Banner Advertiser

Friday, April 29, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Hindi elo deshey....



Hindi elo deshey....



http://www.dailykalerkantho.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Cricket&pub_no=440&cat_id=3&menu_id=77&news_type_id=1&index=3&archiev=yes&arch_date=23-02-2011


__._,_.___


[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] Role of Television in Social Engineering, Predictive Programming, Culture Creation and Destruction of Children and Society



The Role of Television in Social Engineering, Predictive Programming, Culture Creation and Destruction of Children and Society

This article is based upon something stated by the Permanent Committee for Research and Verdicts in their fatwa no. 893 (Shaykh Abdullaah al-Ghudayan, Shaykh Abdullah al-Manee', Shaykh Abdur-Razzaaq al-Afeefee), in relation to the call of a faction amongst mankind intent on moral and social degradation (and we will deal with that faction in separate articles inshaa'Allaah):

ولكنها في حقيقتها ودخيلة أمرها دعوة إلى الإباحية والانحلال وعوامل هرج ومرج وتفكك في المجتمعات ، وانفصام لعرى الأمم ومعاول هدم وتقويض لصرح الشرائع ومكارم الأخلاق وإفساد وتخريب العمران

...But it is in its reality and in its interior a call to permissiveness, to decay and (to) factors of turmoil, and disintegration in societies, and to the splitting of the handholds of nations and to the destructive, subversive annihilation of the edifice of legal injunctions and noble characteristics (morals) and the corruption and destruction of civilization (culture)...

Before continuing, it is our hope that as a Muslim, you already recognize the television for what it is and have disposed of it (if you had one to begin with). You've realized that what is delivered through the television is mostly propaganda, marketing, culture and value modification and brainwashing, and legally, TV Networks are under no obligation to tell the truth, because they are privately owned - and what you see through your television is decided by people whose values are more or less entirely in opposition to yours. If you've realized this much, congratulations, you've got your head on right, and this information will not really apply to you. If you are a Muslim who has a television in your house, we advise you for the sake of Allaah that you get rid of your television, and that you do not give away your children to "television foster-care" because all you are doing is destroying their lives, socially, morally and psychologically, whilst being deceived into thinking you are providing them "entertainment". For your information, very large numbers of well-informed, and conscientious non-Muslims are recognizing the corruption and sham that is television, its evil effects on themselves and the children and are getting rid of it from their houses.

First a quick note on what is referred to as "predictive programming":

When you want to bring about social change, it is easier to familiarize the target audience with the desired change but in a non-direct way. This is done mainly through movies, sitcoms and music, in other words through the backdoor of "entertainment". Through entertainment you familiarize people with a certain social norm, or agenda, because it's weaved into the plot, and because this is entertainment, you've already got the audience to subconsciously accept it. This is a very powerful technique. In this manner you can make anything a social norm, fornication, adultery, even incest, robbery, violence and so on, you can make them all justifiable simply by presenting it through a carefully crafted plot or story line, and by casting the right character(s). If you think that you are receiving "entertainment" through the box, you are mistaken. You are receiving "social engineering" (the alteration of morals, attitudes, values) disguised as entertainment and its not as innocent as you may think it is - all the social evils and moral degradation don't come out of thin air, they have reasons, causes and they have to be coming from somewhere.

As for "culture creation":

True culture always come from the ground up, it always starts with the people in the society, and then it grows and spreads and becomes the accepted custom and way, and it binds that society together for generations to come, if not hundreds or even thousands of years. In the modern age, all culture is created artificially. It is forced from top down, and it is a fake contrived culture. In history, true culture (grass roots upwards) has bonded people and societies and kept them together. In the 20th century, the fake contrived culture which continues to be pushed through movies, music, novels is used to destroy societies and families. So this is what we mean by "culture creation". You create a fake contrived culture and export it to the rest of the world, and through this fake culture achieve socialist goals. You can tear apart the family bonds (husband-wife, parent-child relationships) and degrade all morals, you can promote cultures of violence, greed, selfish individuality and so on. So culture creation is extremely powerful and it is delivered through the television.

So we ought to be aware of "predictive programming" and "culture creation" because it is all around us and its a false reality through which nations and societies at the family unit level are brainwashed and through which your children are given a culture, perception and way of thinking some of which is now going to be described to you...

Brief Overview of the Role of Television in Destroying Children, the Family and Society

We will mention some major aspects here:

Sexualization of Children From the Earliest Age Possible:

Amongst the roles of television is to bring children into contact with sex from the earliest age possible. These people know from decades of research that sexual encounters and activity from an early age leads to the inability to create and maintain long-lasting, meaningful relationships in later life. In other words it demolishes "bonding". For this reason you see the increased sexualization of children through television programming, and this includes cartoons and films along with music. It is proven that there are subliminal messages hidden in cartoons aimed at stimulating the interest in sex. Music stars specifically are chosen from a very early age, and groomed and prepared to become mega-famous pop-stars which children (out of their human nature) will idolize take as role models. The lifestyles of these people are then given prominence through the TV and these people change partners every year and have morally degraded lifestyles. This makes pop-stars in particular the ideal route to pushing socialist agendas, and every genre will have its "pop-star" who is simply a pawn in the game, used to impart a certain social norm. This very early contact with sex leads to children having experienced, physically and emotionally - by the time they are only 13 or 14 or even younger - what in a normal society, an adult would not have experience well into their 40s. Thus, having got bored of life by the time they are only 14 or thereabouts or younger still, these children end up depressed, sick of life, with no direction and no purpose, and the only thing driving them on is the pursuit of more and more excitement and pleasure. In schools, children from the age of seven (yes, seven!) are now being shown cartoons of explicit sexual encounters as part of their "sex education". As we said earlier, all the research shows that sexual activity and promiscuity at an early age destroys the ability to form long-term "bonding" in later life.

Destroying the Differentiation Between the Feminine and Masculine - Gender Confusion:

Amongst the ways in which children are being socially engineered is the continued blurring of issues of gender difference. Television is simply one of the mediums of delivery for this and fashion, music, films, and socialist think-tanks who push policies in countries drive this obfuscation. Cartoons, children's programs sitcoms and movies (all "entertainment") are used to blur and confuse the clear differences between male and female identities (masculinity and femininity) which have always been clearly defined in all cultures and civilizations for thousands of years, and which have worked harmoniously and perfectly well to provide long-term meaningful relationships and stable societies. Children will make up the society in a couple of decades time, and thus they are the ideal and perfect targets for destroying the proper types of "bondings" for building stable family units, that are the foundation for the fabric of social morals.

Instilling Hatred Towards Parents or Total Independence From Them:

This is very prominent, and is a major aspect of the social engineering for which television is a delivery mechanism. What is put out by major movie production centers and through certain genres of music are replete with particular themes that disdain parents. The children that develop the best and are most stable are those who have regular contact with people of different ages, they are not cocooned and do not develop a warped and segmented picture of reality, and these children always tend to hold on to family values and the types of "bonding" that hold society together. By breaking contact and "bonding" with parents, or older generations, let alone being brainwashed into resenting and hating them, the society loses its cohesion over a few generations and the young are out of touch with the old and so whatever morals the old had do not get passed down to the young. In all the famous and popular cartoons targeted to children (the Disney films) from the early 20th century onwards, you will see that generally they follow a formula. This is a scientific formula worked to perfection. In most of these cartoons the main character is always separated from his or her family, and is usually cast as an orphan. Thus, disassociation with the parents (or mainly the mother) is a prominent feature in many story lines. The mother may often be presented as evil, oppressive, or you may have the "evil stepmother". Motherhood is made to be absent. They usually have a very tragic, extremely traumatic incident occurring at the beginning. Usually this is the loss of both parents or just one in a very brutal or unkind way. The scenes are deliberately made extremely intense and traumatic. When kids watch this stuff it really does traumatize them. In that traumatized, emotionally disturbed state, it becomes easy to impart values and messages through whatever follows in the rest of the film or cartoon. The children identify with the main character and subconsciously impose themselves upon that character or within the character's context. Then whatever the character experiences and goes through is soaked up by the subconscious of the (traumatized) child who is watching. This really is a subject in itself, but let us say loud and clear that if you think these are just innocent cartoons for children, you are dead, dead wrong. These are cartoons based upon scientific formulas devised after much experimentation and research.

Creating Perception of Parents as "Criminals Under Assumption" and Parents as a Grave Danger to Their Children

This occurs through the television as well as other ways and means. Child abuse does take place, however, rare, isolated, extreme cases are used as part of perception change and management which leads to all parents being assumed to be criminals and a serious threat to their children. This is weaved into sitcoms and movies and through the coverage given it leads to a climate in which child abuse is assumed to be going on in every household, and through which children are nurtured to be suspicious of their parents. We see that what actually constitutes abuse is very broadly defined, and the television is used to alter and distort the true parent-child relationship (through cartoons, films and so on) from one of trust, confidence, love, care and so on (which is the case overwhelmingly in the majority of all households), to one of mistrust, abuse, hatred and so on (which is pushed as being the standard assumption).

Familiarization and Introduction to Magic and the Occult (Avenue to Satan and the Jinn)

This really is a lengthy article on its own, but its worthy of mention here. The television, as well as stories, are used as the means of delivery for the change in perception of young children towards magic and the occult. It's treated as a fun and exciting indulgence, and its normalized and made part of life. If you are not doing it, you are boring. If you are not reading Harry Potter, you've got a mental problem and you've got a sad life. This is the type of perception change that is brought about and its been going on for decades with the casting of witches, magicians and sorcerers, young and old in a particular way. Magic is the use of devils to effect results, and the devils never obey humans unless the human performs what is disbelief, and desecration of the religion, of revelation, of prophethood. The breaking down of this barrier and luring children towards magic and the occult allows them to be open to the influence magic. This is not the place to digress, but most movies and music (coming from the likes of Hollywood, Disney and the record labels) contain the symbology of qabbalistic, occultic magic. They put spells within and upon the music, and we have this acknowledgement on audio from those formerly amongst the highest authorities within the industry. More on this in separate articles.

Dumbing Down and Reduction of Intelligence

One of the major roles of television is the reduction in intelligence, blocking the ability to think critically and question and evaluate critically, and acquire objective factual knowledge. One of the main reasons outlined by those elitist socialist bigots in their books is that we are now in the post-industrialist era. Amazing efficiency and automation and so on has moved us out of the industrialist era. Most sciences and knowledge in all disciplines have been refined and perfected. Society does not need large numbers of thinkers, intellectuals, or those who can think critically. We just need manageable people who can be trained (in industry and science) to think and work upon protocols and routines that have already been perfected. So intelligence and critical thinking is not as important anymore. For this objective, movies, sitcoms, music, cartoons are all the means of delivery, and we also see it in education where there is a shift from the teaching of objective facts to what they call outcome based education which is simply the alteration of attitudes, perceptions and morals, it's social engineering again. Focus is given to "feelings" and "attitudes" (i.e. hawaa) rather than the exercising of judgment through objective facts (i.e. aql). Here, read the words of one of those elitist, self-righteous communist, socialist bigots, Aldous Huxley, in his book "The Devils of Loudun" (1952) he writes concerning music and singing,

If exposed long enough to the tomtoms and the singing, every one of our philosophers would end by capering and howling with savages. Assemble a mob of men and women, treat them to amplified band music, bright lights, and in next to no time you can reduce them to a state of almost mindless subhumanity. Never before have so few been in a position to make fools, maniacs, or criminals of so many.

Now he is talking about "philosophers", he means educated refined people, let alone the average person or child! The constant blazing of mindless insanity, music, stupid lyrics, and chants, and aggrandizing of stupid characters (in movies, cartoons) and all the other senseless filth neutralizes the ability of children to harness the mind for critical thinking. They adopt ways of thinking, slogans, chants that render them nothing short of idiots. Around 50 or 60 years ago when this type of social engineering had not taken effect on a mass scale, if a child behaved in a certain way he would be called an "idiot" and it was normal to refer to certain children as "idiots", because there were norms and standards and values. Today, by the same standards, if you told a parent "You have an idiot-child" they would become offended. As for reduction in intellect, go and take a look at standard exam papers for 14 year olds in English, or History, or Maths from 100 years ago (if you can find them) and compare them with today's exam papers. A 40 year old with a university education to his or her credit would struggle to answer those questions.

Summary

We can summarize some of the main outcomes of this type of programming of children, so here are some of the main messages communicated to children in varying layers of subtlety through the television (music, films, programs, sitcoms):

As you can see, in all of this is nothing but destruction of the society, and you see in all the Western developed nations the breakdown in society and overall reduction in their populations because society is degraded, corroded and no one is having kids at a rate that is maintaining the population (amongst the indigenous Western races and nations). Now, we have a lot more to say on television, social engineering and related subjects, however, we will close the article here and so as not to create any misunderstanding at this point, we should also clarify the following:

There are a lot of useful programs, documentaries and so on that can be useful aids in education whether that be in knowledge related to Islam (learning the Qur'an, Arabic and so on) or other types of knowledge such as Maths, or the Sciences or History and so on. We don't reject the use of recorded media, or the broadcasting of media, in a controlled way, to bring about the teaching of objective facts (as opposed to attitude formation and social engineering which is the prime purpose of television).

The Muslim scholars have alluded to this, such as Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahullaah) who stated that 99% of what is found on the television is moral degradation, sin and vice. So the benefit is negligible. And he explained that within the context of a righteous Muslim state, it is possible to provide truly beneficial content to educate the Muslims (of their deen), and in this case the use of such a means would be fine. Other Scholars like Shaykh Ibn Baz (rahimahullaah) explained that it would be extremely difficult to use television for only good purposes, without comprising anything that is haraam, for the reason that censorship of what is haraam, given the great amount of broadcast media, would be impossible to achieve.

It's a Perfected Science, These People Know What They Are Doing

Here are some excerpts from an article on what is called the Sabido Methodology, its a way of bringing about social change through the use of characters in telenovels who are opposed to the desired social change, and then developing their character through the series until they eventually adapt to the desired social change.

The Sabido Method is a methodology for designing and producing serialized dramas on radio and television that can win over audiences while imparting prosocial values...

All movies, sitcoms, dramas, and even music, are very carefully thought out with a very specific objective in mind, and there are formulas, scientifically perfected, that exist for bringing about attitude formation and social engineering.

Named after the pioneer in application of this entertainment-education strategy, Miguel Sabido, the Sabido Method is based on character development and plot lines that provide the audience with a range of characters that they can engage with - some good, some not so good - and follow as they evolve and change...

Change is the key to the Sabido methodology. Characters may begin the series exhibiting the antithesis of the values being taught, but through interaction with other characters, twists and turns in the plot, and sometimes even outside intervention, come to see the value of the program's underlying message... This is of course the classic literary device of character growth, but Miguel Sabido developed the process in detail for television in a way that enabled it to tackle the most sensitive of subjects - sex, abortion, family planning, AIDS - in a non-threatening and even enlightening manner....

This article we are quoting from is written from the angle of showing the positive effects of this methodology being used in Mexico and on its population and literacy and so on. The point here though is to highlight the fact there are formulas that are worked to and which are extremely effective in bringing about change in perceptions and values, morals and manners, and that is what the population (who sit and watch for hours and hours on end) are subject to.

During the decade 1977 to 1986, when these Mexican soap operas were on the air, the country experienced a 34% decline in its population growth rate. As a result, in May 1986, the United Nations Population Prize was presented to Mexico as the foremost population success story in the world.

They promoted "family planning" through these "telenovels", and they viewed it as a success for Mexico. The point here is that when you see the power behind such methods, you can see how very easily an entire society's opinions, attitudes, values, morals and so on can be directed in whatever way desired. So now you have seen the "programming" at work, and they have known this stuff from the days before television, in radio broadcasts, through to the big-screen, before the days when television became mainstream and in all homes. So this is what television is primarily used for, it is "social engineering through entertainment", not mere entertainment. And finally here is another quote from a prominent media expert and consultant called Hal Becker who said close to 30 years ago:

I know the secret of making the average American believe anything I want him to. Just let me control television.... You put something on the television and it becomes reality. If the world outside the TV set contradicts the images, people start trying to change the world to make it like the TV set images....

http://www.dajjaal.com/liar/articles/xsxpr-the-role-of-television-in-social-engineering-predictive-programming-and-destruction-of-children-and-society.cfm



__._,_.___


[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] Rights groups decry Sahara comments



Rights groups decry Sahara comments


Rights defenders on Friday came down heavily on home minister Sahara Khatun for her remarks that she had nothing to do with the Limon Hossain case as it was now for the court to decide the matter.The rights activists termed the comments 'highly irresponsible' and 'sheer disrespect for rule of law.

Sahara Khatun on Thursday told newsmen, 'The government has nothing to do with the Limon case at this stage, as it is now for the court to decide the matter.'

'The police have pressed a charge sheet against him after an investigation. Now the court will decide the case,' she said although the director general of Rapid Action Battalion on April 11 had said Limon was innocent and he might have been a victim of a shootout between gangsters and the battalion.Limon was shot in the leg by RAB in Jhalakati in April and had to be amputated.

The National Human Rights Commission chairman, Mizanur Rahman, who had called for proper investigation of the Limon incident, said that the home minister could in no way avoid its responsibility in ensuring a fair investigation into the shooting of the college student.He said that the commission would go for a legal battle to defend Limon by appointing a lawyer to uphold justice.'It would be a test for the court to ensure a fair trial. The commission on Thursday applied for enlisting its name in favour of the case filed by Limon's mother,' he said.  

Ain O Salish Kendra executive director Sultana Kamal, also newly elected chairman of Transparency International Bangladesh chapter, said the police had hurriedly submitted a charge sheet to conceal its mistakes.She urged the government to compensate Limon's family by admitting the mistakes as  the RAB director general had said Limon was accidentally hit by a bullet during a 'shootout' between the battalion and gangsters in Jhalakati.

She said the home minister's statement was unacceptable and wondered how she (Sahara Khatun) could make such irresponsible remarks.Jurist Sara Hossain said the minister's comments reflected her 'sheer disrespect' for rule of law. 'Such comments are a threat to rule of law,' she said.'Although other ministers are speaking for rule of law, the law enforcement agencies continue to ignore it,' she said.

Rights watchdog Odhikar secretary Adilur Rahman Khan said the home minister had tried to avoid her responsibility by making such remarks.He said that the police had submitted a charge sheet in connection with the case filed by the RAB in a bid to block a fair investigation of the case recorded by police 16 days after the court order.'The role of home minister proves that the government is failing to protect the rights of citizens,' he said.

An adviser to a past caretaker government, ASM Shajahan, told New Age that he thought that the home minister had made the statement considering all aspects of the incident.He suggested that the case filed by Limon's mother should be transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department for a fair investigation.'The home ministry should hand over the case to CID for a credible investigation,' he said.

Information commissioner Sadeka Halim told New Age that the government should investigate all allegations of human rights violations against RAB personnel.She also said that the charge sheet submitted by the police implicating Limon in the case filed by RAB before the investigation of another case filed by Limon's mother would raise questions.'The battalion so far found no evidence of his [Limon] involvement in crimes. He just fell "victim" during a "shootout" between the cohorts of local gangster Morshed Jomadder and a team of the battalion,' The RAB chief told a briefing at its headquarters on April 11.He said that a team of RAB-8 had gone to village Saturia in Jhalakati to arrest Morshed, who was sentenced to 90 years of imprisonment in different criminal cases.

'RAB-8 had conducted an investigation which described Limon as a criminal. As questions were raised by different quarters about the investigation, RAB headquarters launched a fresh inquiry into the incident. Besides, another committee led by a magistrate is also investigating the incident,' said the RAB DG.

On April 26, the Rajapur police in Jhalakati registered the case against six RAB personnel on charges of shooting the college student.The police registered the case after the district and sessions judge, Faruk Ahmed, on April 26 rejected a petition filed by the police seeking a review of the order passed by the judicial magistrate asking the police to record in 48 hours the case, filed by Liomn's mother Henoara Begum on April 10.

Henoara filed the case with the Jhalakati court accusing six battalion personnel of shooting her son without caring about verifying his identity on March 23 when he was taking cows for grazing at Saturia of Rajapur in the district.The police on Wednesday submitted the charge sheet against eight people, including Limon Hossain.

Charges were pressed against them in the case filed by the battalion under the Arms Act 1878 for the incident in which Limon was shot and maimed by the RAB.Limon received treatment at Sher-e-Bangla Medical College Hospital in Barisal about eight hours after the shooting and was referred to National Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Rehabilitation in the capital, where his left leg was amputated on March 27.

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/frontpage/17118.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] Burkha ban and its French Kiss



   I had written the following 2 yrs ago:

  

Call for a ban on Hijab is not the answer

 

            A knee-jerk reaction to Aqsa Pervez's tragic death in Mississauga, Canada, would be a gross dishonor to this young rebel and her free spirit.  Professor Taj Hashmi has made an impassioned plea calling for a ban on hijab in Canada.  The antidote to a stupid, inhuman and falsely constructed religious dictum is not another dictum that in turn can have multiple undesirable consequences.

            Hijab ban in Turkey has caused social disruptions, dysfunction at educational institutions and workplaces, and strengthened the resolve of the Islamists. The story is not dissimilar in France, a ban that I opposed at the time protesting against the claim that it was a "religious" symbol of the Muslims on the same par as the Star of David of the Jews. In Germany the hijab-ban for State teachers has served as a stick in the hands of old German racial supremacists. Now I hear Belgium has banned the hijab.

            I have always taken a stand against a State imposed ban on hijab or any other article of women's clothing for the simplest of reasons: Other than trends, local culture or "fashion" as she deems it, a woman needs no higher authority to dictate her in matters of clothing or the manner in which she dresses herself.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
              Before I answer today's impassioned arguments about 'conditioning of minds'  of women who wear hijab voluntarily, I would draw attention to my concern for politicization of the whole issue.  To which extent the modern societal pressure to wear a hijab as an elevated status-symbol is entirely patriarchal has not yet been fully psychoanalyzed.  The Islamist women peddling hijab are not a meek lot.  They have an agenda. To a political junkie like me, if it walks like and quacks like politics, then it is POLITICS.
 
            Any politics that involves a heady combination of women and religion is super-potent!  Look at the unabated and unabashed power of "Abortion Politics" in the U.S.A.!
 
          In Bangladesh the Supreme Court has made a recent rule against imposition of any dress-code, other than normal institutional identification 'uniform' types, against the wish and comfort of women. Nevertheless, dirty politics revolving around women and Islam is keeping the srteets heated with violent protests against the Govt. women's development policies.
 
          The blogger, Marvi Sirmed, wrote:
 
         Major disagreements exist on whether or not Burqa is an injunction of Quran. Even if it proves to be in the holy scriptures, it needs to be reviewed in the context of modern world where men are expected to have at least little hold on their libido, where women are not just sex objects whose unveiled presence in society would be dangerous for public morality.
              
         I totally agree with her sentiments, but I would not re-visit Abul 'ala Moududi's premise in order to express them.  But then, why blame Moududi alone?  I had hard time only the other day convincing an Indian Muslim Association leader who resides in Washington DC that women running around in the streets of Manhattan in Beach Volleyball outfits in the dead of winter is an impossibility and happens only in his lurid fantasy.
 
          The point I am anxious to make is that the "context of modern world" is far more complex than what Moududi had envisioned or women like Marvi Sirmed is imagining.  Patriarchy has updated its various political masks.  We have not figured out all the 'political' ways of dismantling them. Some of the old, sensible arguments need to be revitalized in order to be effective.
 
               Farida Majid



To: bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com; GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com; greenyouth@googlegroups.com
From: sukla.sen@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:14:29 +0530
Subject: [india-unity] Burqa got a befitting French kiss

 
http://www.sacw.net/article2015.html

Burqa got a befitting French kiss

by Marvi Sirmed Saturday 16 April 2011



From: LUBP

The burqa debate: "Burqa got a befitting French kiss"

Before reading this argument on recent Burqa-ban by France, you need to know who I am. Raised in an orthodox Muslim Deobandi family, I've been educated in Pakistan's Punjab where urban middle class used to be too sensitive about purdah in 1980s and 90s – the decades when I went to school and then university. Being first generation migrated out of the village in a big city, my father was a part of purdah sensitive educated middle class professional class. But my mother, raised and educated in a secular and Sufist Sindh, fought against Burqa throughout her life in order to save me from this 'curse' as she would put it.

Mom succeeded in this battle to the best of my luck and now no one expects her or me in Burqa or purdah in general. Despite being thoroughly religious, mildly ritualistic and overwhelmingly humanist in her viewpoint, I never saw he[r] observing strict purdah. She would cover her head, although, while meeting with my father's friends and serve them tea – a practice completely absent in my orthodox and backward paternal family. It's because of her struggle that the family elders were never able to impose either Burqa or hijab – or even a chaddar – on me. All they required of me was to cover my head with traditional dopatta when I stepped out of house. My honest confession: I often cheated on them by just wearing it in their presence. But seeing my aunts and grandmother, I kept wondering all through my childhood, how must it feel to be continually imprisoned in a horrible thing called Burqa.

It has been and is my biggest relief to be among people who are sane enough to be against this practice of subjugating women through veil. But finding so many friends and fellow rights' activists among those protesting France's ban on Burqa is shocking and disappointing both. The anti-ban crowd comprises a range of viewpoints – from ardent Islamic, to moderate, to new-age Islam, to seculars, to antitheists and so on. Most heard argument from almost all of them has been their unflinching 'concern' for women's choice and freedom to choose what they want to wear.

To me, this strong sounding argument remains flawed, inconsistent and self-contradictory. How could a choice to commit suicide be that widely accepted? If your suicidal tendency is the result of certain frame of mind, experiences in life, is self-destroying and criminal, so is Burqa. When the society conditions your mind to willingly get subjugated and considering yourself 'safe' by hiding behind the veil, how is it a 'free choice'? Most of the women passionately protesting the Burqa ban are heard saying they do it of their own free will because they feel safe. Well you can feel safe in Guantanamo Bay if you're conditioned to feel safe that way.

It is a slap on the face of a society where a woman can only feel safe if she hides herself, if she is invisible from public eye, if she conceals herself from the male eye. Stepping on the soil of any Muslim country in a dress of your choice save Burqa, is herculean for any woman. You want to wear a sleeveless top on a hot summer day and go out on the streets of Lahore or Dhaka, it would be appalling if not impossible like it is in most of middle eastern countries. Things would, however, be starkly different in Kathmandu, Kandy or Mumbai even if you put east versus west argument.

There's a wide gulf between for and against Burqa arguments within Islamic scholars. Major disagreements exist on whether or not Burqa is an injunction of Quran. Even if it proves to be in the holy scriptures, it needs to be reviewed in the context of modern world where men are expected to have at least little hold on their libido, where women are not just sex objects whose unveiled presence in society would be dangerous for public morality.

At the risk of sounding Islamophob or racist against Muslims in west, I would strongly suggest to those who seem too concerned about women's "freedom" to choose Burqa for themselves, to kindly go back to their countries of origin and fight for women's choices there. A lot of women in these countries don't have right to choose their spouse or profession let alone dress. Let us all fight for a free Muslim world where women are free to not wear Burqa. A polite reminder to all the women's rights activists, of sickening bars on women's choices in Muslim countries where they are coerced into adopting a life style no sensible male would ever choose for himself. Burqa can never be a free choice of anyone. Had it been, this choice would have been available to men also.

 

Marvi Sirmed

Columnist / Independent Blogger,

Founder Editor of Baaghi:

 

http://www.marvisirmed.com





__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___