Banner Advertiser

Sunday, October 24, 2010

[ALOCHONA] Transit fees, bridge for transit etc



Transit fees, bridge for transit etc
 

 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Does Facebook Have a Foreign Policy?



Does Facebook Have a Foreign Policy?
 
 
Right now, it all looks rosy for Mark Zuckerburg. But Facebook's global rise has limits -- and real dangers -- as it taps markets in unfriendly countries.
 
BY TIM WU | OCTOBER 20, 2010

If it hadn't already been Facebook's moment, it certainly is now. It has become obvious, even to skeptics, that the firm is not just an interesting fad (remember GeoCities?), but an integral part of the world's social architecture.

In the near future, we can expect a new intensity of international and domestic scrutiny of what has become one of the most powerful tools on the planet for planning events and mapping connections between people. How Facebook reacts to such scrutiny will give us a sense of the soul of this company, more so than any recent movie ever could.

In the United States, most of the attention has been on Facebook's privacy policies, which once again have come under criticism for lapses due to third-party applications sharing personal data. At root, what makes Facebook interesting is a mutual agreement to tell others who you are, what you like, and what you are doing. In the United States, the pressure on Facebook, relatively mild so far, comes mostly from journalists and advocacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center. 

But the time is coming when Facebook will begin to face ever more intense international pressure from foreign governments unpleased, for one reason or another, with how the site operates.

It is a truism that any Internet firm, or in fact any information firm, once established, begins to gain the attention of governments, which are naturally suspicious of anything that rivals their power over information. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, sites like Yahoo and eBay were the first Internet darlings to face serious international pressure.  In 2000, a French Jewish group sued Yahoo for allowing Nazi paraphernalia to be sold on its auction site. (Yahoo initially insisted the Internet could not be regulated, but ended up paying up.)  In 2004, an eBay executive was briefly imprisoned in India because pornographic DVDs were available for purchase through the site. This year, three Google executives were convicted and found guilty of criminal defamation in their absence, by an Italian court that held the men responsible for an unseemly YouTube video that showed students bullying a disabled child. Google, which owns YouTube, took the video down, but not quickly enough for the Italian judge.

The Italian decision is an outlier, and frankly outrageous, but it should give a sense that European nations tend to take breaches of privacy and matters of defamation more seriously than the United States. The European Union Data Privacy Directive, signed in 1995, obliged every member of the European Union to enact laws that govern data controllers -- that is, anyone who collects personal data (that obviously includes a lot of Internet companies.) The directive then imposes duties of "notice, fidelity, and proportionality," along with additional rules for "special information," i.e., sensitive topics, like health, ethnicity, or religious orientation. On paper, European privacy rules are the strictest in the industrialized world; the European Union likes to refer to privacy as a fundamental right. Consequently, much as California effectively sets U.S. emissions standards, European regulators often set the world's privacy standards.

For Facebook, this strongly suggests that a European privacy challenge could have a powerful impact on how the firm operates. As it stands, Facebook remains a relatively new phenomenon in Europe, but its usage is growing: There are now about 123 million European users, according to statistics collected in February. This year, European privacy regulators, led by the Germans and Swiss, have begun investigations of Facebook's photo tagging and the use of privacy data by applications. Depending on the outcome, Facebook might need to change how the site works in Europe. Assuming the firm capitulates, the question will be whether Facebook changes its global product -- or creates European pages with different privacy settings than its American counterparts. Either way, European privacy regulators have the power to insist on pretty fundamental changes in what we think of as Facebook.

This year, Facebook faced some of its first challenges from outside the Western World when someone posted a page advertising an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," available to users in Pakistan and Bangladesh, among other places. Both countries blocked Facebook by court order on the grounds of blasphemy, until it apologized and agreed to delete the page, which it did, promising to never let such a thing happen again, according to Pakistani officials. As this case suggests, the real tests, or at least the real ethical tests, will come when Facebook begins to face the demands of the world's authoritarian regimes. As it stands, Facebook is banned in China, Iran, Syria, Vietnam, and other countries (though savvy users can access Facebook using proxy servers).

On this, Yahoo provides an object lesson. Once considered a champion of an open Internet, Yahoo in 2002 signed something called the "Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry." It was an agreement to monitor and report on its users for the Chinese party-state, whether on email, in chatrooms, or elsewhere. Things came to a head when Yahoo turned over emails from a Chinese journalist named Shi Tao, containing a memo related to the Tiananmen Square protests. He was imprisoned for 10 years. Yahoo eventually retreated from the Chinese market; its business ventures there were mostly a failure.  

Facebook's other predecessor in China is, of course, Google. The company decided to enter the Chinese market in 2007, with trepidation. Google was certainly more careful than Yahoo. It declined, for example, to operate email services in China, for fear of another Shi Tao incident. But Google did agree to censor its Chinese search engine, google.cn. And like Yahoo, it went on to lose so much market share (to a Chinese firm, Baidu) that it, too, made a well publicized retreat from the Chinese market, complaining about censorship and cyber-attacks.

So what will Facebook do when faced with such predicaments in trying to enter, or stay in, tricky overseas markets? How Facebook reacts to the scrutiny that's coming will be a new test of its philosophy as a company. It's not just an important question for Facebook, but for all of us. It's one thing giving Facebook access to your private information. It's something else entirely if governments then obtain access, too.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/20/facebooks_foreign_policy



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA]




Transit fees, bridge for transit etc
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] The Shaming of America



The Shaming of America

By Robert Fisk

24 October, 2010

Robert Fisk delivers a searing dispatch after the WikiLeaks revelations that expose in detail the brutality of the war in Iraq - and the astonishing, disgraceful deceit of the US

As usual, the Arabs knew. They knew all about the mass torture, the promiscuous shooting of civilians, the outrageous use of air power against family homes, the vicious American and British mercenaries, the cemeteries of the innocent dead. All of Iraq knew. Because they were the victims.

Only we could pretend we did not know. Only we in the West could counter every claim, every allegation against the Americans or British with some worthy general - the ghastly US military spokesman Mark Kimmitt and the awful chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Peter Pace, come to mind - to ring-fence us with lies. Find a man who'd been tortured and you'd be told it was terrorist propaganda; discover a house full of children killed by an American air strike and that, too, would be terrorist propaganda, or "collateral damage", or a simple phrase: "We have nothing on that."

Of course, we all knew they always did have something. And yesterday's ocean of military memos proves it yet again. Al-Jazeera has gone to extraordinary lengths to track down the actual Iraqi families whose men and women are recorded as being wasted at US checkpoints - I've identified one because I reported it in 2004, the bullet-smashed car, the two dead journalists, even the name of the local US captain - and it was The Independent on Sunday that first alerted the world to the hordes of indisciplined gunmen being flown to Baghdad to protect diplomats and generals. These mercenaries, who murdered their way around the cities of Iraq, abused me when I told them I was writing about them way back in 2003.

It's always tempting to avoid a story by saying "nothing new". The "old story" idea is used by governments to dampen journalistic interest as it can be used by us to cover journalistic idleness. And it's true that reporters have seen some of this stuff before. The "evidence" of Iranian involvement in bomb-making in southern Iraq was farmed out to The New York Times's Michael Gordon by the Pentagon in February 2007. The raw material, which we can now read, is far more doubtful than the Pentagon-peddled version. Iranian military material was still lying around all over Iraq from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and most of the attacks on Americans were at that stage carried out by Sunni insurgents. The reports suggesting that Syria allowed insurgents to pass through their territory, by the way, are correct. I have spoken to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers whose sons made their way to Iraq from Lebanon via the Lebanese village of Majdal Aanjar and then via the northern Syrian city of Aleppo to attack the Americans.

But, written in bleak militarese as it may be, here is the evidence of America's shame. This is material that can be used by lawyers in courts. If 66,081 - I loved the "81" bit - is the highest American figure available for dead civilians, then the real civilian mortality score is infinitely higher since this records only those civilians the Americans knew of. Some of them were brought to the Baghdad mortuary in my presence, and it was the senior official there who told me that the Iraqi ministry of health had banned doctors from performing any post-mortems on dead civilians brought in by American troops. Now why should that be? Because some had been tortured to death by Iraqis working for the Americans? Did this hook up with the 1,300 independent US reports of torture in Iraqi police stations?

The Americans scored no better last time round. In Kuwait, US troops could hear Palestinians being tortured by Kuwaitis in police stations after the liberation of the city from Saddam Hussein's legions in 1991. A member of the Kuwaiti royal family was involved in the torture. US forces did not intervene. They just complained to the royal family. Soldiers are always being told not to intervene. After all, what was Lieutenant Avi Grabovsky of the Israeli army told when he reported to his officer in September 1982 that Israel's Phalangist allies had just murdered some women and children? "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere," Grabovsky was told by his battalion commander. This was during the Sabra and Chatila refugee camp massacre.

The quotation comes from Israel's 1983 Kahan commission report - heaven knows what we could read if WikiLeaks got its hands on the barrels of military files in the Israeli defence ministry (or the Syrian version, for that matter). But, of course, back in those days, we didn't know how to use a computer, let alone how to write on it. And that, of course, is one of the important lessons of the whole WikiLeaks phenomenon.

Back in the First World War or the Second World War or Vietnam, you wrote your military reports on paper. They may have been typed in triplicate but you could number your copies, trace any spy and prevent the leaks. The Pentagon Papers was actually written on paper. You needed to find a mole to get them. But paper could always be destroyed, weeded, trashed, all copies destroyed. At the end of the 1914-18 war, for example, a British second lieutenant shot a Chinese man after Chinese workers had looted a French military train. The Chinese man had pulled a knife on the soldier. But during the 1930s, the British soldier's file was "weeded" three times and so no trace of the incident survives. A faint ghost of it remains only in a regimental war diary which records Chinese involvement in the looting of "French provision trains". The only reason I know of the killing is that my father was the British lieutenant and told me the story before he died. No WikiLeaks then.

But I do suspect this massive hoard of material from the Iraq war has serious implications for journalists as well as armies. What is the future of the Seymour Hershes and the old-style investigative journalism that The Sunday Times used to practise? What is the point of sending teams of reporters to examine war crimes and meet military "deep throats", if almost half a million secret military documents are going to float up in front of you on a screen?

We still haven't got to the bottom of the WikiLeaks story, and I rather suspect that there are more than just a few US soldiers involved in this latest revelation. Who knows if it doesn't go close to the top? In its investigations, for example, al-Jazeera found an extract from a run-of-the-mill Pentagon press conference in November 2005. Peter Pace, the uninspiring chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is briefing journalists on how soldiers should react to the cruel treatment of prisoners, pointing out proudly that an American soldier's duty is to intervene if he sees evidence of torture. Then the camera moves to the far more sinister figure of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who suddenly interrupts - almost in a mutter, and to Pace's consternation - "I don't think you mean they (American soldiers) have an obligation to physically stop it. It's to report it."

The significance of this remark - cryptically sadistic in its way - was lost on the journos, of course. But the secret Frago 242 memo now makes much more sense of the press conference. Presumably sent by General Ricardo Sanchez, this is the instruction that tells soldiers: "Provided the initial report confirms US forces were not involved in the detainee abuse, no further investigation will be conducted unless directed by HHQ [Higher Headquarters]." Abu Ghraib happened under Sanchez's watch in Iraq. It was also Sanchez, by the way, who couldn't explain to me at a press conference why his troops had killed Saddam's sons in a gun battle in Mosul rather than capture them.

So Sanchez's message, it seems, must have had Rumsfeld's imprimatur. And so General David Petraeus - widely loved by the US press corps - was presumably responsible for the dramatic increase in US air strikes over two years; 229 bombing attacks in Iraq in 2006, but 1,447 in 2007. Interestingly enough, US air strikes in Afghanistan have risen by 172 per cent since Petraeus took over there. Which makes it all the more astonishing that the Pentagon is now bleating that WikiLeaks may have blood on its hands. The Pentagon has been covered in blood since the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima in 1945, and for an institution that ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 - wasn't that civilian death toll more than 66,000 by their own count, out of a total of 109,000 recorded? - to claim that WikiLeaks is culpable of homicide is preposterous.

The truth, of course, is that if this vast treasury of secret reports had proved that the body count was much lower than trumpeted by the press, that US soldiers never tolerated Iraqi police torture, rarely shot civilians at checkpoints and always brought killer mercenaries to account, US generals would be handing these files out to journalists free of charge on the steps of the Pentagon. They are furious not because secrecy has been breached, or because blood may be spilt, but because they have been caught out telling the lies we always knew they told.

US official documents detail extraordinary scale of wrongdoing

WikiLeaks yesterday released on its website some 391,832 US military messages documenting actions and reports in Iraq over the period 2004-2009. Here are the main points:

Prisoners abused, raped and murdered

Hundreds of incidents of abuse and torture of prisoners by Iraqi security services, up to and including rape and murder. Since these are itemised in US reports, American authorities now face accusations of failing to investigate them. UN leaders and campaigners are calling for an official investigation.

Civilian death toll cover-up

Coalition leaders have always said "we don't do death tolls", but the documents reveal many deaths were logged. Respected British group Iraq Body Count says that, after preliminary examination of a sample of the documents, there are an estimated 15,000 extra civilian deaths, raising their total to 122,000.

The shooting of men trying to surrender

In February 2007, an Apache helicopter killed two Iraqis, suspected of firing mortars, as they tried to surrender. A military lawyer is quoted as saying: "They cannot surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets."

Private security firm abuses

Britain's Bureau of Investigative Journalism says it found documents detailing new cases of alleged wrongful killings of civilians involving Blackwater, since renamed Xe Services. Despite this, Xe retains extensive US contracts in Afghanistan.

Al-Qa'ida's use of children and "mentally handicapped" for bombing

A teenage boy with Down's syndrome who killed six and injured 34 in a suicide attack in Diyala was said to be an example of an ongoing al-Qa'ida strategy to recruit those with learning difficulties. A doctor is alleged to have sold a list of female patients with learning difficulties to insurgents.

Hundreds of civilians killed at checkpoints

Out of the 832 deaths recorded at checkpoints in Iraq between 2004 and 2009, analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism suggests 681 were civilians. Fifty families were shot at and 30 children killed. Only 120 insurgents were killed in checkpoint incidents.

Iranian influence

Reports detail US concerns that Iranian agents had trained, armed and directed militants in Iraq. In one document, the US military warns a militia commander believed to be behind the deaths of US troops and kidnapping of Iraqi officials was trained by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper. He is the author of many books on the region, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-shaming-of-america-2115111.html



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] A topic that needs our attention



Dear all,

I have been participating in 'Virtual adda" with all of you for many years. We passionately discuss and debate our ideas and argue about how best to improve [ Most of the time] our country and politics. Recently some friends of mine asked my help to solve a read problem in part of Dhaka. I felt real bad after learning that, large part of Badda [ An highly populated area near Gulshan] people are without water supply near about a month. Somehow the sewer  line and line for drinking water  got mixed and thousands of people are without drinking water. It is hard of many of us to imagine to live  without water supply for  even one day.  I was very upset to discover  that, Dhaka WASA has not taken any steps to "Fix" this issue. These people told me although they are not getting clean water and forced buy water at a very high price, they are forced to pay for the stinky dirty water they are getting at the same time.

I have taken time to talk to some of these people are various issues that impacts our country. Like the virtual world, we discussed ways to improve our politics, communal harmony, business etc. But how in God's name people can think about these lofty ideas when our nation fail to provide clean water to these people? I was very disturbed when I heard what they have to go through to earn a living in Dhaka. As most of you know public transportation in Dhaka is horrible. You have to spend at least 2-3 hours every day to get CNG gas and safety of Dhaka roads can compete with roads of Kabul in Afghanistan.

These people did not forget to remind me that, WASA employees forced them [ Extortion] to pay extra money when they received water connection in the first place.

We had many discussion about "Pie in the sky matters" here. I like to hear your ideas about this one. Water shortage is bound to hit us harder in the coming days.

It will be very nice if any of our members can do something to help these people. No one from the media came to talk about it yet. This can be a real opportunity for Alochona members to make a tangible contribution to people of Dhaka. Even if you know someone in the media, you can ask them to talk to these people.



--qr



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] Transit, transshipment fees



But economic adviser to the Prime Minister Dr Mashiur Rahman favours the withdrawal of fees and wrote a letter to the shipping minister to stop collecting the fees until "further decision."

>>>>>>>> 
If we give this facility to our big neighbor India, fee should be a big motivator for Bangladesh. Without fee [ And assurance about our security concerns] why should Bangladesh allow India a "Transit"? Right now our roads are congested and can hardly handle our own cargoes. These roads and bridges needs to be "Upgraded" and India have to pay for these improvements.

Remember China does not use our bridges but recently gave us a very generous GRANT [ Never have to repay them] for our Padma bridge mega project. All of us know we badly need to upgrade our infrastructure immediately and India can help. It will be a truly win win proposition.



-----Original Message-----
From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 13, 2010 7:59 am
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Transit, transshipment fees

 
Transit, transshipment fees -Foreign Office rejects India's waiver push


The Foreign Ministry continues to oppose India's insistence on waiver of transit and transshipment fees, saying Indian private sector already receives massive subsidies for transporting goods to the northeastern hinterlands.The ministry Monday drove home its message to the Indian High Commission officials and advised India's diplomats to lobby Bangladesh's National Board of Revenue (NBR) instead to seek the waiver.

The NBR has imposed transit and transshipment fee of Tk 10,000 per container and Tk 1,000 per tonne for bulk cargo.
"India should be prepared to pay a certain amount for using Bangladesh's land as corridor," a foreign ministry official said.

"The Indian central government subsidises its private sector for transporting goods to the northeastern part through the 'chicken neck' corridor," the official said, adding New Delhi can channel a part of that amount to ship goods through Bangladesh.

Bangladesh can earn an estimated Tk 1.0 to Tk 2.0 billion as transshipment fees and it is insignificant for Indians if they consider the broader economic benefits, he explained.Foreign minister Dr Dipu Moni and finance minister AMA Muhith supported the fees and both had earlier ruled out the waiver of transshipment fees, insisting those will be the country's income.

But economic adviser to the Prime Minister Dr Mashiur Rahman favours the withdrawal of fees and wrote a letter to the shipping minister to stop collecting the fees until "further decision."

Adding to the standoff, the customs authority has blocked the entry of two Indian ships carrying fly ash at the Bangladeshi border at Shekbaria as they didn't pay the transshipment fee. The ships destined for Assam were still not allowed to enter the Bangladesh territory.

Referring to the Protocol of Inland Water Trade and Transit (IWTT), the Foreign Ministry official defended the action, saying domestic laws will be applicable as cargoes entered the Bangladesh territory."In the agreement, it is not mentioned anywhere that transshipment and transit fees cannot be imposed," the official said.

The government signed the transshipment agreement in May to allow Indian goods to transship to Tripura through Ashuganj.According to the agreement, Ashuganj will be the second transshipment point and fifth port of call in Bangladesh, while India has declared Shilghat to be the port of call on the Indian side.

Sherpur in Sylhet was the first transshipment point under the 1972 protocol, but India never used the facility.Tripura border is only 49 kilometres from Ashuganj and the river port is navigable throughout the year.

The Indian authorities since '80s have demanded that Ashuganj become the second point and Bangladesh has agreed to the demand during the visit of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India in January.The IWTT agreement stipulates that Narayanganj, Mongla, Khulna and Sirajganj are the port of calls in Bangladesh and Kolkata, Haldia, Pandu and Karimganj in India.
 
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] FW: Indonesian Vice President urges Muslims to stand up against Islamic Radicals



Can you tell point by point what lies jamat made ? I can tell you 100's of lies made by anti jamathis in Bangladesh. Your supporting groups telling lies from morning to evening. They woke up with lies, they sleep with lies, they dream lies, they live on lies, they die on lies, they will raise again with lies with Feraun and Namrud.
 


From: farida_majid@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:33:14 -0400
Subject: [ALOCHONA] FW: Indonesian Vice President urges Muslims to stand up against Islamic Radicals

 
                 Why can't Bangladeshi politicos have the heart to call upon people to resist lies and
falsehoods spread by Jamaat and its cronies in the name of Islam?
 
                  How can we have the Constitution reprinted to reflect the cancellation of the notorious
5th Amendment  and still allow "religion based political parties"?  Can God belong to one political party
and not belong to another party?  What kind of 'shereki' is this cheating game?
 
                   I urge everyone to do something -- raise awareness and warn the politicians you may
know and stop the nonsene.  We have sacrificed enough and had been patient for far too long!
 
                   Farida Majid
 

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:56:24 -0400
Subject: Indonesian Vice President urges Muslims to stand up against Islamic Radicals

 
 October 18, 2010

Indonesian Vice President urges Muslims 
to stand up against Islamic Radicals

Ulma Haryanto & Anita Rachman
The Jakarta Globe

JAKARTA - 
Vice President Boediono has received cautious praise after calling on the "silent majority" to take a stand against a growing radicalism that he describes as threatening to take the country down a path of destruction. "Once we allow radicalism to take over our way of thinking, it will lead us toward destruction," the vice president said in a speech on Saturday at the opening of the Global Peace Leadership Conference, organized by Nahdlatul Ulama.  

"Freedom of expression has been used by certain groups to spread hatred," he added.

Though racism and interreligious conflict are fundamental issues that exist in most societies, Boediono said, Indonesians should protect the foundation upon which the country was built — the principle of unity in diversity. "Although Islam is the religion of the majority of people, Indonesia is not an Islamic state," he said. Boediono said the country must not abandon the basic principle that guarantees religious freedom for all.

To do this, he called on the silent majority to take a stand. "Radicals are usually vocal, though they are few in number. They drown out the silent majority," he said. "But there are times when the silent majority must dare to speak out. We must loudly reject radicalism and return to the original agreement of the founding fathers of the nation."

Pluralism advocates applauded him for speaking out strongly on a threat they have long warned of but that officials have paid little attention to. Week after week, stories of discrimination against minority religious groups fill news pages, and several surveys have pointed to a worrying increase in intolerance among Indonesians. 

Dhyah Madya Ruth, chairwoman of Lazuardi Birru, a group that aims to educate young people about the dangers of extremism, said it was important that the government made a clear stand. 

"We have to create a synergy between the government, the people and civil society organizations in solving this problem," she said. "Most important in this is not just the silent majority, but the silent government has to make a firm stand." Burhanuddin Muhtadi, an analyst from the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI), said that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had never strongly addressed radicalism. 

In August Yudhoyono decried "groups that threatened the nation," but his vague message could not be grasped by the public, Muhtadi said. "He is too focused on his own image. He doesn't want to be considered antagonistic toward Islamic hard-liners." Another important government figure who needs to stand up against those who promote hatred is the religious affairs minister, said Ulil Abshar Abdalla, the founder of the Liberal Islam Network and a Democratic Party politician.

"For example, in several Islamic gatherings people openly call for the banishment of [minority Islamic sect] Ahmadiyah. That should not be allowed," he said, adding that he regretted that Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali had adopted a conservative approach that fostered radicalism. Suryadharma has openly advocated banning the Ahmadiyah sect.






__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court - Ms. FM



From Sura An-Noor
 
قُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَغُضُّوا مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِمْ وَيَحْفَظُوا فُرُوجَهُمْ ذَلِكَ أَزْكَى لَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا يَصْنَعُونَ
(24:30)
And O Prophet, enjoin the Believing women to restrain their gaze *29 and guard their private parts. *30 This is a more righteous way for them: Allah has knowledge of what they do. (24:30)
 
*29 The word ghedd means to reduce, shorten or lower down something. Accordingly, ghadd basar is generally translated as `lowering the gaze' or 'keeping it lowered'. But the Command of ghadd basar does not imply that the gaze should always be kept lowered. It only means to imply that one should restrain one's gaze and avoid casting of looks freely. That is, if it is not desirable to see a thing, one should turn the eyes away and avoid having a look at it. The restriction of a 'restrained gaz' is applicable only in a limited sphere. The context in which the words occur shows that this restriction applies to the men's gazing at women, or casting looks at the satar of the other persons, or fixing the eyes at indecent scenes.
The details of this Divine Commandment as explained in the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet are given below:
(1) It is not lawful for a tnan to cast a full gaze at the other women except at his own wife or the mahram women of his family. The chance look is pardonable but not the second look which one casts when one feels the lure of the object. The Holy Prophet has termed such gazing and glancing as wickedness of the eyes. He has said that man commits adultery with aII his sensory organs. The evil look at the other woman is the adultery of the eyes; lustful talk is the adultery of the tongue; relishing the other woman's voice is adultery of the ears; and touching her body with the hand or walking for an unlawful purpose is adultery of the hands and feet. After these preliminaries the sexual organs either bring the act of adultery to completion or leave it incomplete. (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Da'ud).
According to a Tradition related by Hadrat Buraidah, the Holy Prophet instructed Hadrat 'Ali: "O 'Ali, do not cast a second look after the first look. The first look is pardonable but not the second one." (Tirmizi;, Ahmad, Abu Da'ud). Hadrat Jarir bin 'Abdullah Bajali says that he asked the Holy Prophet, "What should I do if I happen to cast a chance look?" The Holy Prophet replied, "Turn your eyes away or lower your gaze."(Muslim, Ahmad, Tirmizi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i). Hadrat 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud quotes the Holy Prophet as having said: "Allah says that the gaze is one of the poisonous arrows of Satan. Whoever forsakes it, out of His fear, he will be rewarded with a faith whose sweetness he will relish in his own heart." (Tabarani). According to a Tradition related by Abu Umamah, the Holy Prophet said: "If a Muslim happens to glance at the charms of a woman and then turns his eyes away, Allah will bless his worship and devotion and will make it all the more sweet. ''. (Musnad Ahmad). Imam Ja'far Sadiq has quoted from his father, Imam Muhammad Baqir, who has quoted Hadrat Jabir bin 'Abdullah Ansari as saying: "On the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, Fadal bin'Abbas, who was a young cousin of the Holy Prophet, was riding with him on the camelback during the return journey from Mash`ar al-Haram. When they came to a few women passing on the way, Fadal started looking at them. Thereupon the Holy Prophet put his hand on his face and turned it to the other side." (Abu Da'ud). On another occasion during the same Pilgrimage, a woman of the clan of Khath'am stopped the Holy Prophet on the way and sought clarification about a certain matter pertaining to Hajj. Fadal bin `Abbas fixed his gaze at her, but the Holy Prophet turned his face to the other side. (Bukhari, Abu Da'ud, Tirmizi).
(2) Nobody should have the misunderstanding that the Command to restrain the 'gaze was enjoined because the women were allowed to move about freely with open faces, for if veiling of the face had already been enjoined, the question of restraining or not restraining the gaze would not have arisen. This argument is incorrect rationally as well as factually. It is incorrect rationally because even when veiling of the face is the usual custom, occasions can arise where a man and a woman come face to face with each other suddenly, or when a veiled woman has to uncover her face under necessity. Then even if the Muslim women observe purdah, there will be non-Muslim women who will continue to move about unveiled. Thus, the Commandment to lower the gaze or restrain the eyes, does not necessarily presume existence of a custom allowing the women to move about with unveiled faces. It is incorrect factually because the custom of purdah which was introduced after the revelation of the Commandments in Surah Al-Ahzab included veiling of the face, and this is supported by a number of Traditions relating to the time of the Holy Prophet himself. Hadrat `A'ishah in her statement relating to the incident of the "slander", which has been narrated on the authority of reliable reporters, has said: "When I came back to the camp, and found that the caravan had left, I lay down and was ' overpowered by sleep. In the morning when Safwan bin Mu`attal passed that way he recognised me because he had seen me before the Commandment of purdah had been sent down. On recognising me he exclaimed: Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji`un: `To Allah we belong and to Him we shall return'; and I awoke and covered my face with my sheet." (Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Hisham). Abu Da'ud contains an incident that when the son of Umm Khallad was killed in a battle, she came to the Holy Prophet to enquire about him and was wearing the veil as usual. It was natural to presume that on such a sad occasion one is liable to lose one's balance and ignore the restrictions of purdah. But when questioned she said, "I have certainly lost my son but not my modesty." Another Tradition in Abu Da'ud quoted on the authority of Hadrat `A'ishah relates that a woman handed an application to the Holy Prophet from behind a curtain. The Holy Prophet enquired: "Is it a man's hand or a woman's?" She replied that it was a woman's. Thereupon the Holy Prophet said: "If it is a woman's hand, the nails at least should have been coloured with henna!" As regards the two incidents relating to the occasion of Hajj, which we have mentioned above, they cannot be used as an argument to prove that the veil was not in vogue in the time of the Holy Prophet. This is because wearing of the veil is prohibited in the state of ihram. However, even in that state pious women did not like to uncover their faces before the other men. Hadrat `A'ishah has stated that during the Farewell Pilgrimage when they were moving towards Makkah in the state of ihram, the women would lower down their head sheets over their faces whenever the travellers passed by them, and would uncover their faces as soon as they had passed by. (Abu Da'ud).
(3) There are certain exceptions to the Command of lowering the gaze or restraining the look. These exceptions relate to occasions when it is really necessary to see a woman, for instance, when a man intends to marry her. It is not only permissible to see the woman in such a case but even commendable. Mughirah bin Shu'bah has stated,. "I wanted to marry in a certain family. The Holy Prophet asked me whether I had seen the girl or not. When 1 replied in the negative, he said: `Have a look at her; this will enhance harmonious relationship between you two'." (Ahmad, Tirmizi,
Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Darimi). According to a Tradition related by Abu Hurairah, a man wanted to marry in a family of the Ansar. The Holy Prophet asked him to have a look at the girl, for the Ansar usually had a defect in their eyes. (Muslim, Nasa'i, Ahmad). According to Jabir bin 'Abdullah, the Holy Prophet said: "When a person from among you wants to marry a woman, he should have a look at her to satisfy himself that there is some quality in the woman which induces him to marry her. " (Ahmad, Abu Da'ud). According to another Tradition emanating from Abu Humaidah and quoted in Musnad Ahmad, the Holy Prophet said that there was no harm in such a procedure. He also permitted that the girl may be seen without her being aware of it. From this the jurists have concluded that there is no harm in looking at a woman when it is really necessary. For instance, there is no harm in looking at a suspect woman when investigating a crime, or in the judge's looking at a female witness, who appears in the court, or in the physician's looking at a female patient, etc.
(4) The intention of the Command to restrain the gaze also implies that no tnan or woman should look at the private parts of the other man or woman. The Holy Prophet has said: "No man should look at the satar of another man nor a woman at the sater of another woman." (Ahmad, Muslim, Abu Da'ud, Tirmizi). Hadrat 'Ali has quoted the Holy Prophet as saying: "Do not look at the thigh of another person, living or dead". (Abu Da'ud, Ibn Majah).
*30 "Guard their private parts": Abstain from illicit sexual gratification and from exposing their satar before others. For males, the satar is the part of the body from the navel to the knee, and it is not permissible to expose that pan of the body intentionally before anybody except one's own wife. (Daraqutni, Baihaqi). Hadrat Jarhad Aslami states that once he was sitting in the company of the Holy Prophet with his thigh exposed. The Holy Prophet said: "Do you not know that the thigh has to be kept concealed." (Tirmizi, Abu Da'ud, Mu'atta). Hadrat 'AIi reports that the Holy Prophet said: "Do not expose your thigh." (Abu Da'ud, Ibn Majah). Not only is the satar to be kept concealed before others but even when alone. The Holy Prophet has warned: "Beware, never remain naked, for with you are those (that is, the angels of goodness and mercy), who never leave you alone except when you ease yourself or you go to your wives. So feel shy of them and give them due respect. " (Tirmizi). According to another Tradition, the Holy Prophet said: "Guard your satar from everybody except from your wife and your slave-girl." The questioner asked, "Even when we are alone?" The Holy Prophet replied, "Yes, even when alone, for Allah has a greater right that you should feel shy of Him." (Abu Da'ud, Tirmizi, Ibn Majah).
 
وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آَبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آَبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَى عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ   (24:31) 
O Prophet, enjoin the Believing men to restrain their gaze *31 and guard their private *32 parts. *33 and not to display their adornment *34 except that which is displayed of itself, *35 and to draw their veils over their bosoms *36 and not to display their adornment except before their husbands, *37 their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, *38 their sons and the sons of their husbands *39 (from other wives), their brothers, *40 their brothers' sons, *41 their sisters' sons, *42 their female associates *43 and those in their possession *44 and male attendants incapable of sex desire *45 and those boys who have not yet attained knowledge of sex matters concerning women; *46 also forbid them to stamp their feet on the ground lest their hidden ornaments should be displayed. *47 O Believers, turn all together towards Allah : *48 it is expected that you will attain true success. *49 (24:31)
 
*31 The Commandments of restraining the gaze for women are the same as for men. They should not glance intentionally at the other men, and if they happen to cast a chance look, they should turn their eyes away; and they should abstain from looking at the satar of others. However, the Commandments relating to the men's looking at women are a little different from those relating to the women's looking at men. On the one hand, there is an incident related in a Tradition saying that Hadrat Umm Salamah and Hadrat Umm Maimunah, wives of the Holy Prophet, were sitting with him when lbn Umm Maktum, a blind Companion, made his appearance. The Holy Prophet said to his wives: "Conceal your faces from him." The wives said, "O Messenger of Allah: Is he not a blind man '? Neither will he see us nor recognize us." Thereupon the Holy Prophet remarked: "Are you two also blind? Do you not see him?" Hadrat Umm Salamah has clarified that this incident occurred at a time when the Commandments about the observance of purdah had already been sent down. (Ahmad, Abu Da'ud, Tirmizi. This is also supported by a Tradition in Mu'atta saying that a blind man came to see Hadrat 'A'ishah and she observed purdah from him. When asked as to why she observed purdah when the man could not see her, she replied: "But I do see him." On the other hand, there is a different Tradition from Hadrat `A'ishah. In 7 A.H. a deputation of the negroes came to AI-Madinah and they gave a performance of physical skill in the compound of the Prophet's Mosque. The Holy Prophet himself showed their performance to Hadrat 'A'ishah. (Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad). In another case, we find that when Fatimah bint Qais was irrevocably divorced by her husband, the question arose as to where she should pass her 'Iddah (the prescribed waiting term after divorce or death of husband). The Holy Prophet first told her to stay with Umm Sharik Ansari, but then instructed her to stay in the house of Ibn Umm Maktum, where she could stay with greater freedom as he was a blind man. He did not approve of her staying in the house of Umm Shank because she was a rich lady and her house was frequented by the Companions whom she entertained generously. (Muslim, Abu Da'ud). Read together these Traditions show that the restrictions about the women's looking at melt are not so hard as about the men's looking at women. While it is forbidden for women to sit face to face with men, it is not unlawful if they cast a look at men while passing on the way or see a harmless performance by them from a distance. There is also no hams for women to see the other men in case of real need if they are living in the same house. Imam Ghazzali; and lbn Hajar `Asqalani have also reached almost the same conclusion. Shaukani in his Nail al-Autar has quoted Ibn Hajar as saying: "Such a permission in respect of women is also supported by the fact that they have always enjoyed this type of freedom in outdoor duties While they came out veiled when visiting the mosques, or moving in the streets, or during the journey, so that men may not gaze at them, the men were never commanded to use the veil so that women may not gaze at them. This shows that the Commandments in respect of the two sexes are different." (Vol. Vl, p. 101). However, it is not at alI permissible that women should gaze leisurely at men and draw pleasure of the eye in doing so.
*32 That is, they should abstain from illicit gratification of their sex desire as well as from exposing their satar before others. Though the commandments for men in this respect are the same as for women, the boundaries of satar for women are different from those prescribed for men. Moreover, the female satar with respect to men is different from that with respect to women
The female satar with respect to men is the entire body, excluding only the hand and the face, which should not be exposed before any other man, not even the brother and father, except the husband. The woman is not allowed to wear a thin or a tight fitting dress which might reveal the skin or the outlines of the body. According to a Tradition from Hadrat 'A'ishah, orate her sister Asma' came before the Holy Prophet in a thin dress. The Holy Prophet immediately turned his face away and said: "O Asma', when a woman has attained her maturity, it is not permissible that any part of her body should be exposed except the face and the hand." (Abu Da'ud). Ibn Jarir has related a similar incident from Hadrat 'A'ishah saying that once the daughter of `Abdullah bin Tufail, who was her mother's son from her former husband, came to her house on a visit. When the Holy Prophet (Allah's peace be upon him) entered the house, he saw her but turned his face to the other side. Hadrat `A'ishah said: "O Messenger of Allah, she is my niece." Thereupon the Holy Prophet remarked: "When a woman reaches the age of puberty, it is not lawful for her to display her body except the hand and the face. (Then he indicated what he meant by the hand by gripping his own hand from the wrist so that there was hardly a breadth left between his grip and the palm of the hand)." The only relaxation permitted in this connection is that a woman can uncover only that much of her body before her close relatives (for example, her brother, father, etc.) as is absolutely necessary for attending to the household duties. For instance, she can roll up her sleeves while kneading the flour, or tuck up her trousers while washing the floor.
The boundaries of female satar with respect to women are the same as the boundaries of the male satar with respect to men, which is the part of the body from the navel to the knee. This does not, however, mean that a woman should appear half naked before other women. It only means that while it is obligatory to keep the part of body from the navel to the knee duly covered, it is not so in case of other parts.
*33 It should be carefully noted that the demands that Divine Law makes from women are not only those it has made from men, that is restraining of looks and guarding of the private parts, but it makes some other demands from them also, which it has not made from men. This shows that men and women are not identical in this respect.
*34 "Adornment" includes attractive clothes, ornaments and other decorations of the head, face, hand, feet, etc. which the women usually employ, and is expressed by the modern word 'make-up'. The injunction that this `makeup' should not be displayed before others is discussed in detail in the following Notes.
*35 Different interpretations given by different commentators of this verse have greatly confused its real meaning. AII that is obviously meant is that "women should not display their make-up and adornment" except that "which is displayed of itself" and is beyond their control. This clearly means that women should not purposely and intentionally display their make-up, but there is no accountability if the make-up becomes displayed without any purpose or intention on their part; for instance, the head-wrapper's being blown aside by the wind thus exposing the adornment, ,or the outer-garment itself which cannot be concealed but which nevertheless has attraction being a part of the female dress. This very interpretation of this verse has been given by Hadrat `Abdullah bin Mas'ud, Hasan Basri, Ibn Sirin and Ibrahim Nakha`i. On the contrary, some other commentators have interpreted the verse to mean "all those parts of the body which usually remain exposed or uncovered" and in this they include the hands and the face with all their adornments. This is the view of Hadrat Ibn `Abbas and his followers, and a large number of the Hanafi jurists have accepted it. (Ahkam-ul-Qur'an, AlJassas, Vol. III, pp. 388-389). Thus, according to them, it is permissible for a woman to move out freely with the uncovered face in full make-up and adornment of the hands
We are, however, unable to subscribe to this view. There is a world of difference between "displaying something" and "its becoming displayed of itself." The tirst implies `intention' and the second 'compulsion' and a state of helplessness. Moreover, such an interpretation also goes against the traditions which state that the women never moved out with open and uncovered faces in the time of the Holy Prophet after the Commandments of purdah had been sent down. These Commandments implied veiling of the face as well, and the veil had become a part of the female dress except during Hajj when one has to be in the prescribed state of ihram and keep the face uncovered. Another argument that is advanced in support of this view is that the hands and the face are not included in the satar of the woman, whereas satar and purdah are two entirely different things. Sanctity of satar is such that it cannot be violated even before the mahram males like the father. brother, etc. As for purdah it is over and above satar which is meant to segregate women from non mahram males; the discussion here relates to the Commandments of purdah and not to satar.
*36 In the pre-lslamic days of ignorance, women used to wear a sort of head-band, which was tied in a knot at the rear of the head. The slit of the shirt in the front partly remained open exposing the front of the neck and the upper part of the bosom. There was nothing except the shirt to cover the breasts, and the hair was worn in a couple or two of plaits hanging behind like tails. (AI-Kashshaf, Vol. II, p. 90, and Ibn Kathir, Vol. III, pp. 283-284). At the revelation of this verse, the head-wrapper (dopatta) was introduced among the Muslim women, which was meant to cover the head, the breasts, and the back, completely. The way the Muslim women responded to this Command has been described by Hadrat 'A'ishah in a vivid manner. She states that when Surah An-Nur was revealed and the people learnt of its contents from the Holy Prophet, they immediately went back to their houses and recited the verses before their wives, daughters and sisters. There was an instantaneous response. The Ansar women, one and all, inunediately got up and made wrappers from whatever piece of cloth that was handy. The next morning all the women who came to the Prophet's Mosque for prayers were dressed in wrappers. In another tradition Hadrat `A'ishah says that thin cloth was discarded and the women selected only coarse cloth for the purpose. (lbn Kathir, Vol.III, p. 284, Abu Da'ud).
The very nature and object of the Command demanded that the wrapper should not be made out of fine and thin cloth. The Ansar women immediately understood the real object and knew what type of cloth was intended to be used. The Law-Giver himself clarified this and did not leave it to be interpreted by the people. Dihya Kalbi states: "Once a length of fine Egyptian muslin was presented to the Holy Prophet. He gave a piece of it to me and said, `Use one part of it for your shirt, and give the rest of it to your wife for a wrapper, but tell her that she should stitch another piece of cloth on the inner side so that the body may not be displayed through it." (Abu Da'ud).
*37 This verse describes the circle in which a woman can move freely with all her make-up and adornment. Outside this circle she is not allowed to appear with make-up before the other people, whether they are relatives or strangers. The Commandment implies that she should not display her embellishments outside this limited circle, intentionally or through carelessness. However, what becomes displayed incidentally, in spite of care and concern, or what cannot be concealed, it is excused by Allah.
*38 `Fathers' include grandfathers and great grandfathers as well, both paternal and maternal. Accordingly a woman can appear before her own and her husband's grandfathers just as she can appear before her own father and father-inlaw.
*39 `Sons' include grandsons and great grandsons from the male or female offspring. No distinction is to be made between the real sons and the step-sons.
*40 Brothers' include real and stepbrothers.
*41 'Sons of brothers and sisters' include sons, grandsons and great grandsons of all the three kinds of brothers and sisters.
*42 After the relatives the other people are now being mentioned. But before we proceed further, it would be useful to understand three things in order to avoid confusion.
First, some jurists hold that the freedom of movement and display of adornment by a woman is restricted to the circle of relatives mentioned in this verse. AII others, even the real paternal and maternal uncles, are excluded from this list and a woman should observe purdah from them because they have not heen mentioned in the Qur'an. This is, however, not a correct view. Let alone the real uncles, the Holy Prophet disallowed Hadrat `A'ishah to observe purdah even from her foster uncles. A tradition quoted in Sihah Sitta' and Musnad Ahmad on the authority of Hadrat `A'ishah says that once Aflah, brother of Abul Qu'ais, came to see her and sought permission to enter the house. But since the Commandment of purdah had been received, Hadrat `A'ishah refused him permission. On this Aflah sent back the word saying, "You are my niece: you were suckled by my brother Abul Qu'ais's wife." But Hadrat `A'ishah still was hesitant whether it was permissible to appear unveiled before such a relative or not. In the meantime the Holy Prophet arrived and he ruled that he could see her. This shows that the Holy Prophet himself did not interpret the verse in the way these jurists do that it was lawful to appear unveiled only before those relatives who have been mentioned in the verse and not before others. He interpreted it to mean that purdah need not be observed from those relatives with whom marriage is prohibited, for instance, paternal and maternal uncles, son-in-law and foster relatives. Hadrat Hasan Basri from among the followers has expressed the same opinion and the same has been supported by `Allama Abu Bakr al-Jassas in his Ahkam-ul-Qur an. (Vol. III, p. 390).
Secondly, there is the question of those relatives with whom marriage is not permanently prohibited; they neither fall in the category of mahram relatives (that women may freely appear before them with adornment) nor in the category of complete strangers that they should observe full purdah from them as from others. What should be the right course between the two extremes has not been determined by the Shari `ah for such a course cannot possibly be determined. The observance of purdah or otherwise in such cases will inevitably depend on the mutual relationship, age of the woman and of men, family relations and contacts and other circumstances (e.g. residence in the same house or in different houses). The personal example of the Holy Prophet himself in this matter gives us the same guidance. A large number of traditions confirm that Hadrat Asma', daughter of Abu Bakr, who was a sister-in-law of the Holy Prophet, appeared unveiled before him and no purdah, at least of the face and hands, was observed by her. This same position continued till the Farewell Pilgrimage which took place just a few months before the death of the Holy Prophet. (Abu Da'ud). Similarly Hadrat Umm Hani, daughter of Abu Talib and a first cousin of the Holy Prophet, appeared before him till the end without ever observing purdah of the face and hands. She herself has narrated an incident pertaining to the conquesh of Makkah, which confirms the same. (Abu Da'ud).On the contrary, we see that Hadrat `Abbas sends his son Fadal, and Rabi'ah bin Harith bin `Abdul Muttalib (a first cousin of the Holy Prophet) his son 'Abdul Muttalib before the Holy Prophet with the request for a job, as they could not be married till they became earning members of the family. They both see the Holy Prophet in the house of his wife Zainab, who is a first cousin of Fadal and is similarly related to the father of 'Abdul Muttalib bin Rabi'ah. But she dces not appear before them and talks to them from behind a curtain in the presence of the Holy Prophet. (Abu Da'ud). Taking the two kinds of precedents together we come to the same conclusion as we have stated above.
Thirdly, in cases where the relationship itself becomes doubtful, purdah should be observed even from the mahram relatives. Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Da'ud have related a case where Saudah, a wife of the Holy Prophet, had a brother born of a slave woman. `Utbah, the father of Saudah and the boy, left a will enjoining his brother, Sa`d bin Abi Waqqas, to look after the boy as a nephew for he was from his own seed. When the case came before the Holy Prophet, he rejected the claim of Hadrat Sa 'd, saying: "The boy belongs to him on whose bed he was born; as for the adulterer, let stones and pebbles be his lot." But at the same time he told Hadrat Saudah to observe purdah from the boy because it was doubtful whether he was really her brother.
*43 The Arabic word nisa-i -hinna means "their female associates". Before we consider what women are exactly meant, it is worth noting that the word used here is not an-nisa, which merely means "women", but nisa i-hinna which means "their female associates". In the former case, it would be quite permissible for a Muslim woman to appear unveiled before all sorts of women and display her adornment. The use of nisa-i-hinna, however, has circumscribed her freedom within a specific circle. As to what specific circle of women is implied, the commentators and jurists have expressed different opinions.
According to one group, the "female associates" mean only the Muslim women; as for the non-Muslim women, whether zimmis or otherwise, they are excluded and purdah should be observed from them as from men. Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and Ibn Juraij hold this opinion and cite the following incident in support thereof: Caliph `Umar wrote to Hadrat Abu `Ubaidah: "I hear that some Muslim women have started going to public baths along with the non-Muslim women. It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day that she should expose her body before the women other than of her own community." On receipt of this letter Hadrat Abu `Ubaidah was much upset, and he cried out: "May the face of the woman who goes to the public baths to whiten her complexion be blackened on the Last Day!" (Ibn Jarir, Baihaqi, Ibn Kathir).
Another group, which includes Imam Razi, is of the view that "female associates" are all women without exception. But it is not possible to accept this view as in that case an-nisa should have sufficed and there was no need to use nisa-i-hinna.
The third opinion, and this appears to be reasonable and nearer the Qur'anic Text, is that "their female associates" mean those familiar and known women with whom a woman usually comes into contact in her daily life and who share in her household chores, etc. whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. The object here is to exclude those women from the circle who are either strangers whose cultural and moral background is not known or whose antecedents are apparently doubtful, which make them unreliable. This view is also supported by the authentic Traditions which state that zimmi women used to visit the wives of the Holy Prophet. The real thing to be considered in this connection would be the moral character and not the religious belief. Muslim women can meet and have intimate social contacts with noble, modest and virtuous women, who come from well-known and reliable families even if they are non-Muslim. But they must observe purdah from immodest, immoral and vulgar women even if they happen to be "Muslims". Their company from the moral viewpoint is as dangerous as of other men. As for contacts with un-known, unfamiliar women, they may at the most be treated like non-mahram relatives. A woman may uncover her face and hands before them but she must keep the rest of her body and adornments concealed.
*44 There is a good deal of difference of opinion among the jurists about the correct meaning of this injunction. One group holds that this refers only to the slave girls owned by a lady. Accordingly they interpret the Divine Command to mean that the Muslim woman can display her adornment before a slave girl, whether she is an idolatress or a Jew or a Christian, but she cannot appear before a slave man even if he is legally owned by her; for purposes of purdah, he is to be treated just like a free male stranger. This is the view of `Abdullah bin Mas`ud, Mujahid, Hasan Basri, Ibn Sirin, Said bin Musayyab, Ta`us and Imam Abu Hanifah, and a saying of Imam Shafi`i also supports this. They argue that the slave is not a mahram to the lady; if he is freed, e can marry his former owner. Therefore the there fact of his being a slave cannot by itself entitle him to be treated like the male mahrams and allow the lady to appear freely before him. The question why should the words" those in their possession" which are general and applicable to both slaves and slave girls, be restricted to mean only slave girls, is answered by these jurists like this: Though the words are general, the context and background in which they occur snake them specifically applicable to slave girls only. The , words "those in their possession" occur just after "their female associates" in the verse; therefore one could understand that the reference was to a woman's relatives and other associates; this could lead to the misunderstanding that the slave girls perhaps were excluded; the words "those in their possession". therefore were used to clarify that a woman could display her adornments before the slave girls as before her free female associates.
The other group holds that the words "those in their possession" include both the slaves and the slave girls. This is the view of Hadrat `A'ishah, Umm Salamah and some learned scholars of the house of the Holy Prophet and also of Imam Shafi`i. They do not argue merely on the basis of the general meaning of the words, but they also cite precedents from the Sunnah in support of their view. For instance, the incident that the Holy Prophet went to the house of his daughter, Hadrat Fatimah, along with his slave 'Abdullah bin Musa'dah al-Fazari. She was at that time wearing a sheet which would leave the feet exposed if she tried to cover the head, and the head exposed if she tried to cover the feet. The Holy Prophet felt her embarrassment and said: "No harm: there are only your father and your slave!" (Abu Da'ud, Ahmad, Baihaqi on the authority of Anas bin Malik). Ibn 'Asakir has stated that the Holy Prophet had given that slave to Hadrat Fatimah, who brought him up and then freed him. (But the man turned out to be an ungrateful wretch; in the battle of Siffin, he was the bitterest opponent of Hadrat 'Ali and a zealous supporter of Amir Mu`awiyah). They also quote the following words of the Holy Prophet in support of their stand: "When any of you agrees to a deed of emancipation with her slave, and the slave has the necessary means to buy his freedom, she (the owner) should observe purdah from him." (Abu Da'ud, Tirmizi, Ibn Majah on the authority of Umm Salamah).
*45 The literal translation of the Text would be: "those from among the men who are your subordinates and have no desire." The obvious meaning is that apart from the mahram males, a Muslim woman can display her adornment only before the man who satisfies two conditions: firstly, he should be in a subordinate capacity, and secondly, he should be free from sexual urges either due to advanced age, impotence, mental weakness, poverty or low social position, so that he cannot cherish the desire or have the boldness to think evilly of his master's wife, daughter, sister or mother. Anybody who studies this injunction in the right spirit with a view to obeying it, and not for the sake of finding ways and means of escaping from or violating it, will readily appreciate that the bearers, cooks, chauffeurs and other grown up servants employed these days in the houses do not fall in this category. The following clarifications given by the commentators and the jurists of this point would show the type of men envisaged in the verse: Ibn 'Abbas: This implies a man who is a mere simpleton and has no interest in women. Qatadah: A poor man who is attached to you merely for his sustenance. Mujahid: A fool who only needs food and has no desire for women. Sha'bi: The one who is a subordinate; entirely dependent on his master, and cannot have the boldness to cast an evil look at the womenfolk of the house. lbn Zaid: The one who remains attached to a family for such a long time that he is regarded as a member brought up in that house, and who has no desire for the women of the house. He is there merely because he gets his sustenance from the family. Ta'us & Zuhri: An idiot who dces not cherish the desire for the women nor has the courage to do so. (Ibn Jarir, Vol. XVIII, pp. 95-96, Ibn Kathir, Vol. III, p. 285).
The best explanation in this regard is the incident that happened in the time of the Holy Prophet, which has been quoted by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ahmad on the authority of Hadrat `A'ishah and Umm Salamah. There was a certain eunuch in Madinah who was allowed free access to the wives of the Holy Prophet and the other women of the city, on the assumption that he being incapable of sex was free from the sexual urge. One day when the Holy Prophet went to the house of his wife, Umm Salamah, he heard him talking to her brother, 'Abdullah bin Abi Umayyah. He was telling `Abdullah that if Ta`if was taken the following day, he should try to have Badia, daughter of Ghailan Thaqafi . And then he started praising Badia's beauty and her physical charms and even went to the extent of describingher private parts. On hearing this the Holy Prophet said: "O enemy of Allah! you seem to have seen her through." Then he ordered that the women should observe purdah from him and he should not be allowed to enter the houses in future. After this he turned him out of Madinah and forbade the other eunuchs also to enter the houses, because the women did not mind their presence, while they would describe the women of one house before the other men of other houses in the society.This shows that the word "incapable of sex desire" do not merely imply physical impotence. Anyone who is physically unfit but cherishes sex desire in the heart and takesinterest in women, can become the cause of many mischiefs.
*46 That is, the children who do not yet have their sex feelings aroused. This may apply to boys of 11 to12 at the most. Older boys start having sex feelings though they may still be immature otherwise.
*47 The Holy Prophet did not restrict this injunction to the jingle of the ornaments, but has derived from it the principle that besides the look, anything which tends to excite any of the senses, is opposed to the objective for which Allah has forbidden the women to display their adornment. Therefore he ordered the women not to move out with perfumes. According to Hadrat Abu Hurairah, the Holy Prophet said: "Do not stop the bondmaids of Allah from coming to the mosques, but. they should not come with perfumes." (Abu Da'ud, Ahmad). According to another tradition, Hadrat Abu Hurairah passed by a woman who was coming out of the mosque and felt that she had perfumed herself. He stopped her and said: "O bondmaid of AIIah, are you coming from the mosque?" When she replied in the affirmative, he said: "I have heard my beloved Abul Qasim (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) say that the prayer of the woman who comes to the mosque with perfumes, is not accepted till she purifies herself with a complete hath as is done after a sexual intercourse." (Abu Da'ud, Ibn Majah, Ahmad, Nasa'i). Abu Musa Ash'ari has quoted the Holy Prophet as saying: "A woman who passes on the way with perfumes so that people may enjoy her perfumes, is such and such: he used very harsh words for her." (Tirmizi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i). His instruction was that women should use scents with bright colours but light odours. (Abu Da`ud). Similarly the Holy Prophet disapproved that feminine voices should enter the ears of men unnecessarily. In case of genuine need the Qur'an itself has allowed women to speak to men, and the Holy Prophet's wives themselves used to instruct people in religious matters. But where there is no necessity, nor any moral or religious objective, the women have been discouraged to let their voices be heard by men. Thus if the lmam happens to commit a mistake during a congregational prayer, and he is to be warned of the lapse, the men have been taught to say Subhan-Allah (Glory be to Allah), while the women have been instructed to tap their hands only. (Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, Tirmizi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah).
*48 "Turn towards Allah": Repent of the lapses and errors that you have been committing in this regard so far, and reform your conduct in accordance with the Commands given by Allah and His Prophet.

*49 It would be useful to give here a resume of the other reforms which the Holy Prophet introduced in the Islamic society after the revelation of these Commandments.
(1) He prohibited the other men (even if they are relatives) to see a woman in privacy or sit with her in the absence of her mahram relatives. Hadrat Jabir bin 'Abdullah has reported that the Holy Prophet said: "Do not visit the women whose husbands are away from home, because Satan circulates in one of you like blood." (Tirmizi). According to another Tradition from Hadrat Jabir, the Holy Prophet said: "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should never visit a woman when alone unless she has a mahram relative also present, because the third one would be Satan. " (Ahmad). Imam Ahmad has quoted another Tradition from `Amir bin Rabi'ah to the same effect. The Holy Prophet himself was extremely cautious in this regard Once when he was accompanying his wife Hadrat Safiyyah to her Douse at night, two men of Ansar passed by them on the way. The Holy Prophet stopped them and said: "The woman with me is my wife Safiyyah." They said: "Glory be to Allah! O Messenger of AIlah, could there be any suspicion about you?" The Holy Prophet said: "Satan circulates like blood in the human body; I was afraid lest he should put an evil thought in your minds." (Abu Da'ud).
(2) The Holy Prophet did not approve that a man's hand should even touch the body of a non-mahram woman. That is why while administering the oath of allegiance, he would take the hand of the men into his own hand, but he never adopted this procedure in the case of women. Hadrat 'A'ishah has stated that the Holy Prophet never touched the body of any other woman. He would administer the oath verbally to them; when this was done, he would say: "You may go, Your allegiance is complete." (Abu Da'ud).
(3) He strictly prohibited the woman from proceeding on a journey alone without a mahram or in company with a non-mahram. A Tradition from Ibn 'Abbas has been quoted in Bukhari and Muslim saying that the Holy Prophet gave a sermon and said: "No man should visit the other woman when she is alone unless she has a mahram also present, and no woman should travel alone unless accompanied by a mahram. " A man stood up and said:"My wife is going for Hajj, while I am under orders to join a certain expedition." The Holy Prophet said: "You may go for Hajj with your wife. " Severalother Traditions on the subject, emanating from Ibn 'Umar, Abu Said Khudri and Abu Hurairah, are found in authentic books of Traditions, which concur that it is not permissible for a Muslim woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day that she should go on a journey without a mahram. There is, however, a variation with regard to the duration and the length of the journey. Some Traditions lay down the minimum limit as 12 miles and some lay down the duration as one day, a day and night, two days or even three days. This variation, however, neither renders the Traditions unauthentic nor makes it necessary that we should accept one version as legally binding in preference to others. For a plausible explanation for the different versions could be that the Holy Prophet gave different instructions at different occasions depending on the circumstances and merit of each case. For instance, a woman going on a three-day journey might have been prohibited from proceeding without a mahram, while another going on a day's journey might also have been similarly prohibited. Here the real thing is not the different instructions to the different people in different situations, but the principle that a woman should not go on a journey without a mahram as laid down in the Tradition quoted above from lbn 'Abbas.
(4) He .not only took practical measures to stop free mixing of the sexes together but prohibited it verbally as well. Everyone knows the great importance of the congregational and the Friday prayers in Islam. The Friday Prayer has been made obligatory by AIIah Himself; the importance of the congregational prayer can be judged from a Tradition of the Holy Prophet, which says: "If a person does not attend the mosque without a genuine reason and offers his prayer at home, it will not be acceptable to AIIah." (Abu Da'ud, Ibn Majah, Daraqutni, Hakim on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas).But in spite of this, the Holy Prophet exempted the women from compulsory attendance at the Friday Prayer. (Abu Da'ud, Daraqutni, Baihaqi). As for the other congregational prayers, he made the women's attendance optional, saying: "Do not stop them if they want to come to the mosque." Then at the same time, he made the clarification that it was better forthem to pray in their houses than in the mosques. According to Ibn 'Umar and Abu Hurairah, the Holy Prophet said: "Do not prohibit the bondmaids of Allah from coming to the mosques of AIIah." (Abu Da'ud). Other Traditions from Ibn 'Umar are to the effect: "Permit the women to come to themosques at night." (Bukhari, Muslim, Trimizi, Nasa'i, Abu Da'ud). And: "Do not stop your women-folk from coming to the mosques though their houses are better for them than the mosques." (Ahmad, Abu Da'ud). Umm Humaid Sa'idiyyah states that once she said to the Holy Prophet, "O Messenger of Allah, I have a great desire to offer my prayer under your leadership." He replied: "Your offering the prayer in your room is better than your offering it in the verandah, and your offering the prayer in your house is better Bran your offering it in the neighbouring mosque, and your offering the prayer in the neighbouring mosque is better than offering it in the principal mosque (of the town)." (Ahmad, Tabarani). A Tradition to the same effect has been reported from 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud in Abu Da'ud. According to Hadrat Umm Salamah, the Holy Prophet said: "The best mosques for women are the innermost portions of their houses." (Ahmad, Tabarani). But when Hadrat 'A'ishah saw the conditions that prevailed in the time of the Umayyads, she said: "If the Holy Prophet had witnessed such conduct of the women, he would certainly have stopped their entry into the mosques as was done in the case of the Israelite women," (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Da'ud). The Holy Prophet had appointed a separate door in his Mosque for the entry of women, and Hadrat 'Umar in his time had given strict orders prohibiting men to use that door. (Abu Da'ud). In the congregational prayers the women were instructed to stand separately behind the men; at the conclusion of the prayer, the Holy Prophet and his followers used to remain sitting for a while so that the women could leave the mosque before the men. (Ahmad, Bukhari). The Holy Prophet would say: "The best row for the men is the front row and the worst the last one (nearest to the women's row); and the best row for the women is the rearmost row And the worst the front one (just behind the men's). (Muslim, Abu Da'ud, Tirmizi Nasa'i, A hmad). The women joined the 'Id congregational prayers but they had a separate enclosure from men. After the sermon the Holy Prophet used to address them separately (Abu Da'ud, Bukhari, Muslim). Once outside the Mosque the Holy Prophet saw the men and women moving side by side in the crowd. He stopped the women and said: It is not proper for you to walk in the middle of the road; walk on the sides." On hearing this the women immediately started walking along the walls. (Abu Da'ud). AII these Commandments clearly show that mixed gatherings of the men and women are wholly alien to the temper of Islam. It cannot therefore be imagined that Divine Law which disallows the men and women to stand side by side for prayers in the sacred houses of AIIah, would allow them to mix together freely in colleges, offices, clubs and other gatherings.
(5) He permitted the women to make modest use of the make-ups, even instructedthem to do so, but strictly forbade its overdoing. Of the various types of make-up and decoration that were prevalent among the Arab women in those days, he declared the following as accursed and destructive of communities:
(a) To add extra hair to one's own artificially with a view to make them appear longer and thicker.
(b) To tattoo various parts of the body and produce artificial moles.
(c) To pluck hair from the eyebrows to give them a special shape, or to pluck hair from the face to give it a cleaner look.
(d) To rub the teeth to make them sharp or to produce artificial holes in them.
(e) To rub the face with saffron or other cosmetic to produce an artificial complexion.
These instructions have been reported in Sihah Sitta and in Musnad Ahmad on the authority of Hadrat `A'ishah, Asma' bint Abu Bakr, Hadrat 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, 'Abdullah bin `Umar, 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas and Amir Mu'awiyah through reliable narrators.
After having the knowledge of these clear Commandments froth Allah and His Prophet, a Muslim has only two courses open before him. Either he should follow these Commandments practically and purify himself, his family life and the society at large of the moral evils for the eradication of which Allah and His Prophet have given such detailed Commandments, or if due to some weakness he violates one or more of these Commandments, he should at least realize that he is committing a sin, and regard it as such, and should abstain from labelling it as a virtue by misinterpretation. Apart from these alternatives, the people who adopt the Western, ways of life against the clear injunctions of the Qur'an and Sunnah, and then try their utmost to prove them Islam itself, and openly claim that there is no such thing as purdah in Islam, not only commit the sin of disobedience but also display ignorance and hypocritical obstinacy. Such an attitude can neither be commended by any right-thinking person in this world, nor can it merit favour with Allah in the Hereafter. But among the Muslims there exists a section of modern hypocrites who are so advanced in their hypocrisy that they repudiate the Divine injunctions as false and believe those ways of life to be right and based on truth, which they have borrowed from the non-Muslim communities. Such people are not Muslims at aII, for if they still be Muslims, the words 'lslam' and 'unIslam' lose aII their meaning and significance. Had they changed their lslamic names and publicly declared their desertion of lslam, we would at least have been convinced of their moral courage. But in spite of their wrong attitudes, these people continue to pose themselves as Muslim. There is perhaps no meaner class of people in the world. People with such character and morality cannot be unexpected to indulge in any forgery, fraud, deception or dishonesty. 

 

From: farida_majid@hotmail.com
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:33:11 -0400

            In reaching your conclusion you have exercised infinite wisdom, O you resider on Exalted Rich Arab Land!
You are a far better MUSLIM than any of us in 'dirt poor' Bangladesh. We are muslims of 'yaumu thalathah' or
cheap, third-class, 3-day muslims. We are made of stinking  clay -- sedemented by muddy, now clogged up
rivers flowing in to the Bay of Bengal --and you are made of pure fire!
 
               If burqa cannot be forced upon women what would remain of civilization? NOTHING! 
Absolutely nothing! Didn't the most Excellent 'Moulana' Abul 'Ala Mooududi say that all female
human beings ane sex objects for Muslim men to grab and enjoy, including schoolgirls?
 
                Female human beings are not to be considered Allah-created unless they are made
to be personal properties of (or enslaved by) male Muslims.

 

To: alochona@yahoogroups.com; chottala@yahoogroups.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com
From: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:03:27 -0400
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court

 
So School Dress also can not be forced - this is my conclusion.
 

To: alochona@yahoogroups.com; chottala@yahoogroups.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com
From: truely-yours@email.com
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 19:37:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court

 
Why BBC published same news once again?
 
 
BBC News 
 
4 October 2010 Last updated at 11:53 ET
Women in Bangladesh
The court ruled that Bangladesh was predominantly a secular country
 
 
The High Court of Bangladesh has ruled that no-one can be forced to wear the burka, or full Islamic headdress.
This follows a similar but more limited ruling in August that women could not be forced to wear the burka at work or in schools or colleges.
 
Correspondents say the move is the latest sign of the judiciary's support for the government's attempts to pursue a more secular agenda.
 
The governing Awami League prides itself on its secular credentials.
 
It says that it wants to challenge the power of Islamic conservatives.
 
The court ruled that "secularism is one of the four principles of the constitution... and no-one can be forced to wear religious attire in the secular state".


-------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ANDREWL <turkman@sbcglobal.net>
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 4, 2010 4:33 am
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court

 
You mean, you did not write, "Those who want to be "Practicing Muslims" need to observe hijab [ Source: Al Qur'an 24:30-31]".
.
The Question is, why are you lying?
Where the hell this Verse says, what you wrote if you have not mis-interpreted it?
You must think, I do not know Arabic and am just like you believing in whatever my Mollaa says.
If you are right, tell me, why our Prophet's own Wives and Daughters did not cover their faces or wore a Borqaa?
Who the hell are you trying to fool here?

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, qrahman@... wrote:
>
>
> Please explain what do you mean by "Big pagri Mollah of yours"? Did I ever promoted any "Big pagri" mollahs in any of my mails? For your information I am from Bangladesh, I am worried about my country. You need to go to an Indian forum or Pakistani forum if you have anything to say to them or wanna ask them about their Supreme court.
>
> The translations were not mine and anytime I say anything from the Qur'an, I offered source (verse and chapter) and most of the time give web links to them as well. I have NOT done any "mis-translation" here. Actually I have not done ANY translation at all. Only quoted most popular translations of the Qur'an.
>
> I do not think you need to get personal with any of our discussions. If my point of view or part of the Qur'an is not your "Cup of tea", you need not to answer.
>
> You need to POINT OUT where did I "Mis-translated or mis-interpreted" the Qur'an. Otherwise need not to slander anyone without any solid proof.
>
> Fact is your uncivilized post ( With imaginary accusations) does not change who I am. But it says a whole lot about who you are.
>
>
> Shalom!
>
> --qr
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ANDREWL <turkman@...>
> To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 1:01 pm
> Subject: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court
>
>
>
>
>
> grahman wrote: " ... we need to understand that men or women should NOT be forced to go against religion either ...".
> .
> TURKMAN: But we need to understand that men or women are NOT being forced to go against religion either. We are going against "FORCING" them to follow something that is not a part of Religion because nowhere in Qoraan, Allah had said to wear a Borqa. Our Prohet's own wives never wore it because it was not even invented. All his wives never hid their faces either. If its a part of Islam, why all those big Pagri Mollaas of yours could not prove this case in Indian Supreme Court?
> Why they lost this case?
> Because your mis-translations and mis-interpretations of Qoraan and HaDees did not work there. There were Arabic Speaking Moslim Olma, who said opposite of what you Mollaas were saying.
> Stop your B.S. sir ...!
>
> --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, qrahman@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > The link did not bring any web page. Like you I do not think one should be force to follow any specific religion ( Islam or otherwise). Having said that, we need to understand that men or women should NOT be forced to go against religion either (Like the previous military regime in Turkey). Turkey,UAE and Malaysia are good role models we can follow when we talk about religion. All citizens of those countries have freedom to follow or not follow any particular religion.
> >
> > As far as burqa is concern, most scholars of Islam says covering face is NOT mandatory in Islam. However almost all prominent scholars of Islam says "hijab" is required by Islam. Those who want to be "Practicing Muslims" need to observe hijab [ Source: Al Qur'an 24:30-31] for modesty (Certain rules applies for men as well). The first command about hijab was directed towards men. Albeit we generally think it is only at women, men needs to follow hijab [ etiquette] as well.
> >
> > Please click here to get answers to frequently asked questions on this topic. [ Source: http://www.islam101.com/women/hijabfaq.html]
> >
> > For related information, please click here.
> >
> > As I said multiple times before, Islam (Or any other ideology) should not be forced but it is also important for Muslims to have clear understanding of their own religion.
> >
> > Shalom.
> >
> > --qr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@>
> > To: Alochona Alochona <alochona@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, Aug 31, 2010 4:05 am
> > Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Many people think that secularism is a grey (as opposed to the 'black' of the burqa) burlap sack that you can whack over a person's head.
> >
> > A black burqa is a very good thing for Muslims, they say.
> > It can put a ink-blot over the person's existence and obliterate the person's humanity. That is supposedly a very Islamic thing to do,
> > though there is no Qur'anic injunction or dress-code for the purpose of blotting out the humanity of a person.
> >
> > This grey burlap sack called secularism, they say, is an evil thing that can be 'imposed' and can make you look like
> > the devil incarnate otherwise known as Hindu. This sack is rumored to be outfitted with a devilish mechanism
> > that can make the whole religion of Islam disappear from the realm in a twinkle of an eye!
> >
> > They also say that this devil incarnate Hindu should be eliminated from the land by any means. The means
> > may take the form of mass murder but if that is what it takes to do the job there should not be any hesitation .
> > Anybody showing tendencies like a Hindu should be eliminated. This Hindu Hasina should take heed. Her father was wiped out.
> > "Did not hindu hasina learned anything from her Father"?
> >
> > Did not hindu hasina learned anything from her Father?
> >
> > However, the people who speak in the above language have not been able to provide a sample of the grey burlap sack
> > called secularism that can be 'imposed' over people's head and that can make Islam disappear in a twinkle of an eye.
> >
> > Until they do, we have the Holy Qur'an to turn to for guidance, solace and fortitude. In this holy month of Ramadan,
> > time for penance and self-purification, we should recognize that the above talk is itself a kind of 'covering' or clothing
> > or 'lebas'. And the Qur'an warns us to be wary of these attempts at falsehoods:
> >
> > "Wa la talbisu al Huqqa bi-l batili wa taktumoo ul Huqqa wa antum taAlamuna" 2:42.
> > (And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor coceal the Truth when ye know whar it is)
> >
> > For those who want be sure that there is no Qur'anic mandate for women to wear the burqa or the hijab,
> > please read the following article which was published in the Daily Star, and then archived by the Islamic
> > Reasearch Foundation Information.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Fashioning lies, veiling the truth
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Farida Majid As the hijab issue heats up in France and Germany, and the psychological pressure and the brainwashing of women intensifies all over the Muslim world, the feverish ...
> >
> > irfi.org/articles/articles_201_250/fashioning_lies.htm · Cached page
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> > From: qrahman@
> > Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:38:27 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court
> >
> >
> >
> > I think burqa should not be forced but the new law does not have some "Common sense" exceptions. For Islamic institutions "Islamic" dress should be enforced (That may include Burqa if the local community feels right about it). Albeit there are difference of opinion among scholars if Burqa is mandatory in Islam or not. Most scholars think "Hijab" covers Islamic requirements for women.
> >
> > While I agree Burqa should not be forced but secularism should not be forced on our people either. Maybe experts should be looking into the verdict more to ensure some "Activist" judges going overboard or not. There are some concerns from liberal groups about civil rights in another ruling regarding Shaheed minar.
> >
> > Personally I feel that, God created us as "FREE" men and women and gave us freedom to obey or disobey Him. Therefore, we should encourage honest and open discussions/debates about religion. Blaming everything Islamic TODAY for what some Jamaat-e-Islami leaders did 40 years ago does not seem fair or logical to me.
> >
> > Peace.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mo Assghar <moassghar@>
> > To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, Aug 24, 2010 9:02 am
> > Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But Secularism can be forced? Give me a break!!
> >
> > Did not hindu hasina learned anything from her Father?
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 8/23/10, Isha Khan <bdmailer@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@>
> > Subject: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court
> > To:
> > Date: Monday, August 23, 2010, 2:36 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Burqa can't be forced: High Court
> >
> >
> > The court also ordered relevant officials to explain why forcing girls to wear burqa (veil) and keeping them out of sports and cultural activities were illegal.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dhaka, Aug 22 (bdnews24.com)â€"The High Court has ruled that no women can be forced to wear burqa at work and educational institutions. In it's ruling The High Court on Sunday in a suo moto order directed the government to ensure that no women were forced to wear veil or religious dress in the educational institutions and offices.
> >
> > The court also ordered the government to ensure that the cultural activities and sports in the educational institutions are not restricted.The orders came in the wake of a public interest petition filed by Supreme Court lawyers Mahbub Shafi and A K M Hafizul Alam on Sunday. The bench of justices A H M Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Sheikh Mohammad Zakir Hossain also ruled that they cannot be barred from taking to culture and sports
> >
> > The court also ordered relevant officials to explain why forcing girls to wear burqa (veil) and keeping them out of sports and cultural activities were illegal.
> >
> > The A Bengali daily news item said that principal of the college in Natore ( Northern Bangladesh ) has stopped any cultural activities and sports at the college and forced female students to wear Borka or veil in the college.The HC also directed principal of the college Mozammel Haque to appear before the HC bench on August 26 to explain the matter.
> >
> > It also issued a rule upon the government to explain why imposition of restriction on cultural activities and sports in the educational institutions and offices and forcing the female students to wear veil should not be declared illegal.
> >
> > Secretaries to the ministries of home, education, social welfare and women affair and principal Mozammel Haque has been made respondent to the rule and orderThe education, home, social welfare, and women and children affairs secretaries and principal of Rani Bhabani Mohila College Mozammel Huq were asked to reply to ruling. Following a brief hearing, the court also asked the principal to appear before it on Aug 26.
> >
> > The lawyers in their petition on Sunday cited a report carried by a Bengali newspaper the same day headlined, 'Burqa mandatory at Rani Bhabani Mohila College'. The lawyers stated such enforcement was discriminatory.
> >
> > http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=332264
> >
>







__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___