To Western Women

Hi ,
To the writer.
Your poem is incredible, and to an extent you are very right to write that a woman when fully covered avoids unexpected confrontations , but your topic being ` to the western women ` offends many readers. I have been to many places and seen many people , let me tell u that western women are `` all `` not bad . Yes , there must be numbers of them .
And i have seen some of the muslim ladies too , who turn up in burkhas with skimpy clothes inside and many dirty deeds to hide. I am sure you are an EXCEPTION as i can read you, from your poem.

cherym #201

Hello She: How are you?

I hope you remember who the Sheesh Nag is [``some sheesh nag. Pooh..``]. He is gender-blind. It doesn`t make any difference to it whether a researcher is a ``He``, or, a ``She`` if weak as a researcher.

In any case, good to see you around old chap! I wish I were not a SHEESH Nag.

Our Muslim fundamentalist colleague would have affairs and would talk for hours on telephone. I don`t know whether they considered this Islamic or not.

They would listen to music themselves and would turn over the musical function. When asked they said golden words. Individually it is not a sin but collectively it is a sin.

They beat a ``Qadiani`` because he was drinking water in Ramadhan. I don`t know which Islam tells them.

Our weakness is that we cannot say ``If this is Islam then hell with it``.

They manipulate this mentality to the greatest advantage. That is instead of doing something, they utilize the people`s sentiments to their own advantage.

The example of these parties particularly Jamat-e-Islami is like Mohajir Qaumi movement with Islam instead of Mohajir as their slogan.

Ref krashid #: 212

When you say ``This was in reference to your taunting of Prophet PBUH``, please notice that I did not refer to the Founder of Islam even by his given name but only as the Prophet, acknowledging that he brought religion to the people of Arabia and the rest of the world. If however, you find anything I said offensive, I apologize. I do not mean to hurt people but I would like them to think how the Prophet`s words are twisted by a few to impose their views on the public.

Taking the example of women`s right, the Prophet tremendously improved women`s rights by giving them the right of inheritance, etc., when the usual practice in Arabia was to bury female infants to kill them. Instead of saying that Muslims to day should take inspiration from the Prophet`s words and try to make women equal in rights to men today, we have the religious leaders claiming that the Prophet sealed the fate of women and they should have no further rights.

I don`t know whether people recognize my suggestion for a chastity belt to be the absurdity I meant it to be. I am sure through the conquest of Spain, the Arabs would have gained knowledge of the existence of such devices in Europe, yet they seem not to have imposed it on their own women, proving that they realized the difference between the absurd and the acceptable. On the other hand, current day folks such as the Taliban probably would find the chastity belt acceptable for their womenfolk.

When you say ``The people to be loathed are not the prophet PBUH but the people who are utilizing the name and persecuting others in the name of Prophet PBUH``, I add ``Amen``.

Harimau#210

This was in reference to your taunting of Prophet PBUH.

I am not against religion. I am against the sacredness in the name of religion which religious figures of today demand, who want to hide behind great people and have nothing to offer.

Being a Muslim may be a factor in reverence for the prophet PBUH for me. But I have studied also on history on my own.

If you read a history without socio-economic circumstances of that time you are going to err.

Martin Ling started a work on life history of Prophet PBUH and before he finished, he became Muslim. Prophet PBUH is considered the most influntial person in human history even by some non-Muslim sources.

Consider that with the respect we give to each other, and how much we are worth.

The people who are playing with Islam are doing the same thing as Stalin did to Communism.

The people to be loathed are not the prophet PBUH but the people who are utilizing the name and persecuting others in the name of Prophet PBUH.

Hey ppl,

Here is something for Western Women from a Sick Male.

When I look at you

All I can see in you

Is the contraption that uplifts your breasts.

Your words I could care less

Because you`re so full of figure,

Growing harder, I have my hand on my zipper

I don’t think it`s my own choice,

In your own ``bikini top`` you rejoice.

You`re staring back at me.

You think i`m circumcised,

Tanned, obsessed and subjected.

You`re so thankful that you are free.

But western woman you`ve got it wrong-

I’m the weak and you’re the strong,

For I just want to be inside you trap.

Iron neck brace, short whip,

These are devices for pain and hurt,

My big plans are coming up.

Always jumping on the male organ,

Hold on and understand my terms.

No condom, no 5 star facilities,

No feeding amenities.

No time off for menstrual pain-

``hard on`` they laugh ``what a shame.``

Extra pay for special skill-

Your job I can always fill.

No sex unless you`re sterilised.

No foreplay unless you`re sexually terrorised.

And is this legal?

I`m a person with ideas and thought,

I`m not for sale, i can`t be bought.

I won`t decorate anyone`s arm,

Nor be promoted for my charm.

Ther`s more to me than playing hard.

Living life as a balancing game-girlfriend,

slut, partner, whore, biatch, lover-

And still bring home a male.

Who thought up this modern ``alimony``

Where man can love `em and man can’t leave `em

This is not free but life in a cage.

Western woman you can have your life

Man-who needs a wife.

I am in over my head with no respect

Surely that`s to be expected-

For I am not trying to demean the feminine

I will still live up to a female criterion.

I make love, like there is no tomorrow,

And i hope you see this very soon,

For your own sake-wake up and use your might!

I am sure that you are built just right?

Ref krashid #: 209

Have you heard of reductio ad absurdum in logic? That is what the chastity belt and electronic blinkers are. I am trying to find out what would be considered absurd and what is acceptable and what is the dividing line between the two. It has nothing to do with being non-secular, anti-democratic, anti-Pakistani, anti-Islamic or not respecting the others` point of view. It has everything to do with making you (and Naqshbandi and others) see to what absurd lengths the mullahs have gone in imposing the burqa on women.

Respect for others come from the belief that everyone has a right to live his life according to his conscience. If that doesn`t agree with anyone`s concept of the Islamic way, let Allah be the judge. Surely, there is no higher blasphemy than arrogating to yourself the right to judge that is reserved for Allah on the Day of Judgment.

Harimau!

If you represent Indian then you are increasing my disappointment.

I thought you were secular and democratic.

Do you know the meaning of secular.

Learn to respect others point of view.

Jeolousy will make you say crazy things. You don`t want to be a western woman? Great, who cares. Western women aren`t writing poems about not wanting to be a Muslim woman. Live you own life and NEVER TELL ME WHAT TO DO IN THE WEST. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT- STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS! WHEN YOU MAKE MY BUSINESS YOUR BUSINESS- THAT`S WHEN WE`LL HAVE A PROBLEM!

In Pakistan, Women Pay the Price of `Honor`

Pamela Constable

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23279-2000May7.html

Fuzair #202

Thank you for a very balanced, factually accurate and enlightened post. Unfortunately, this Arab-Israel argument has degenerated into personal attacks of a most distastful nature which does not enhance the credibility of the particular contributors and dissuades others to avoid interacting in this pissing contest.

To add to an ancillary note of your [``...Rumor has it that Gen. Zia and the Pakistani military
mission to Jordan took part in the operational planning for Black September...``], I`d like to add a few words.

According to this well attribute `rumor` not only did Brigadier Zia ul Haq, of Pakistan Army (posted in Jordan at the time), take part in `planning`, he was also instrumental in `setting the trap` by acting as a go-between and a supposedly `neutral` negotiator (talking to both the PLO and Jordanian filed commanders). The PLO`s pre-emptive action was thus delayed (because of which the PLO supposedly lost the initiative) while the Jordianian army was afforded critical time in which to gain tactical advantage over the PLO forces and thus out-flank them with devastating results. Those negotiations were a mere smokescreen carried out in bad faith. The PLO never forgave Zia (may his dentures rot for all eternity) for that `deceit` while the King was ever so grateful to him. But, like you rightly said, ``that is another subject.``

...SR

Goodness, you go away for a few days and exciting things happen!

Thanks to Bina, Prof. Bilal Ahmad and all the others who thought my post worth reading. I am frankly quite amazed by the positive response I received.

Since the discussion has moved on to Israel and the Palestinians, allow me to throw in my two cents worth.

Both sides are, in great part, correct and incorrect. Israel has been rightly described as the last European settler colony (although as Sigalph has pointed out Sephardic Jews are a very large portion of the population--I thought they were in a slight majority of the Jewish population but I am not sure of my figures) BUT it is also the only functioning liberal democracy in the Middle East.

I thought that Sigalph meant only only the Israeli Arab citizens when he mentioned their ability to choose their own representatives. The West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights are under Israeli military rule and normal Israeli law does not apply there. Israeli Arabs enjoy full civil rights in Israel. That having been said, their position in Israel is somewhat akin to that of blacks in the US in the 1970s--the worst excesses of Jim Crow are gone but they are still second class citizens (some members of Likud were demanding that Israeli Arabs not be allowed a vote on the land-for-peace issues and in the Knesset Arab members have been traditionally excluded from defense committees, etc). Its not the Israeli Arabs that get their homes bulldozed but the West Bank ones. We seem to forget that there are hundreds of thousands of loyal Israeli Arabs that enjoy (near) full civil rights.

Lest we get all worked up about this brutality to Palestinians, lets fix our own treatment of minoritites before we take up the cudgel on behalf of others. Look at our own treatment of non-Muslim minorities. Are Israeli Arabs better-off than non-Muslims in Muslim countries? Yes. Are they full citizens? No.

However, Israel being a functioning democracy is irrelevant. South Africa was a functioning democracy, albeit one with a very limited franchise, and most people weren`t in favor of allowing apartheid to continue unimpeded. The fact of the matter still remains that the Palestinian Arabs (both Christian and Muslim) were dispossesed from their lands. Some of the means used were legal--purchasing land from absentee Arab landlords and then removing the Palestinian sharecroppers--and some means used smack of terrorism--Palestinian farmers ``encouraged`` to vacate their lands by the Haganah. Sometimes a judicious massacre or two was carried out to encourage the reluctant ones to leave--Dir Yassein comes to mind as an example.

Yes, some Israeli officers have been reprimanded for some excessives and atrocities but the norm has been to look the other way. For example, the Shin Bet agents who shot and killed the Palestinian bus hijackers AFTER they had been taken into custody were, I believe, merely dismissed from service. However, this only happened when some left-wing reporters published pictures of live hijackers being hauled off by Shin Bet agents and contrasted this to the pictures of dead terrorists displayed by Shin Bet.

Don`t forget that Palestine was only 3% Jewish in 1917 when the Balfour Declaration committed the British govt to creating a Jewish homeland. In this case, perfidious Albion had three deals going--one with the Jews, one with the Arabs and their real one with the French--but in any case, the British wound up getting stuck with this one. The early (both pre and post WWI) Zionist accounts of Palestine are clearly written with the dominant natives-dont-count European colonial attitude and speak of an ``empty land`` waiting to receive back the Jews. Winston Churchill wanted to give the Jews Uganda, to create another white-settler colony in Africa to strengthen the Empire, but the Zionists refused since only the original homeland would, could, attract sufficiently large numbers of Jewish migrants to make nation-hood possible.

In any case, the Palestinians are the victims of both the Israelis and their Arab neighbours. The Arab nations attacked Israel in 1948 to ensure that they grabbed the land and not the Jews. Jordan, under King Abdullah, was the only Arab country to give citizenship to Palestinians, allow them to own land and for many of them to live and work outside the refugee camps. I met an Israeli Arab in college many years ago who, shamefacedly, confessed to me one day that he was glad that the luck of the draw had worked out for his family and that they were Israeli citizens because, with the possible exception of Jordan, everywhere else, the Palestinians were treated very badly.

Sigalph is guilty of exaggeration when he characterizes Black September as an attack on the Palestinians by the Jordanian Army. It was nothing of the sort. It was an attack on the PLO by the Jordanian Army. Many Palestinians in Jordanian uniform took part in military operations though, for obvious reason, most of the actual fighting was done by Bedouin units personally loyal to the King. Rumor has it that Gen. Zia and the Pakistani military mission to Jordan took part in the operational planning for Black September but that is another matter. The PLO was attacked because it had assumed the role of a state-within-a-state--complete control over the refugee camps, did not allow Jordanian officials entry into them, used Jordanian territory to launch attacks on Israel, etc.--and seriously threatened the Jordanian monarchy.

The PLO was forced to leave Jordan and move to Lebanon where it ultimately sparked the Lebanese civil war when the Maronite-led Lebanese Army tried and failed to repeat another Black September.

So, back to basics now. Israel is an established fact. Its not going to go away and the dispossessed are not going to get all or even most of their land back. They might get a few square miles if they grovel enough. In thirty years, much to their eternal shame, the entire Arab world couldn`t beat a handful of Jews fleeing from Europe. The only time the Arabs managed to avoid total defeat was when the British-officered Arab Legion captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem for King Abdullah. Only Sadat had the courage to admit defeat, make peace and try to live with reality. Slowly, the other Arabs have followed his lead. Its time we did the same and just forgot about it. There is very little likelihood of the Israelis selling us some upgraded weapons packages for our aging tanks and planes but at least we can ask.

Sorry, long post.

Regards to all.

re digit #202 who said

`So, stating that Israel was the Jewish homeland for some 4000 years either makes you confused or a Jew, as I see no other rational alternative.`

Actually it makes you an IDIOT since I never said that ``Israel was the Jewish homeland for some 4000 years``.

But then facts have never been the strength of the Arab League lobby anyway.

In response to sigalph235, who wrote:

``My religion is between me and my Creator; I couldn`t care less whether you thought I was Jewish or Taoist.``

For the record, I could care less wheather you were a Jew or a Taoist.

It was my intent to point out the absurdity in recognizing Israel as the ehternal Jewish homeland as such a concept only exists in the dreams espoused by Zionist ideology, which in turn borrows heavily from Jewish theology.

So, stating that Israel was the Jewish homeland for some 4000 years either makes you confused or a Jew, as I see no other rational alternative.

But, as I`ve said above, I could care less which of the two you are.

As far as Oman is concerned, it`s undemocractic nature doesn`t really bother me much. The fact is, there are no political prisoners there. It`s a rather nice place to be.

That Israel is a democracy seems to bring a tear to your eye. To me, it simply demonstrates that even democracies can be savage and brutal.

Jay,

Thanks for taking my complaints well. Well as I said, I enjoyed reading your witty comments/posts.

Tahmed: I will try to write it when I have some free time I agree with Sadhna, where is the time.

Sheesh Nag: Some nag all right. Pooh..

How clever of you, you are right, I am the faulty researcher. One correction, not that it matters, but I am a she.

Cheers

cheraym

sigalph235 #193: Your views on the Palestinians situation in Israel are contrary to the views of all the Palestinians, I have met, regarding their own situation. So I tend to agree with them and not with you.

It is quite common for third parties to justify or water down suppressions in one form or another. I had a jewish roommate for two years in college. He was a member of a lot of National Jewish organizations in the US, and through him, I learnt a lot about the outlook of these organizations regarding Israel and Palestine. These organizations used the same arguments you are using, and thus became unappointed spokespersons for Palestinians.. One guy actually stated that since Israel provided garabage collection and pick up facilities in certain refugee areas of Palestine, hence the Palestinians should be happy under Israel, as no other Arab country would have provided that to them.

When countries or groups suppress others or take over their land, they have to come up with some excuse to justify it. One of the best ways to do that is by stating that the subjagated people would be worse off in other places, or under their own self-rule. This could be true (in the case of Palestinians, it is definitely not true), however it is still not justification enough to subjugate someone, or move in and take over their land. I believe one of the arguments the British used for taking over India was that they were actually civilizing the Indians. This was the basic argument used by all colonisers. It may even be correct that the British did civilize the Indians in many ways, however it still does not justify their invasions. The African Americans are much better off than their distant African cousins still in Africa. However that does not justify slavery.

There is a simple moral rule; no one has a right to invade, take over and suppress another group of people against the will of the locals. It doesn`t make any difference if the invader is more democratic, civil, educated than the people being conquered. Otherwise the Europeans conquests and colonizations are all justified, since in many cases they were more democratic than the local kings and nawabs that were ruling over their subjects. If the local population does not want to be ruled or invaded, then all attempts to justify these invasions by the invaders and their supporters are immoral. These should be opposed as a matter of principle, and not supported. There is absolutely no way to justify conquests and invasions and suppressions, and I have very little respect for people who attemp to justify them.

``That said, now the substances. I agree wholeheartedly as you said that we shouldn`t use the past of 4000 years to decide the present. I had mentioned that ONLY to point out how absurd it is that some of you are quite willing to use the past of 50 years (because it suits your purpose) to decide the present.``

This comment is unclear. I am not quite sure what you mean by, ``some of you.`` I do not represent an organization; I operate alone. Also what past of 50 years are you refering to? I assumed we were discussing Palestine and Israel here. What do other countries have to do with what is going on in Palestine and Israel? The only relationship I can see is between Palestine and other countries that are also struggling (or historically struggled) to gain freedom from oppression.

``The present is this: Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East where voters, Jewish, Muslim, Druze, and Christian choose who governs them.``

I would encourage you to discuss these issues in detail with Palestinians. Israel is not as much of a democracy for Middle Eastern Muslims as you are trying to make it out to be. If you have read Hannan Ashrawi`s (as well as other Palestinian writers`) book, then it should be quite clear to you. I would also encourage you to read, O` Jerusalem by Lappierre/Collins (the authors of Freedom at Midnight). They give a very objective acount of the history of Israel. You might be surprised to find out that the original terrorist organizations in the Middle East were formed by European Jews. Infact some of the leaders of these organizations later went on to become very high officials in the Israeli cabinet. One actually became the Prime Minister.

And being a democracy is also not enough of a reason to conquer and displace people from their lands. Otherwise, any group of people who can establish a, ``functioning democracy`` in other people`s lands have a green light to invade, subjugate and displace the local population. After that the ruling group can use the argument, that since they are the only, ``functioning democracy`` in the area, they were justified in their invasions.

``... am quite familiar with the fact that 60 minutes is a US TV news show (I have lived too long in the US not to know that, pal).``

The comments presented on Chowk are read by readers from many countries. Although you maybe familiar with 60 Minutes, that does not mean a person living in Pakistan or Japan is necessarily familiar. I know may people in Pakistan who are not familiar with 60 Minutes (I was not familiar with it when I was in Pakistan).

``I am also very thankful that you have a high regard for the freedom struggle of Bengalis. If I was a more suspicious soul I`d have assumed that you were trying to be patronising since those facts are somewhat tangential to what I thought we were discussing.``

I have no need to patronise anyone. I am a very strong supporter of all people(s) who are fighting for their freedom. I do not make any distinction amongst them in regard to race, color or religion, or my own personal affinities. I also strongly oppose all groups who attempt to suppress others. I strongly oppose all supporters of suppression groups. And I strongly oppose people who try to justify these suppressions, displacements etc. by coming up with definitions that only present the oppressors` point of view. The reason I used the example of Bangaldesh was because Bangladesh was also a result of a freedom struggle.

In the end, whether the Palestinians are better off by having their land taken over by Europeans is a decision to be made by the Palestinians, and no one else. Obvioiusly the conquerers will always try to justify their conquests. Along similar lines, I know people in Pakistan who think the Bangladeshis were better off with Pakistan. However, the final decision should be made by the Bangladeshis and not the Pakistanis. Similarly, the final decision about the justification of the immigration of European Jews into the Middle East, under the umbrella of the US (which would not allow these same jews to migrate to the US), should be made by the people whose land was invaded, and not by you, or the conquering Israelis.

It is unfortunate that people rely on the reasoning used by the suppressors and rulers to form their point of view of suppressions.