Pakistan, Iran or Iraq ?

The great debate is going on about what to do about the Taliban. Agreed that perhaps they should not have picked up the gun to implement Shariah ...

Nevertheless, it is actually not the gun which is irritating us but the idea of reverting to Islam.

We were comfortable with our tailor-made Islam as opposed to the God-scribed Islam.

Perhaps we are so in love with our bygone lifestyles that we would rather turn into Iraq today than have an Islamic revolution like that of Iran brought by Khumeni.

Remember, Iraq was also America's friend and ally for a long time, before America completed its use with it and dusted it off into a pile of burning ashes.

Remember, that if the Taliban happen to be the right ones in the Eyes of Allah SWT (no harm in imagining and giving it some percentage of possibility) then we are in for trouble, for there is no distance between the curse of the oppressed and Allah SWT.

Hold on the military operation and the resistance to Shariah and the propaganda about Taliban and think carefully ... hold on before you make the wrong choice ... and you have to make one, there is no more sitting on the fence ... hold on before another friend, Pakistan, turns into Iraq.

Boundless Freedom of Expression

It is the belief and desire of some that there should be complete freedom of expression. We should not sit on the fence, they say, either it is free or not free. Hence is the promotion of freedom of expression.

Not so long ago, President Musharraf supported the same ideology. Soon enough the language, dresses and moves of our artists changed on the television screens. There was a hue and cry upon it by the religio-oriented of the society. However, the seculars welcomed the change with much applause.

Not long after, in a matter of five to six years, the freedom of expression turned into a monster for its own champion, Pervaiz Musharraf. This was the year 2007 and the free media was hailing Pervaiz Musharraf for his tyranny. In a desperate attempt, Pervaiz Musharraf imposed the Emergency of Nov 3, and banned the transmission of free media channels.

People were forced to tune to the government channel PTV for news update. There sat three to four people discussing morality and how the idea of rein-free freedom was absurd and nowhere in the world did freedom exist without some moral guidelines.

Pervaiz Musharraf was right this time in the message he was sending out, only he had applied it topsy-turvy. The moral guidelines are due where God has defined morality, i.e. in language, dresses, moves, etc. However, the morality protection that he was seeking for himself, would in fact not support him, for the morality defined for a tyrannical rule is one and only, the straight forward truth, though in respectable words of course.

"The best of Jihad is to speak the true word in front of a tyrannical ruler." [Hadith]

This was what the media had done, for which it was punished.

'My best friend is one who tells me my bad points.' [Quote of Caliph Umar RA]

And see how the women of Prophet Muhammed SAW's times were liberated enough to speak their thoughts. Caliph Umar RA once gave instructions to limit the amount of Haq Mahr given to brides by the husbands to a certain amount and not beyond that. Upon this a woman stood up and said 'O'Umar RA, Prophet Muhammed SAW set no limits for it, then why are you limiting it?' And she quoted "...even if it be a heap of gold" [Surah Al-Nisa, Verse 20].

Hence, Islam very much supports freedom of expression, but neither rudeness nor vulgarity as part of it.

If this is backwardness in the eyes of some, they should keep in mind that their idea of freedom of expression will certainly turn around on them from whichever direction whatsoever, like it did on Pervaiz Musharraf, who used to address the religio-oriented flippantly and say 'If you do not like what you see, change the channel...'. Why could not he do the same then when he came in the view of this freedom?

May Allah SWT guide him and forgive him, the objective is not to demean Pervaiz Musharraf, but to give a visible example from the recent past.

The thoughtless pursuit of boundary-free freedom of expression by some may bring around those times very soon when we hear children telling their parents 'To go to hell...' when they chide them and draw nude pictures of their parents in art classes.

Why not? It is freedom of expression.

Truly Barbaric

A woman laid down on a hospital bed for an abortion. She suddenly felt the baby kick. It was then that it dawned upon her, that a baby is a living being, even inside the womb. She got up suddenly, and chose to have the baby in respect of the life it had just claimed.

A nurse was standing beside an abortion bed. The abortion was in process. She was asked to pull out the half-formed baby from the womb. She tells in her experience that as she put in her hand to pull the baby out, the baby crouched back as if in an attempt to save itself. She said she was amazed that even an unborn baby had the instinct to protect itself.

A male nurse was participating in an abortion operation. The baby was pulled out, and given in his hands to dispose off. The male nurse said that he was shocked that an unborn baby had so much life and it was thrashing about. Stunned, but doing his duty, he threw him in a basin, where it's movements diminished to death before his very eyes. He said he felt sick for a long time.

What should be the recompense of a man and a woman who commit adultery and then do away with its result in such a barbaric manner?

Lashing and stoning-to-death is yet a kind a punishment in view of the above barbarism.

Chaddar and Chardewari ?

Women must certainly be respected for their 'right' of Chaddar and Chardiwari. However, what has surprised me in the recent days is the indignation upon the violation of Chaddar and Chardiwari by the very people who themselves refute the concept of Chaddar and Chardiwari.

In general, the seculars deny the need of Chaddar and Chardiwari for women. They say that since men and women are absolutely equal (in physique as well?), women should not be asked for any different set of social rules and regulations from men. If men do not do Hijab, niether should women, and likewise parables...

Then why were they upset when the police intruded upon Tahira Abdullah in the middle of the night during the Long March '09 round-ups and specifically call it a violation of Chaddar and Chardiwari? Why did they want special consideration in terms of her being a woman now? The police intruded upon many homes, why was the case of Tahira Abdullah highlighted with respect to the fact that she is a woman?

Then again, in the present case of the lashing of a seventeen-year-old girl in Swat. The secular were continuously exclaiming upon the fact that a 'woman' was publicly punished. Why cannot she be? If a man can be punished publicly, so can a woman. The secular want an equal treatment of man and woman, so why should she be given any special consideration in punishment with respect to her being a woman?

They also touched upon the fact that non-Mehrams were touching her. Why should the seculars mind that? Not long ago some secular analysts said that we should be cool about the fact that Zardari gave Sarah Palin a hug. Hence, the issue of touch should not be raised here either, because 'touch' is not an issue in the secular world, rather it is considered very backward to make it an issue.

To conclude, the debate should be upon the validity of lashing as a punishment in conviction of adultery and not of any other issue. For the seculars never agreed with the idea of Chaddar and Chardiwari for women and Islam no longer holds it valid for a woman who has chosen to violate it herself by committing adultery.

As far as the issue of lashing in conviction of adultery is concerned plus the issue of false accusations, please read The Holy Quran, Surah'e Noor [V. 2 and 4], and please read the whole of it, not just a verse and a half. Else, you may suffer from the same disease as those who have read and memorized just half a verse from Surah'e Baqarah and go around telling people,

"There is no compulsion is religion..."

while the complete verse says,

"There is no compulsion in religion; True guidance has been made clearly distinct from error. Therefore, whoever renounces 'Taghut' (forces of Shaitan) and believes in Allah has grasped the firm hand-hold that will never break. Allah, Whose hand-hold you have grasped, hears all and knows all." [The Holy Quran, 2:256]

Those who would like to believe that Allah SWT has sent down a code of life with the caption, 'There is no compulsion in religion (Full stop) ', is analogue to the scenario that a school prints out its prospectus and adds a line at its end, 'There is no compulsion in our rules and regulations, whosoever wishes to follow it, they may and whosoever wishes to defy it, they may, both ways it is okay with us...'.

Is that correct ?

Is it sensible ? Is it believable ?

Disowning Honor

About the seventeen-year old girl of Swat; if she was innocent of committing Zina, Allah Subhaan'o wa Ta'ala himself Speaks out the punishment against the perpetrators as follows,

"Those who accuse a chaste woman of fornication and do not produce four witnesses to support their allegation, shall be flogged with eighty lashes and their testimony shall not be accepted ever after, for they are the ones who are wicked transgressors."

It would not just stop at this. The Islamic Jurist would probably sentence some further punishment as well because the above punishment is simply upon verbal accusation, while this girl was even punished upon the accusation.

However, if the girl has truly committed Zina, then also Allah Subhaan'o wa Ta'ala himself Speaks out her punishment as well, as follows,

"As for the fornicatoress and the fornicator (a female and a male guilty of illegal sex), flog each female and a male guilty of illegal sex one hundred lashes and do not take pity in enforcing the law ordained by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day, and let a party of the believers witness their punishment."

A point to be noted here is that if the accused pair admit the crime or the woman is found pregnant, the need for four witnesses is no longer there.

Islam has pampered woman a lot.

Prophet Muhammed SAW said,
"Give equal to your children. If I had it upon me, I would give more to the daughters, but Allah SWT says to give equally (i.e. love, attention, education, gifts, things)"

A woman is free from the responsibility of bread-winning in her entire life. She has the right to independent money and inheritance while she does not have the responsibility of spending. She does not have any chore as her responsibility (Surprised?). She is asked to cover her beauty so that other 'women' are not faced with competition and the possibility of extra-marital affairs is exempted, again a protection for women themselves. She is asked to obey her husband so that the consequence of any mishap is not made her responsibility. The husband is bound to feed her, cloth her, shelter her, to the best his finances allow him. The husband is instructed to maintain her in the lifestyle she was used to in her parents’ home. The husband is encouraged to entertain her to keep her happy.

Prophet Muhammed SAW said,
"The best among you is one who is good to his wife"

and he said,
"This world is 'Mata', and the best part of it is a good wife"

After all this pampering and protection, if a woman exhibits ungratefulness and crosses protective boundaries and ends up committing Zina, she incurs upon herself the Anger of Allah SWT.

And why should not Allah SWT be angry with her? He made life so indulging and protective for her, but she chose to cross the protective boundaries and choose the hard way and the indecent way.

When she rejected Allah SWT's protection, Allah SWT no longer protects her either. Hence, she is lashed and stoned in public, and is no longer entitled to the special treatment of being a woman.