Nude Beaches in Pakistan - Expected Social Behavior

(Authors Warning: No pics here! God damn it)

Question: What would be the effect of having nude beaches in Pakistan?

Answer: First thing first.. half of Pakistan would be standing on boundary of the beach trying to get a glimpse of anyone on the beach.

Then someone will make a secret mobile video of beach.. then this video will be forwarded like hell to everyone who is anyone and they'll say 'This is Islamic republic of Pakistan!", "What a shame! this is a Islamic country"- though they themselves will check the pics and videos first till their hearts content.

Civil Uncivility

This is interesting.

America has a well-developed system for getting companies to pay for the damage they do; and BP long ago accepted that it would pay in full. But that was never going to satisfy the country’s corporate bloodlust. An outfit called Seize BP has organised demonstrations in favour of the expropriation of BP’s assets in 50 cities. Over 600,000 people have supported a boycott of the firm on Facebook. Several of BP’s gas (petrol) stations have been vandalised. (Link)

What would you call this act of people? Natural reaction? Compare the same reaction with muslim protests around the globe on Prophet Muhammad issue. Any similarities? or nothing at all?

When muslims protest, call for ban on FaceBook (or to ban facebook), arrange protests or vandalize... they are bigoted and uncivil. Why?

You might argue, and logically too, that the issue involved is different. That what BP did is material and tangible in form of damaging the coastal and sea life of Gulf of Mexico. On the other hand, muslim's protest of Prophet Muhammad issue was just an exaggeration of sentiment. How can one quantify a sentiment. Muslims take their religion way too seriously and since muslim societies do not believe in freedom of opinion, they cant take a opposite opinion. Hence the two issues just do not compare.

I agree.

But wait. What matters most do you think? The issue or the reaction to that issue? Suppose an act X results in reaction Y. Does your analysis rest on ferocity of Y or sensitivity of X?

Taking the case of BP. Since the act is sensitive thats why we accept a harsh and ferociuos reaction against them. Agree.

Taking the case of Prophet Muhammad issue, regardless of the sensitivity of the issue (since its subjective) the opposition camp would have agreed to 'just a protest by muslims' instead of 'muslims vandalizing property'. This should show that the reaction is more of a problem than the sensitivity of issue.

Since when muslims protest and they are called bigoted, ignorant and uncivil, should not everyone who protests be called bigoted, ignorant and uncivil? Or is it concerned with religion only?

Why am I writing this post?

Why Islamic Headscarf Should be Banned in Football

Ahem. The Iranian version of Islamic head scarf to be precise.

I had written a post sometime back when I heard the news that FIFA had banned the Iranian youth women soccer team from playing in a tournament because FIFA does not allow Islamic head scarf. I was pissed off seriously. How could FIFA do that? Racist was the only thing that came to my mind.

Out of no where a gentlemen called Ecclesiastes arrived on my blog and commented. He being an ex-football referee, shared with me some points as to why the head scarf was a danger to the players and had in fact nothing do with being associated to a particular religion. When I inquired him how head scarf was dangerous, he stated "A head scarf is not allowed because an opposing player's hand or foot could become entangled with it and snap the girl's (girl wearing head scarf) neck."

Makes sense doesn't it? Here is a picture of Iran's women soccer team in action.

(Link)

As a muslim woman, many would like to be involved in all sorts of activities that ladies without 'veil/ head scarf/ parda' get involved in - like playing soccer for example. Covering the body does not sound that complicated as they can easily do that. In fact, Nasim Hameed of Pakistan is the fastest woman in South Asia! and she did it wearing a long tights and a bit loose t-shirt. A ta girl!


The issue with head scarves is a bit tricky. Mind you, women dress differently across Islamic world and there could be stark difference in appearance of neighboring country's women as in case of Iran and Pakistan. Iran wont even allow the dress of Nasim Hameed. The Iranians focus on hair too as they believe it should be covered. A Pakistani woman football player can be allowed by FIFA but will ban her Iranian counterpart because of the head scarf.

So how to cover the hair and still be able to play a FIFA soccer match?! I honestly have no idea because I am not much in to women accessories. I can think of a covering for hair only, with probably elastic strings to keep it 'fixed' - lets say, and most importantly a covering that does not join the garment on body (below neck - even neck!) so as to be injurious in situation like getting entangled somewhere and doing the damage. Any suggestions? cuz hey.. I want to see the Iranian women soccer team play in a FIFA match.

And.. will the Iranians budge? I do not think so.

Islamic State of Israel

Israel just had to be a muslim state for the western world to realize what a mess it is.



* how ironic for western and Islamic world.

Solution for Drug Smuggling

"

I keep hearing about the street value of cocaine whenever trafficking or interdiction is talked about but I never get to hear the intrinsic value of the drug. If it were legal to manufacture, what would the price be? This is critical in understanding how to combat the trade and use of this drug.The street value of 1kg of cocaine is $500,000 (from the above text). If the cost to manufacturer (if legal) were say $500, it means that a smuggler can spend more that $400,000 per kg of cocaine in technology, bribes and other such costs and still generate a HUGE profit. That is what ultimately drives the cocaine business. If the profit margins are so huge, it behooves us to come up with better (smarter) techniques to combat cocaine usage (there can be no smuggling without usage).

For example, if say Germany were to setup its own cocaine production and allow addicts to purchase small quantities at a nominal profit, the entire supply-chain of cocaine smuggling would simply atrophy. Alas, we are so gung-ho at appearing to be "tough on drugs" that we have left our capitalist brains behind..."

-Heretic. A commentator on this article

Ensuing Discussion

X: Imagine if cocaine were available cheap how many would be addicted! Aur kuch nai tu $ consideration hi kitnon ko bacha laity hogi! :p (if nothing, the cost of it will make people think befiore using it)

I: Would you use cocaine if its cheap?

X: How many youngsters have u been able to prevent from smoking!? Morphine!?

I: And do you think increasing costs is stopping them with their use?

X: Im just saying the target market will be different & also the no. of users will increase drastically & do u honestly think we can deal with that many addicts!

I: The solution is that sale and production will be ‘legal’. That means reduced production and controlled use

X: As is the case with wines!?

I: I am not talking of pakistan! Nothing works proper here!

X: I was not talking of Pakistan either! V defy all logic!! :p

I: Holland is the country whre drug use is legal. Its no where in the list of drug abusers

X: That’s cuz its legal there!

I: Hence the argument.

Punjabi Taliban & Qadiyani Mosques

Its All In The Name

1 - 'Punjabi Taliban'

Chief Minister Punjab Mr. Shahbaz Sharif was.. umm pissed? ... that the Interior Minister used the term 'Punjabi Taliban' for the militants that operate out from southern punjab in to the mainland of northern punjab. He said that Interior Minister was fanning ethnicity by terming the 'killers, rapist, dacoits and robbers' as Punjabi taliban.

If you ask anyone, pick anyone, who are the Taliban? They will say 'pathans'. Why? Because, quiet honestly, most of them are. The Taliban was a student insurgency, students of medressahs which before them had provided men for the 'holy war' or jihad that Pakistani government undertook (and all of the world helped) in Afghanistan. Our Grand Imam, USA, actively participated in this jihad and defeated the 'evil' USSR. After that, well of course, one wipes his bottoms and leaves. Who stays in shit?

To cut the story short, we as Pakistani citizens are living with our brethren Taliban since then. The current army offensive against Taliban sees them pitted against tribal militants, Mehsuds in particular especially in South Waziristan area. Pakistan army earlier cleared the area of Swat from another deranged fellow called Maulana Fazlullah. The Taliban of Swat used to chop the heads of their oppomnents and hang them in the famous 'khooni chowk' (bloody square) of Mingora city. They all are pathans by ethincity just as their brethren Talibn in Afghanistan.

Joining them in the league are banned secarian outfits like Sipahe Sahaba, Lashkar e Jhangvi etc that are extreme sunni militant outfits that know only one thing in this world - how to target shias. They are, still, operative in southern punjab where they run medresshas and hate propaganda outlets. Alongside them are banned kashmiri outfits like Jaish e Muhammad who saw crackdown against them during days of Musharraf. They too are mostly punjabis.

Now. Why does Shabaz Sharif gets pissed when they are called punjabi and not us when they are taken pathan for granted? (remember I am from Peshawar?) Because we know we have a problem at our hands that needs sorting out. Taliban are killing fellow pakistanis and majority of the affected areas are in Khyper Pukhtoonkhwa and FATA, mainly pathan areas. The ANP is political party that has taken the severest hit having seen its leaders killed - all pathan. Maulana Fazlullah is a pathan and he terrorized the local population - all pathans. Moral of the story?

The moral is that taliban is an idea-based organization, even the word organization portrays a wrong picture because it a collection of nut-acts who share the same goal of 'enemies of Islam destroyed'. It does not matter whether they are pathans or punjabis - they are killers for all intent and purposes. So Mr. Sharif, do not close your eyes and request them 'not to target the Punjab as the provincial government would not take dictation from outsiders (USA).' as this is plain bullshit. Your Minister of Law stood as a partner in recent election with a banned sectarian outfit - who on earth are you kidding? So grow up! and tackle this menace instead of burying your head in sand. There is no issue of ethnicity when they are referred to as punjabi - instead it should make you ponder that the problem is also within you rather than with someone else outside.

2 - Qadiyani Mosques

On 28th May 2010, around 80 qadiyani worshipers were killed when their 'mosques' (yes I am using the word mosque) were attacked by Taliban (punjabi taliban). On the one hand, this was a grotesque act to kill innocent worshipers, it was also hideous to treat qadiyani deaths as some how lesser in value. The 'so what' approach of ordinary pakistanis, since it involved death of qadiyanis, is mind boggling. Not everyone reacted like this mind you, candle light vigils were taken place in Lahore to mourn the deaths of qadiyani worshipers.

The general attitude goes like this as the statement on a discussion board shows:

"There is no reason for a muslim to do hue and cry or protest on qadyani's issue. If it was with Hindus, sikhs, christian or else we all could have sympathy & spoke on humanitarian grounds. But when a group plays with my religious belief & values having malicious intentions, degrace our Prophet (PBUH) and his family, there is no reason for a true muslim to have sympathy or soft corner or protest."

An SMS that I received talked about condemning the Interior Minister for using the term 'mosque' for the qadiyani place of worship because they were not muslims! How great. We, as pure muslims, value other peoples lives by their faith?! How pathetic is that?! What kind of Islam is this?! A place of worship is a place of worship! Not playing politics! Let me show my more superior-in-faith muslim brethren what Quran says...

22:40 - ... if it were not for GOD's supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed. Absolutely, GOD supports those who support Him. GOD is Powerful, Almighty.

In a qadiyani worship place, they worship God - not who they claim as their last prophet. Just as we muslims pray to God and not worship Prophet Muhammad whom we claim was the last of Prophets. We hate Qadiyanis, even more than jews, just because they don't practice their faith as we do... and we thus treat them with contempt and utter disrespect. Horrible.

Concern yourself with what you do regarding our religious deeds, not what others do. You are going in your own grave. Let God decide who is wrong and who is right.


Check Other Posts
- I hate You
- Muslim or Kafir?