Burqa Vaganza – A Satirical Backlash

Asslamualaikum Sir,
I hope you will be fine. I am currently publishing a local Student's Magazine based in Pakistan. I need great articles to publish them. I have got good content so far. I have seen your article on Burga and I found it good to include in my magazine. I hope you will give us permission to publish it with your name in our Magazine.
Our magazine is distributed in all the universities of capital of Pakistan and in the market.

My email address is khawar.shehzad@gmail.com

Your earliest response will be highly appreciated.

Khawar Shehzad
Chief Editor
Student's Mag

Re: # 432

zeemax

How can you say that?

In any case it is shameful to meddle in a case to just put it in a limbo causing unjustified and unlimited incarceration for the other party. Do you think it is justice?

As regards CJ, Iftikhar Choudary, I may clarify that I am against the reference made against him as I think he was singled out by Mush for some ulterior motives. Otherwise I think all judiciary, with a few exceptions, is corrupt and must be held to account.

As for the requirement of four eye-witnesses, I support it fully as a measure of great `hikmat` in Quran as in the absence of this provision any whore can charge any one of rape. The idiotic WPB has opened up a flood gate of rape charges by `low-caste` women hoping to get the `injustice` like Mai. I come across many such cases in daily life and in media also. Only yesterday I read a feature in the Urdu Daily Express about a rape scandal titled `Muhallah Islam Pura (Jehlam) ijtimaei ziaditi ka muamila`. The other day an alleged rape victim, a girl from Sialkot, was speaking on TV. She accused every body with raping her who she contacted for seeking `justice`. She accused even the police walas of raping her when she went to the police station to report the case. The WPB has evidently given her a licence to a free use of the rape charge (tohmat) against any body with no check.

In fact, the object of the Quranic injunctions in case of `zina`, including of cource rape, is to save people from `tohmat` and to avoid publicity of immorality, which is verily the real `fahaashi` which no honorable person would like to indulge in.

#430 by teshah,

...and the CJ who had taken suo motu action in the matter himself stands charged, in a reference, with misconduct...

Mr. Teshah ... you ignoramus. How do you expect me to interact with you except just exposing you for what you are?

It was not Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry who took suo moto action in Mukhtaran`s case. It was Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui.

#422 by hamidm2 Re: # 421

..... you are a shameless hypocrite !

No I am NOT!.

....... on the one hand, people of your ilk oppose the `women`s protection bill`

I don`t oppose the `women`s protection bill`. Only that it is quite unnecessary and merely an exercise in make-believe and to fool others.

Do you think women have protection now after the `women`s protection bill`? Women protection bill is a sham and cosmetic. The problem always lay with the thana culture and continues to do. There was a loophole in the previous law which was used for extortion by thanedars. This has now been removed but women still don`t have `protection`, because there`re plenty of other methods at their disposal ... like simply picking someone up and not entering the arrest in thana records till they deem fit.

... and want to impose the barbaric hudood laws that would make it impossible for a woman to press charges of rape against a momin ...

Will you stop parroting that now because four witnesses are no longer required? Rape is now outside the purview of Hudood after introduction of your `women`s protection bill`. Or are you not aware of that? That seems pretty ignorant to me ...

...and on the other hand you are championing mukhtar mai`s cause .......

So? Where is the contradiction? Noone asked her to produce four witnesses and her rapists are in Jail with a death penalty hanging over their heads. At the time there wasn`t even any `women`s protection bill`. So how come she got some kind of justice? Did any Islamist oppose the Supreme Court`s action in setting aside High Court`s judgment because there weren`t four witnesses?

On the other hand, see below from just yesterday`s news:




It is amazing people accept the prevailing Jirgas and Punchayats in Pakistan but are up in arms over the mere mention of `Shariya`. Why is that?

It is because they`re scared it is applicable to all, not just to the poor and the helpless. Only imposition of Shariya can rid the society of social ills as above.

...... she is a great woman who has done more for the women`s cause than any one else in recent history ..........

No doubt she is, because she `stood` up. Just as much as the Hafsa girls who `stood` up after having been kicked around, but you abuse them as being prostitutes.

Now who is the hypocrite?

What if Mukhtaran wore a `burqa`? Would you have then agreed with teshah that she did it all as a show and ulterior motives?

I would really like you to answer the above question. Though I suspect if Mukhtaran was not paraded around Europe and US by liberal NGOs, but was actually a simple burqa-clad who stood up, or had taken refuge in Hafsa, you would say she was a prostitute to begin with.

........ as for zab, i think that inspite of his shortcomings and weaknesses he was a great leader ........

No doubt he was. One of the greatest leaders in history.

.......... his biggest fault was in giving in to the mullahs on the ahmedi issues ...

Remember there was an assembly at the time and extensive hearings were held on the issue. Mullahs constituted a small minority in that assembly with ZABs party dominating all legislature with a 2/3rd majority. What was the Mullah`s hold on ZAB back in 1973? Actually it was `zero`. It was the same ZAB who had built a Casino in Karachi for the Gulf Arabs.

Qadianis were declared non-Mulsims because they ARE non-Muslims. Mullahs or no Mullahs, ZABs party resolved the issue once and for all. They`re not considered Muslim in any Muslim country BTW and are not allowed Hajj etc by Saudis as well.

... and his biggest sin against mankind was the imposition of prohibition - it has caused many of us great personal hardship ........

He did NOT declare prohibition. Haven`t you seen the booze stores in every locality in Karachi? He only restricted alcohol to non-Muslims, even which was and still isn`t practically enforced. In fact, the alcohol in Pakistan is more liberal than your cherished Dubai where there`re no liquor stores at all but available only for rich FDI types in hotels. Who then is a bigger hypocrite? ZAB or Shaikh Muhammad Bin Al-Maktoum?

........ the biggest villian in pakistan`s history was your pir and murshid, hazrat zia - the man who opened pandora`s box to let out the denizens of hell ...........

I fully agree Zia was the biggest villain ... but not for what you accuse him of ... it was for his murdering ZAB while locked-up through supposed judicial means like a coward and not willing to let him out of jail for all of two years to face him on the street. Zia was scared of ZAB to no end. Zia was the biggest villain this country has ever seen in its entire 60 years of history. So we agree so far on this issue.

But did Zia open the pandora`s box to let out the denizens of hell? If he did, it was again solely by hanging ZAB and widening the existing polarization in the country, and not by anything else. After all, what did he do other than funnel CIA money to Hikmatyar after keeping a due cut for himself and Musharraf`s key minister Humayun Akhtar`s dad Gen. Akhtar Abdur-Rahman? Religious fundamentalism as you would term it (or unadulterated Islam as I would term it) emerged much later after Zia was dispatched to hell and during Benazir`s first term after her return from exile with emergence of Taliban. Lal Masjid phenomenon is a natural progression and a much improved one from that of Taliban.

Hamidm. I`m disappointed in you. You don`t know enough facts to pass judgments on me. If you`re an apostate, and hate Islam and Muslims, that`s ok.

But, you`re a liar, Sir. And ignorant on top of that.

Cheers.

tahmed32

zeemax
I started Mai debate with tahmed but zeemax jumped in to support the former`s view-point. This made me rather wondering and a bit confused. How these two could be one in supporting Mai`s rape as though they were both eye-witnesses of the case in Sharrayei terms.

As far as I know the case is pending with the Supreme Court and the CJ who had taken suo motu action in the matter himself stands charged, in a reference, with misconduct. We can only wait and see the result of either case.

Re: # 421

zeemax

So you forgot your Islamic up-bringing and started showing your genetic meanness. So you say the alleged rape of Mai was mandated by the Panchayat Court, she was dragged (allegedly) to a room by Mastoies in compliance with the orders of the court but all her family sat smug watching the operation. I cannot believe this all to be a case of rape. It was perhaps a case of mere tribal vendetta.

Any how I see you and your ilk, like Hafsa Brigade, ignore Islam whenever it is convenient. Shariah requires four eye witnesses who saw the penis going in and out of the victim`s vagina to be a valid evidence for zina but none could perhaps be produced in this case. So all accusers of zina in this case are liable to be held guilty of `Qazaf` with all its consequences.

tejpal: i took the trouble of reading this so i could tell you what it is, and this is what it is - a load of mullah propaganda. i.e., the write-up whines that no one called the virginia tech killings terrorism, then lists a bunch of pakistani universities and how they have violence and arms and no one cares, and then ends with claiming that the innocent female students of hafsa have been the target of police brutality.

so, dont worry - you are missing nothing other than a load of bs.

I will appreciate if whenever a verse or quote is inserted in foreign language , which in this is Urdu, a translation ,however imperfect, should be included so that those who are not conversant with , say urdu, can make out the meaning of the quoted passage.

I meant credulous, not incredulous. (damn. so much for trying to approach the intellectual heights of masadi by using big words!!) :-(

hamidm: i think someone added this piece to your post while you were taking a coffee break (since i cannot imagine you would ever be so incredulous as to say such a thing): he (ZAB) liberated the common man - the nai, dhobi and rickshaw wala - and gave him back his essential human dignity

what you mean is: zab gave the poor false hopes as an election stunt when in fact he never intended to keep it. One example: ZAB steadfastly refused to introduce proper land reforms (which would have changed the socio-economic landscape of rural pakistan) despite being urged to do so from many quarters.

zeemax: it was kaalchakra minus the kaalchakraisms like ``internal consistency of islamic message``. He (your guru) called in a moment of candor Islam e.v.i.l. So, spare your misdirected anger on me. :-)

GT: yea, sure. But I will disappoint you. I have nothing remotely new to say on ``Religion``.

peace.

Burqa Vaganza – A Satirical Backlash

and then there is the KanjarR Vaganza

afsose that the Ba Ba Blacksheep from the KanjarR-school system
will not be able to read this..because they are anparRhs(illiterates)
................................................................................................................................

Re: # 421

zeemax,

..... you are a shameless hypocrite !

....... on the one hand, people of your ilk oppose the `women`e protection bill` and want to impose the barbaric hudood laws that would make it impossible for a woman to press charges of rape against a momin, and on the other hand you are championing mukhtar mai`s cause ....... i doubt she would want to be associated with men like you ...... she is a great woman who has done more for the women`s cause than any one else in recent history .......... you mullahs cannot have your halwa and eat it too ......

........ i don`t know where teshah is coming from, but he is wrong ...........

........ as for zab, i think that inspite of his shortcomings and weaknesses he was a great leader ........ he liberated the common man - the nai, dhobi and rickshaw wala - and gave him back his essential human dignity ........ in this respect he is the `father of democracy` in pakistan ..........as for his misplaced and mismanaged socialistic ideas, that was the `fashion` in the developing countries at that time - everyone from nehru to nyerere fell prey to this disease .......... his biggest fault was in giving in to the mullahs on the ahmedi issues instead of exterminating the scum ........ and his biggest sin against mankind was the imposition of prohibition - it has caused many of us great personal hardship ........

........ the biggest villian in pakistan`s history was your pir and murshid, hazrat zia - the man who opened pandora`s box to let out the denizens of hell ...........

#420 by teshah,

There were not four but dozens of witnesses. The Jirga had mandated a public gang rape which was carried out. If those dozens of witnesses refused to testify, that was another matter which Supreme Court took into account while setting aside the bail by the High court and sending the culprits back to jail.

However, if you`re worse than a `Nali ka Keera`, I can`t help you. So my advice to you would be to get lost.

You are one of those like hamidm and t32 who no longer should have any claim over Pakistani identity and would be swiftly taken care of quite cruelly if you try to claim otherwise.

Re: # 415

zeemax

You seem otherwise to be a quite sensible man but why do you insist on rape of Mai as though you were an eye-witness of the operation seeing Mastoies` going in and out or a co-sharer in the spoils. Do you know Sharia requires four qualified eye-witnesses if you make an accusation of zina against some body and if you fail to produce the required number of witnesses you are held as a certified liar to be punished by 80 straps. Let Shariah, with which you flirt often, come and you will sure get those 80 straps and held liar for ever.

You are in fact the limit of lowness.

#418 by tahmed32,

Don`t be evasive like a snake with a forked tongue.

Do you support ZABs hanging? Yes or no please. Spare me the inanities.

If it is yes, I stand vindicated with all my allegations against you proven correct.

If it is no, you will be lying and I can produce a hundred posts where you have cheered that hanging. So I will still stand vindicated with all my allegations against you proven correct.

Best course will be for you not to answer at all.