberate`` them into the great world of today`s used, worn-out, vulgar, ``modern`` Western woman.
The women who have either accepted Islam or who rediscovered it after living in a Muslim family are often quite alone. Those who love Allah by their own conviction and who seek to follow Islam truly are the enemies of the feminists, and by extension, of the Shaitan. The Shaitan calls people to forget Allah, to forget that they`re responsible for their actions and to forget that this life is a short time of testing. He lures people with their animalistic desires and their cravings for the best in life. He whispers that there are no moral standards and that you can do as you please. Those who accept this call, whether with Muslim names or non-Muslim ones, descend to the level of intelligent beasts. (See Qur`an 7:16-17)
I have personally witnessed confrontations between those who wear Hijab by conviction and those secular ``Muslimahs`` who say it`s not required. Every single time, the secular ``Muslimahs`` have utilized an insulting and nasty tone. Arguing with their worst faces. Of course, one of the signs of a hypocrite is that they`ll get nasty in a disagreement, but then again, they don`t accept the Hadith usually anyway, unless it seems to agree with their positions. (Qur`an 33:36)
The Muslim women who don`t yet wear Hijab, but who desperately want to, sometimes may become afraid of the mean-spirit of the secular ``Muslimahs.`` Nobody wants to be pointed out and nobody wants to be yelled at. I feel bad for these women. Their hearts and minds are tugging them towards true Islam but the nastiness of mean, shame/rage filled people make them afraid to wear Hijab. And sometimes the conscientious Hijab wearers don`t always know when to be gentle and don`t always encourage their sisters in a thoughtful, sisterly way. This as a result of always having to be on the defensive.
This war will go on for as long as there are women who believe in and love Allah. Many a Muslim man, whose own faith was weak, has fallen to it and pressured his wife or daughters not to wear Hijab. But in the end, the purity is the proof. A Muslimah in Hijab always looks purer than a woman in a mini- skirt. And a Muslimah in Hijab who practices Islam, will always be happier and free of shame, while a ``liberated`` woman has nothing but the empty standards of fashion magazines, western-style therapy, and empty and temporary ``love`` affairs to look forward to.
There is one incident that we`ll never forget. We were once at a Muslim youth rally on the east coast. There were hundreds of Muslim college students in attendance. As we were moving through the crowd we came upon a group of Hijab wearing sisters. One of the sisters, a young woman of about 18 or 20 was stating, ``One thing that scares the heck out of everyone is an articulate, well dressed, intelligent, and professional Muslim sister wearing Hijab``. It`s true. Because they present the alternative that every woman can attain. That is the real equality and the real standard of respect. (See Qur`an 33:35) The trouble is, so many people are so trapped in the sinful, immoral lifestyle of lies, substance abuse, irresponsibility and chaos, that their shame drives them merely further into rage.
We know of one mother, a Muslim woman, who sent her daughter to an Islamic school in Michigan. The daughter opened her eyes to Islam and wanted to wear her Hijab outside of school, in public, also. But her mother, who was a secular ``Muslimah`` forbade her to wear Hijab saying, ``I won`t have my daughter being better than me.`` May Allah help us and the Muslim women who strive to please their Maker and ultimate judge. Amin.
* * * The authors would like to state that this article is not intended to disparage those Muslim sisters who do not take Hijab for whatever personal reason. It is understood that a sister will take Hijab when she is ready since there is no compulsion in Islam. At the same time, according to the Qur`an, Hijab is a fard and this fact cannot be overlooked. (Qur`an 33:59) Allah (swt) is the final judge. May he give us all courage.
A World Upside Down
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
S. Rajagopalan
(Washington, October 5)
Despite India`s relentless pressure and a mass of evidence, the United States has failed to designate Laskhar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) as ``Foreign Terrorist Organisations``.
The JeM`s outrage in front of the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar last Monday had given rise to expectations in Indian circles here that the State Department would finally nail both JeM and LeT. Secretary of State Colin Powell had termed the Srinagar attack a ``terrible terrorist act``.
Both these Pakistan-based terrorist outfits had figured prominently in the list of ``Other Terrorist Groups``, appended to the department`s report on ``Patterns of Global Terrorism``, released last April. Details of their activities had been included.
Evidently, Powell has for the present confined himself to re-designating 26 of the 28 terrorist organisations figuring on its list. Two Japanese groups, the Japanese Red Army and the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, have been taken off the list.
The only Pakistan-based group that continues to figure in the list is Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. Osama bin Laden`s Al-Qaeda continues to figure prominently on the list.
According to State Department sources, additions and deletions to the list could take place anytime.
As such, there is no finality as such of today`s re-designated list, which had become necessary since the two-year designation of the existing groups were due to lapse by October 8. Designation as a foreign terrorist organisation has the immediate consequence of barring American funding to the groups.
US financial institutions are required to block funds, while any American citizen or association contributing money to them can be proceeded against.
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 6, 2001 08:40 pm
US fails to blacklist Lashkar, Jaish * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
S. Rajagopalan
(Washington, October 5)
Despite India`s relentless pressure and a mass of evidence, the United States has failed to designate Laskhar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) as ``Foreign Terrorist Organisations``.
The JeM`s outrage in front of the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar last Monday had given rise to expectations in Indian circles here that the State Department would finally nail both JeM and LeT. Secretary of State Colin Powell had termed the Srinagar attack a ``terrible terrorist act``.
Both these Pakistan-based terrorist outfits had figured prominently in the list of ``Other Terrorist Groups``, appended to the department`s report on ``Patterns of Global Terrorism``, released last April. Details of their activities had been included.
Evidently, Powell has for the present confined himself to re-designating 26 of the 28 terrorist organisations figuring on its list. Two Japanese groups, the Japanese Red Army and the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, have been taken off the list.
The only Pakistan-based group that continues to figure in the list is Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. Osama bin Laden`s Al-Qaeda continues to figure prominently on the list.
According to State Department sources, additions and deletions to the list could take place anytime.
As such, there is no finality as such of today`s re-designated list, which had become necessary since the two-year designation of the existing groups were due to lapse by October 8. Designation as a foreign terrorist organisation has the immediate consequence of barring American funding to the groups.
US financial institutions are required to block funds, while any American citizen or association contributing money to them can be proceeded against.
A World Upside Down
When Oprah met Maleeha Lodhi
From L. K. Sharma
DH News Service
WASHINGTON, Oct 6
Till recently, the beautiful visage of missing girl Chandra Levy never used to leave the small screen even if power was switched off! Then came Osama bin Laden who ousted her. Since September 11, he has been featured more often, though never live, than the President of the United States of America.
A new phenomenon has perplexed the talk show hosts. They were accustomed to questions such as : ``Why does my boyfriend hate me? , ``Why does my girlfriend hate me?`` Now the question heard most often is ``Why do they hate us?``
Apparently, the terrorists who indulged in mass murder, hated their victims.Then arose a new set of victims of hate crimes. The Islamic faith got dragged into both, first as the perpetrator then as the victim. That gave rise to the question, What is Islam? The TV channels thought there was a market for a crash course in this religion called Islam. Even newscasters were having to use this word very often and they could also benefit from some tips about Islam.
In a rare gesture, Oprah Winfrey decided to venture into this novel field. And since Gen Pervez Musharraf had just persuaded President Bush to believe that his country is a moderate Muslim country, Oprah fell back on Pakistani resources for her class in the studio.
The chief guest was Mademoiselle Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan`s ambassador in Washington. By a coincidence, that very morning, the woman ambassador had established her credentials as a true representative of the real Islam in the eyes of a Washington Post writer who saw ``Lodhi, 48, drawing at her Cartier cigarette which she picks up with flourishes of her long, manicured nails.``
Her Excellency was dressed in a black and brown tunic and pantaloons with a matching cashmere shawl draped off her shoulders. The writer also recorded that Maleeha has a thing for hamburgers and her favourites are from Clyde`s and Johnny Rockets.
The readers were also informed about Maleeha`s strong commitment to democracy which drove her back from London to Pakistan where she participated in the democracy moment. Somehow, she ended up representing the Pervez Musharraf government in Washington presumably because she could not say no to the General.
Maleeha was taught by Irish nuns in Rawalpindi but then she did take Koran lessons at home. She did not recite any sacred verses on the Oprah show which believes in keeping things simple. Maleeha`s appearance must have given a pleasant surprise to Oprah`s audience which had been fed on a slightly different image of Muslims during the past few days. She wore no burqa, spoke English and dismissed the Taliban`s harsh treatment of women as a cultural rather than a religious practice.
Oprah`s other guest was Pakistani civil servant-turned academic Akbar Ahmed who became controversial in the UK when he was appointed High Commissioner.
Now he has shifted to America and holds a chair in Islamic studies. Oprah sailed through the programme asking some inane questions.
She admitted that the programme gave her an idea how Pakistan was born. She did not lack humility because at the end of the programme, she was heard asking Prof Ahmed whether she had made a fool of herself. Prof Ahmed who made a film on Jinnah and is an authority on Islam, was very reassuring.
World`s fastest growing religion certainly benefited from being co-branded with Oprah. That is a brand to kill for. And if Oprah could not take Islam to the American people, no one can.
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 6, 2001 08:40 pm
WATCH MALIHA LODHI TO _MORROW ON ABC ON MEET THE PRESS.SHE COULD YOU SOME DISCRETION SPEAKING CANDIDLY When Oprah met Maleeha Lodhi
From L. K. Sharma
DH News Service
WASHINGTON, Oct 6
Till recently, the beautiful visage of missing girl Chandra Levy never used to leave the small screen even if power was switched off! Then came Osama bin Laden who ousted her. Since September 11, he has been featured more often, though never live, than the President of the United States of America.
A new phenomenon has perplexed the talk show hosts. They were accustomed to questions such as : ``Why does my boyfriend hate me? , ``Why does my girlfriend hate me?`` Now the question heard most often is ``Why do they hate us?``
Apparently, the terrorists who indulged in mass murder, hated their victims.Then arose a new set of victims of hate crimes. The Islamic faith got dragged into both, first as the perpetrator then as the victim. That gave rise to the question, What is Islam? The TV channels thought there was a market for a crash course in this religion called Islam. Even newscasters were having to use this word very often and they could also benefit from some tips about Islam.
In a rare gesture, Oprah Winfrey decided to venture into this novel field. And since Gen Pervez Musharraf had just persuaded President Bush to believe that his country is a moderate Muslim country, Oprah fell back on Pakistani resources for her class in the studio.
The chief guest was Mademoiselle Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan`s ambassador in Washington. By a coincidence, that very morning, the woman ambassador had established her credentials as a true representative of the real Islam in the eyes of a Washington Post writer who saw ``Lodhi, 48, drawing at her Cartier cigarette which she picks up with flourishes of her long, manicured nails.``
Her Excellency was dressed in a black and brown tunic and pantaloons with a matching cashmere shawl draped off her shoulders. The writer also recorded that Maleeha has a thing for hamburgers and her favourites are from Clyde`s and Johnny Rockets.
The readers were also informed about Maleeha`s strong commitment to democracy which drove her back from London to Pakistan where she participated in the democracy moment. Somehow, she ended up representing the Pervez Musharraf government in Washington presumably because she could not say no to the General.
Maleeha was taught by Irish nuns in Rawalpindi but then she did take Koran lessons at home. She did not recite any sacred verses on the Oprah show which believes in keeping things simple. Maleeha`s appearance must have given a pleasant surprise to Oprah`s audience which had been fed on a slightly different image of Muslims during the past few days. She wore no burqa, spoke English and dismissed the Taliban`s harsh treatment of women as a cultural rather than a religious practice.
Oprah`s other guest was Pakistani civil servant-turned academic Akbar Ahmed who became controversial in the UK when he was appointed High Commissioner.
Now he has shifted to America and holds a chair in Islamic studies. Oprah sailed through the programme asking some inane questions.
She admitted that the programme gave her an idea how Pakistan was born. She did not lack humility because at the end of the programme, she was heard asking Prof Ahmed whether she had made a fool of herself. Prof Ahmed who made a film on Jinnah and is an authority on Islam, was very reassuring.
World`s fastest growing religion certainly benefited from being co-branded with Oprah. That is a brand to kill for. And if Oprah could not take Islam to the American people, no one can.
A World Upside Down
``[[KarakoramFatimah
or whatever your name is... at least read the articles you cut-n-paste. The article you last posted says nothing about US Foreign Policy. The woman (or whoever) in Canada don`t want the US to respond militarily due to humanitarian reasons. If it is a targetted approach and Osama, Taliban and Co. get hit, I doubt they would care.``]]
Mr.Karak o RAm,
Listen you Osama Bin Laden Fan,If you think i am going to pray for Osama Bin Laden just because you are Korakoram,you are badly in need of spanking.
I am against loss of innocent life no more than in Manahattan than in Afghanistan,Vietnam,Palestine ,or other developing nation.The only reason i speak for other nation b/c there is enough hospital ,insurance co. & relief agency to take care of 7000dead here,but i dont feel any less for them
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 5, 2001 11:58 am
#: 36 ``[[KarakoramFatimah
or whatever your name is... at least read the articles you cut-n-paste. The article you last posted says nothing about US Foreign Policy. The woman (or whoever) in Canada don`t want the US to respond militarily due to humanitarian reasons. If it is a targetted approach and Osama, Taliban and Co. get hit, I doubt they would care.``]]
Mr.Karak o RAm,
Listen you Osama Bin Laden Fan,If you think i am going to pray for Osama Bin Laden just because you are Korakoram,you are badly in need of spanking.
I am against loss of innocent life no more than in Manahattan than in Afghanistan,Vietnam,Palestine ,or other developing nation.The only reason i speak for other nation b/c there is enough hospital ,insurance co. & relief agency to take care of 7000dead here,but i dont feel any less for them
In This Together
``[[tahmed321
Fatimah: I dont see anything in that cut and paste on anything wrong done by us (Pakistanis) or by other muslims. If you really were concerned by the evil that people do to one another, as a Pakistani (or as a muslim, in case you are not Pakistani) you would focus on our own misdeeds. Start with the wrongs done by our army in Bangladesh. Then go back to 1947 and ask why no one tried to protect the Hindus and Sikhs who had to flee Pakistan``]]
TAhmed Saheb,
DID I SAY I WAS AGAINST KISSING BABIES,MOTHERHOOD,MILK ,HONEY,&FAMILY??
When we`ll be discussing Partition & Bangladesh ,we can talk about Pakistanis & Muslims
In case you didnt read or understand ,my information(cut & Paste is not a dirty word)its about actions of American Adventure in other parts of the world.IT IS NOT ABOUT PAKISTANIS OR MUSL:IMS -wake up
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 4, 2001 11:13 pm
#: 17 ``[[tahmed321
Fatimah: I dont see anything in that cut and paste on anything wrong done by us (Pakistanis) or by other muslims. If you really were concerned by the evil that people do to one another, as a Pakistani (or as a muslim, in case you are not Pakistani) you would focus on our own misdeeds. Start with the wrongs done by our army in Bangladesh. Then go back to 1947 and ask why no one tried to protect the Hindus and Sikhs who had to flee Pakistan``]]
TAhmed Saheb,
DID I SAY I WAS AGAINST KISSING BABIES,MOTHERHOOD,MILK ,HONEY,&FAMILY??
When we`ll be discussing Partition & Bangladesh ,we can talk about Pakistanis & Muslims
In case you didnt read or understand ,my information(cut & Paste is not a dirty word)its about actions of American Adventure in other parts of the world.IT IS NOT ABOUT PAKISTANIS OR MUSL:IMS -wake up
Looking Without; Looking Within
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/011004/6/bfeo.html
Women must work to temper U.S. `cowboy` response to terror crisis, says group
By STEPHEN THORNE
Click to enlarge photo
OTTAWA (CP) - Canadian women should focus on tempering America`s ``cowboy-inspired`` response to the terrorist attacks in the U.S. and push for justice through the courts, a major women`s group said Thursday.
The Canadian Women`s March Committee also defended the right of Sunera Thobani, a well-known feminist, to make a controversial link between the attacks and U.S. foreign policy. Thobani, former head of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, told a conference on Tuesday that Canadian women should not be coerced into supporting a U.S. foreign policy that is ``soaked in blood.``
The March Committee emphasized that women have more pressing issues to address than blame.
``War is not the answer to the atrocious crime against humanity committed on Sept. 11, 2001,`` said the group, which says it represents a majority of women`s organizations across Canada.
NAC vice-president Denise Andrea Campbell said Thursday that Thobani broadened discussion on the issue and put some context to the attacks.
``We really support her right - and, actually, all Canadians` right - to ask: why is this happening?`` Campbell told a news conference.
``But on behalf of women across the country . . . we are certainly more interested in looking at the immediate issue at hand, which is: how do we respond to what has happened?``
The committee opposes what it calls U.S. President George W. Bush`s ``vengeful and war-mongering response`` to the attacks. It says the world should follow United Nations guidelines and seek justice in courts of law.
``We expect our governments to lead through compassion, justice and respect for the dignity of all people,`` said the committee declaration.
There is no justification for a full-scale military response to the attacks under UN-defined grounds of self-defence, said Andree Cote, director of law reform at the National Association of Women and the Law.
``It`s so very dangerous in times like this to have unilateral, cowboy-inspired actions that will create possibly a lot of deaths of innocent civilians and international unrest,`` said Cote.
Thobani, a women`s studies professor at University of British Columbia, called the United States ``the most dangerous and the most powerful global force unleashing horrific levels of violence`` in the world today.
Her remarks were condemned by politicians and others as outrageous.
Cote said the reaction to Thobani`s statements has been more troubling than the statements themselves.
``I think this is one of the reasons that we`re opposing war,`` said Cote.
``It creates a climate of intolerance; it creates a climate where basic civil liberties can be violated, where basic freedom of expression is put in jeopardy. We`re very worried by this type of thing.``
She said media and other responses to Thobani`s speech harkened back to the 1950s era of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, who conducted a witchhunt for phantom communists, destroying many innocent lives in the process.
``We want to have a democratic discussion on how to solve this horrible crisis,`` said Cote.
Campbell described Canada`s response so far as an encouraging reinforcement of the country`s traditional values of humanitarianism and peace.
Posted by
Fatimah
Oct 4, 2001 11:13 pm
Did i not say TERRORISM linked with U.S. Foreign POLICY ?http://ca.news.yahoo.com/011004/6/bfeo.html
Women must work to temper U.S. `cowboy` response to terror crisis, says group
By STEPHEN THORNE
Click to enlarge photo
OTTAWA (CP) - Canadian women should focus on tempering America`s ``cowboy-inspired`` response to the terrorist attacks in the U.S. and push for justice through the courts, a major women`s group said Thursday.
The Canadian Women`s March Committee also defended the right of Sunera Thobani, a well-known feminist, to make a controversial link between the attacks and U.S. foreign policy. Thobani, former head of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, told a conference on Tuesday that Canadian women should not be coerced into supporting a U.S. foreign policy that is ``soaked in blood.``
The March Committee emphasized that women have more pressing issues to address than blame.
``War is not the answer to the atrocious crime against humanity committed on Sept. 11, 2001,`` said the group, which says it represents a majority of women`s organizations across Canada.
NAC vice-president Denise Andrea Campbell said Thursday that Thobani broadened discussion on the issue and put some context to the attacks.
``We really support her right - and, actually, all Canadians` right - to ask: why is this happening?`` Campbell told a news conference.
``But on behalf of women across the country . . . we are certainly more interested in looking at the immediate issue at hand, which is: how do we respond to what has happened?``
The committee opposes what it calls U.S. President George W. Bush`s ``vengeful and war-mongering response`` to the attacks. It says the world should follow United Nations guidelines and seek justice in courts of law.
``We expect our governments to lead through compassion, justice and respect for the dignity of all people,`` said the committee declaration.
There is no justification for a full-scale military response to the attacks under UN-defined grounds of self-defence, said Andree Cote, director of law reform at the National Association of Women and the Law.
``It`s so very dangerous in times like this to have unilateral, cowboy-inspired actions that will create possibly a lot of deaths of innocent civilians and international unrest,`` said Cote.
Thobani, a women`s studies professor at University of British Columbia, called the United States ``the most dangerous and the most powerful global force unleashing horrific levels of violence`` in the world today.
Her remarks were condemned by politicians and others as outrageous.
Cote said the reaction to Thobani`s statements has been more troubling than the statements themselves.
``I think this is one of the reasons that we`re opposing war,`` said Cote.
``It creates a climate of intolerance; it creates a climate where basic civil liberties can be violated, where basic freedom of expression is put in jeopardy. We`re very worried by this type of thing.``
She said media and other responses to Thobani`s speech harkened back to the 1950s era of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, who conducted a witchhunt for phantom communists, destroying many innocent lives in the process.
``We want to have a democratic discussion on how to solve this horrible crisis,`` said Cote.
Campbell described Canada`s response so far as an encouraging reinforcement of the country`s traditional values of humanitarianism and peace.
- Fatimah
- Interacts: 140
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 305
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Aug 23 2001
- Last signin: Dec 1 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
