A woman in a certain land, that believes very strongly in segregating men and women, is to be lashed three hundred times and jailed for eighteen months for filing complaints against court officials and appearing in court without a male guardian.
Miss ‘S’ was convicted last month in a court after petitioning the officials and the monarch, over what she alleged was years of abuse by local judicial officials.
On January 25, she was convicted after a month-long trial before two judges, one of whom was a plaintiff in the case and the original target of Miss S’s harassment allegations. The NGOs have asked the higher authorities to quash the verdict.
Life for women is very harsh in such countries where they must wait for their husbands, brothers or fathers to return from work and then drive them to the shopping malls. There the women cannot drive around like they do in Pakistan or other countries that insist on calling themselves Islamic. Police states insist that driving invites sin, going out on foot encourages more sin and looking at strange men does even more of the same. Every action of a citizen has an unequal and opposite reaction. But that is their law and their country—may God have mercy on their religious scholars and rulers.
Three hundred lashes and eighteen months in prison for a woman is very disproportionate punishment. When I read such distrurbing news, I thank God for allowing me to breathe a bit more freely in my own country.
Photography - Music - Cycling - Memoirs - Investigations - Satire - History - Satire - Lunar Astronomy (since 2009)
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
Fe-Male Without A Male Guardian
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Spencer Tunick Says, ‘Take Off Your Tunics!’
Very odd things happen in this world in the name of Art, and down-under Australia will not allow itself to lag behind in the race to lose its national face. It took the shamelessness of an American photographer, Spencer Tunick, to look for Australians willing to disrobe on the steps of the Sydney Opera House, all in the name of Art.
All Pakistanis must feel threatened by this skin-terrorism and refuse to remain in awe of all things western. Warlords, drug barons, and paid assassins be damned, a vast number of Pakistanis taken their wealth and children to Australia because the terrifying cows reared by the Taliban are beginning to eat whatever green grass remains on our side.
These days, one can say or do just about anything under the garb of Art. Take for example, sexual openness of European and Hindu temple art, or the peculiar sexual fantasies penned by Marquis de Sade. Over the centuries, many civilizations have remained comfortable with nudity to the extent that they first divided the sole Creator into males and females who did all what humans did, then depicted them in nude and finally worshipped their idols or representations of private parts in public.
Tunick is infamous—or ‘famous’, as they would have one believe—for capturing hundreds of naked people against industrial or urban backgrounds. He now wishes to create a Sydney ‘installation’, involving up to 2,000 nude volunteers. The photo will be called ‘The Base’ and will coincide with the city’s annual gay and lesbian Mardi Gras, which attracts participants and audiences from around the globe.
“In a way, I’m making a base for the structure, a base for the architecture, and by combining straight and gay and lesbian people I’m weaving the different sexes and society together to form this wonderful fabric that holds up this gorgeous building,” Tunick told Australian radio.
The media will listen to anything and then stoop to broadcasting it in the name of freedom of expression, but being free does not mean one must be dumb (free-dumb). God has already clearly spelled out in His revelations what He thinks about the perverts, but the likes of Tunick are hell-bent on having everyone’s tunics come off in public.
Tunick has produced almost 100 ‘installations’ around the world, including one in Melbourne in 2001, and says his ‘work is not about exhibitionism or eroticism, but instead is about the vulnerability of life in a rough city landscape.’
If this mass striptease is not eroticism, what is? If he is so concerned about the ‘vulnerability of life’, he must head for places where humanity loses everything on a daily basis; what is point in remaining glued to rich cities where, at the slightest suggestion, the well dressed are willing to disrobe in public?
My criticism of Tunick may not impress him but even the authorities in the United States remain unimpressed with his argument, where he has been arrested seven times. Perhaps they expect him to include his mother, sister or daughter in one such immodest ‘installation’ to show how vulnerable they are in a rough cityscape.
UPDATE 10 July 2015:
Sea of blue behinds: 1000's of naked bodies gather in Hull for Tunick installation
All Pakistanis must feel threatened by this skin-terrorism and refuse to remain in awe of all things western. Warlords, drug barons, and paid assassins be damned, a vast number of Pakistanis taken their wealth and children to Australia because the terrifying cows reared by the Taliban are beginning to eat whatever green grass remains on our side.
These days, one can say or do just about anything under the garb of Art. Take for example, sexual openness of European and Hindu temple art, or the peculiar sexual fantasies penned by Marquis de Sade. Over the centuries, many civilizations have remained comfortable with nudity to the extent that they first divided the sole Creator into males and females who did all what humans did, then depicted them in nude and finally worshipped their idols or representations of private parts in public.
Tunick is infamous—or ‘famous’, as they would have one believe—for capturing hundreds of naked people against industrial or urban backgrounds. He now wishes to create a Sydney ‘installation’, involving up to 2,000 nude volunteers. The photo will be called ‘The Base’ and will coincide with the city’s annual gay and lesbian Mardi Gras, which attracts participants and audiences from around the globe.
“In a way, I’m making a base for the structure, a base for the architecture, and by combining straight and gay and lesbian people I’m weaving the different sexes and society together to form this wonderful fabric that holds up this gorgeous building,” Tunick told Australian radio.
The media will listen to anything and then stoop to broadcasting it in the name of freedom of expression, but being free does not mean one must be dumb (free-dumb). God has already clearly spelled out in His revelations what He thinks about the perverts, but the likes of Tunick are hell-bent on having everyone’s tunics come off in public.
Tunick has produced almost 100 ‘installations’ around the world, including one in Melbourne in 2001, and says his ‘work is not about exhibitionism or eroticism, but instead is about the vulnerability of life in a rough city landscape.’
If this mass striptease is not eroticism, what is? If he is so concerned about the ‘vulnerability of life’, he must head for places where humanity loses everything on a daily basis; what is point in remaining glued to rich cities where, at the slightest suggestion, the well dressed are willing to disrobe in public?
My criticism of Tunick may not impress him but even the authorities in the United States remain unimpressed with his argument, where he has been arrested seven times. Perhaps they expect him to include his mother, sister or daughter in one such immodest ‘installation’ to show how vulnerable they are in a rough cityscape.
UPDATE 10 July 2015:
Sea of blue behinds: 1000's of naked bodies gather in Hull for Tunick installation
Friday, 19 March 2010
Segregate Or Die
Some countries are famous for the goods they manufacture and some for the minds they produce. Having great minds around is life’s bonus but to have clerics who are out of their minds is the scourge of Satan.
A prominent cleric, in a not-so-prominent land has issued a ‘fatwa’ (an Islamic religious ruling, a scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic jurisprudence) calling for opponents of the country’s strict segregation of men and women to be put to death if they refuse to abandon their ideas.
Please let me know clearly within the next twenty-four hours who wishes to emigrate to such a country where citizens lose heads right after the Juma prayers. What is next, I wonder? We might hear that if people did not stop thinking, they would face lethal needles or forced to make themselves uncomfortable on electric chairs.
The cleric said, “The mixing of genders at the workplace or in education, as advocated by modernizers, is prohibited because it allows sight of what is forbidden, and talk between men and women which is again forbidden”.
I think what he meant was that men could not be allowed to ask women answers to difficult questions in an examination hall.
Entertaining thoughts associated with illicit relationships is a separate issue; what God abhors in humans is their secret meetings to go forth to multiply illicitly in motel rooms. I know, more from observation and less through personal experience, that removing such a virus from one’s mental hard drive is an uphill battle, a true ‘jihad’.
Please remember that the strict segregation of men and women is a rule that some of the most unenlightened and backward societies (even by Islamic standards) practise and which is an affront to moderation itself. Of course, I will have to respect that not-so-prominent country’s segregation laws if I were to visit it, but then again, I would probably visit it just to perform obligatory religious ceremonies and then return to the Motherland by the first available flight in order to be within the mixed gathering of my loved ones.
Loved ones need to be visible; they need not cover themselves from head to toe in black overalls in order to show they are pious. Where I live, nobody that I know has ever dared to tease my loved ones because the family’s women are all moderate, neither very fashionable nor the repressed burqa-clad types.
Governments do not have the right to put people to death if they disagree; the people must do away with governments if they lead them to economical ruin. Moderation is not an aberration and to oppose extremely liberal or extremist views is everybody’s right. God has not allowed us to put others to death only because they differ or disagree. One may stop speaking or associating with undesirable persons but must we murder others in the name of misplaced religious views? Religious bigots need admissions to lunatic asylums.
Do all such extremely strict laws produce the desired results? The answer is no. Watch how most Muslim women travellers throw off the repressive ‘burqas’ and ‘chadors’ as soon as their airplanes land at foreign destinations where they wish to mingle with the crowd.
I am happy to live in a country where women have equal rights as road sweepers, brick-baking kiln workers, and as petrol station attendants who fill us all up. Take a drive into any Asian village and you will see women working alongside men; that is how God designed them. Had God wanted all women to hide their faces from men, He might have created Eve as formless and unattractive as an Arctic seal. Imagine the poor animal kingdom’s fate had it also been given, less if not more, sense of privacy and shame, and imagine a world with dogs and cats going about their business with private parts covered with banana leaves. That, of course, would necessitate the existence of animal rights NGOs and Animal United Nations, and dogs would go about murdering men all because men ogled at uncovered bitches.
God has not prescribed for women to be obsessed with hiding their faces and bodies from head to toe—at least not the way the clerics interpret it. Women do tend to fall into the trap laid by high fashion (displaying their charms to excess), and it is this natural shortcoming that they need to tame if the entire globe is not to become a free-sex ‘global village’ inhabited by drooling village idiots.
Who gave the clerics the right to further twist misinterpretations, camouflage their cultural prejudices and force the people to lose their heads over matters that are the peoples’ business and not the state’s? If the clerics feel their women must not be ogled at, they need to ensure the women stay indoors to watch television (if that again is not punishable by death) while the men go about preaching to the converted. We, the modest but modern people, wish to live unfazed by an extremist’s view of what God prescribes.
If one were to implementing the clerical recommendation of putting to death people for minor offences—something not prescribed in the Qur’an—not many would walk with their heads held high on the shoulders. Will it not be best for harsh governments to act less hypocritically by leaving religion out of this equation and declare that all they intend to achieve is reduction in the head-count?
A ‘fatwa’, even if issued by a recognized religious authority, suffers from one snag: Islam does not prescribe a hierarchical priesthood and a ‘fatwa’ is not necessarily binding on the faithful. What one must consider before jumping into following a ‘fatwa’ is that the people who pronounce such rulings need to be wise persons who must base their rulings on knowledge as well as on wisdom, and quote the evidence for their opinions from Islamic sources. Since that seldom happens in real life, we often see scholars doing what they do in our corridors of political power: come to each other’s throats and declare one another’s followers apostate and worth killing. The emphasis must tilt in favour of living, not dying.
Miss Huda, a Muslim writer and teacher from the Middle East states: ‘As Muslims, we need to look at the opinion, the reputation of the person giving it, the evidence given to support it, and then decide whether to follow it or not. When there are conflicting opinions issued by different scholars, we compare the evidence and then choose the opinion to which our God-given conscience guides us’.
In conclusion, a ‘fatwa’ is still an opinion that cannot override God’s prescribed laws. The primary job of any government is to succeed in providing its citizens with a just and secure environment in which opportunities for earning a legal livelihood is within everyone’s reach, everything else is secondary.
Now if you would excuse me, I am expecting some guests. My mother has invited all my female cousins for dinner and, by God, I will sit with them decently, converse with them modestly and let them have the best of my brotherly love.
A prominent cleric, in a not-so-prominent land has issued a ‘fatwa’ (an Islamic religious ruling, a scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic jurisprudence) calling for opponents of the country’s strict segregation of men and women to be put to death if they refuse to abandon their ideas.
Please let me know clearly within the next twenty-four hours who wishes to emigrate to such a country where citizens lose heads right after the Juma prayers. What is next, I wonder? We might hear that if people did not stop thinking, they would face lethal needles or forced to make themselves uncomfortable on electric chairs.
The cleric said, “The mixing of genders at the workplace or in education, as advocated by modernizers, is prohibited because it allows sight of what is forbidden, and talk between men and women which is again forbidden”.
I think what he meant was that men could not be allowed to ask women answers to difficult questions in an examination hall.
Entertaining thoughts associated with illicit relationships is a separate issue; what God abhors in humans is their secret meetings to go forth to multiply illicitly in motel rooms. I know, more from observation and less through personal experience, that removing such a virus from one’s mental hard drive is an uphill battle, a true ‘jihad’.
Please remember that the strict segregation of men and women is a rule that some of the most unenlightened and backward societies (even by Islamic standards) practise and which is an affront to moderation itself. Of course, I will have to respect that not-so-prominent country’s segregation laws if I were to visit it, but then again, I would probably visit it just to perform obligatory religious ceremonies and then return to the Motherland by the first available flight in order to be within the mixed gathering of my loved ones.
Loved ones need to be visible; they need not cover themselves from head to toe in black overalls in order to show they are pious. Where I live, nobody that I know has ever dared to tease my loved ones because the family’s women are all moderate, neither very fashionable nor the repressed burqa-clad types.
Governments do not have the right to put people to death if they disagree; the people must do away with governments if they lead them to economical ruin. Moderation is not an aberration and to oppose extremely liberal or extremist views is everybody’s right. God has not allowed us to put others to death only because they differ or disagree. One may stop speaking or associating with undesirable persons but must we murder others in the name of misplaced religious views? Religious bigots need admissions to lunatic asylums.
Do all such extremely strict laws produce the desired results? The answer is no. Watch how most Muslim women travellers throw off the repressive ‘burqas’ and ‘chadors’ as soon as their airplanes land at foreign destinations where they wish to mingle with the crowd.
I am happy to live in a country where women have equal rights as road sweepers, brick-baking kiln workers, and as petrol station attendants who fill us all up. Take a drive into any Asian village and you will see women working alongside men; that is how God designed them. Had God wanted all women to hide their faces from men, He might have created Eve as formless and unattractive as an Arctic seal. Imagine the poor animal kingdom’s fate had it also been given, less if not more, sense of privacy and shame, and imagine a world with dogs and cats going about their business with private parts covered with banana leaves. That, of course, would necessitate the existence of animal rights NGOs and Animal United Nations, and dogs would go about murdering men all because men ogled at uncovered bitches.
God has not prescribed for women to be obsessed with hiding their faces and bodies from head to toe—at least not the way the clerics interpret it. Women do tend to fall into the trap laid by high fashion (displaying their charms to excess), and it is this natural shortcoming that they need to tame if the entire globe is not to become a free-sex ‘global village’ inhabited by drooling village idiots.
Who gave the clerics the right to further twist misinterpretations, camouflage their cultural prejudices and force the people to lose their heads over matters that are the peoples’ business and not the state’s? If the clerics feel their women must not be ogled at, they need to ensure the women stay indoors to watch television (if that again is not punishable by death) while the men go about preaching to the converted. We, the modest but modern people, wish to live unfazed by an extremist’s view of what God prescribes.
If one were to implementing the clerical recommendation of putting to death people for minor offences—something not prescribed in the Qur’an—not many would walk with their heads held high on the shoulders. Will it not be best for harsh governments to act less hypocritically by leaving religion out of this equation and declare that all they intend to achieve is reduction in the head-count?
A ‘fatwa’, even if issued by a recognized religious authority, suffers from one snag: Islam does not prescribe a hierarchical priesthood and a ‘fatwa’ is not necessarily binding on the faithful. What one must consider before jumping into following a ‘fatwa’ is that the people who pronounce such rulings need to be wise persons who must base their rulings on knowledge as well as on wisdom, and quote the evidence for their opinions from Islamic sources. Since that seldom happens in real life, we often see scholars doing what they do in our corridors of political power: come to each other’s throats and declare one another’s followers apostate and worth killing. The emphasis must tilt in favour of living, not dying.
Miss Huda, a Muslim writer and teacher from the Middle East states: ‘As Muslims, we need to look at the opinion, the reputation of the person giving it, the evidence given to support it, and then decide whether to follow it or not. When there are conflicting opinions issued by different scholars, we compare the evidence and then choose the opinion to which our God-given conscience guides us’.
In conclusion, a ‘fatwa’ is still an opinion that cannot override God’s prescribed laws. The primary job of any government is to succeed in providing its citizens with a just and secure environment in which opportunities for earning a legal livelihood is within everyone’s reach, everything else is secondary.
Now if you would excuse me, I am expecting some guests. My mother has invited all my female cousins for dinner and, by God, I will sit with them decently, converse with them modestly and let them have the best of my brotherly love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


