Melbourne Herald Sun;
A SUSPECTED Islamic militant shot dead a female provincial minister at a political meeting in central Pakistan today because she was not wearing Muslim clothing, officials said.
|
 |
Zill-e Huma, the Punjab province minister for social welfare, was shot in the head at a function in Gujranwala city, provincial law minister Raja Basharat said.
“She was shot dead by a fanatic when she was meeting with party workers,” he said.
Officials said Huma was known for promoting women’s rights.
“He killed her because she was not observing the Islamic code of dress. She was also campaigning for emancipation of women,” local police officer Nazir Ahmad said.
|
Pakistani Times;
The 36-year old Zilla Huma Usman, the wife of Dr. Muhammad Usman Haider, was born on September 16, 1971.
She obtained the degree of LL.B. in 1997 and M.A. (Political Science) in 1998 from University of the Punjab, Lahore.
She was elected as Member Provincial Assembly of Punjab in General Elections 2002 against reserved women seat.
She worked as Parliamentary Secretary for Planning and Development from August 5, 2003 to November 30, 2006. She was working as Minister for Social Welfare since December 1, 2006.
Oh Daisy,
You re almost predictable. Just have to have the last word, eh.
“The NT does not command, nor approve of such behaviour. Neither did Christ – in word, or action. In fact, the absolute opposite is true.”
Lets see. Monastic order in Lebanon where monks dedicate their life to studying the NT. Or Irwin Daisy? Who do you think would qualify on what the NT does and does not say. Ummmm. Yeah. The head of one of the Lebanese churches called Bashir Gemayel a “Jesus Christ” of sorts. Bashir is also remembered as a particularly bloodthirsty and vicious Phalangist leader.
“Islam, the Quran and Mohammad’s life example, on the other hand, commands and rewards barbaric, murderous behavior from Muslims. Islam and the Quran are “a secretion of the Arab brain,” or, “the word of man”, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has put it.”
Hmmm. I usually think of it as the Arabian tool for Imperialism and Colonialism, but there are just tooo many non “barbaric” and “murderous” muslims whom I have the good fortune of knowing. Let me guess, they re going to come and slit my throat at night. And Ayaan Hirsi Ali is about as objective as any Christian altar boy who had the misfortune of coming across one of those not-so-celibate priests.
Islam probably is the word of man. But then again the Bible was written by the hand of man, and might be the word of man, too. Your only proof or evidence is your faith in something that cant be proved.
“the perpetrators did what they did in Allah’s name, under the tutelage of the Quran. Unlike the ‘Christian’ examples you cited.”
Daisy, do you have any friend who a) isnt Christian, b) isnt white, c) isnt a reactionary conservative?
“the perpetrators did what they did in Allah’s name, under the tutelage of the Quran. Unlike the ‘Christian’ examples you cited.”
Of course the examplies I cited didnt do it in Allah’s name. They did it in (the Christian) God’s name.
“Moral equivalency makes you and your ilk obtuse and not worth debating with.”
I m not a moral equivalent. I m not a big fan of prejudices and sweeping generalizations either. You are. Anybody can twist a couple of acts and see a pattern. You re especially gifted.
“As recent, as its ’71-’73 pogram against the Hindus in East Pak/Bangladesh? In which they pretty much went on a Hindu extermination campaign, butchering oh, 1.5 million?”
This statement, in conjunction with your earlier statement on my apparent ignorance of knowledge would almost automatically qualify you as a hypocrite. At best you know nothing out of choice. At worst, you are intellectually challenged.
The pogrom as you called it, came in 1971, a good 24 years after Bangladesh became an independent nation with a substantial hindu population. In 1971, the Bengalis began to agitate for freedom. The movement was united across religious lines. The Pakistani Punjabis, convinced of their superiority over the Bengalis, cracked down in March 1971, in the now-infamous Operation Searchlight.
The Pakistanis clamped down on the Hindus in particular, seeing them as agents of India, which was beginning to supply the clandestine liberation group Mukti Bahni. They made up the bulk of the 12 million or so refugees to neighboring India. This wasnt religiously motivated but politically motivated. The aim was to show Hindus as Indian collaborators and therefore anti Pakistani and anti-Muslim. And they did take a real beating. But, and this is important, MUSLIM BENGALIS WERE NOT SPARED. They were attacked with equal venom and killed with equal ferocity. It was a POLITICAL problem, not a RELIGIOUS one. Initial estimates that cracking down on Hindus would close the supply lines from India proved to be grossly mistaken because the supposedly Hindu government of India had no issues wiht cooperating directly with Muslim groups such as Mukti Bahni. It was an intimidation tactic. When it failed, all hell broke loose.
No one was chanting from the Koran. Rather they were evoking emotional memories of the bloody partition that killed a million. Much of the violence during the partition was motivated not by God given right, but by the economical incentive of looting a minority that was suddenly reviled. Mixing motives is an idiotic game.
For what its worth, the prosecution of Hindus ended when India invaded East Pakistan in 1971, in fourteen days. They were welcomed as Liberators, not infidels, even though the Cheif of the Indian Army was a Parsi (Zoroastrian), the Chief of the Eastern command was a Lt General Jacob (a Jew), and the instrument of surrender was conceded to a Sikh, Gen Arora. Sikhs, as you may or may not know, are Islam’s archenemies in South Asia.
Why would the same people who supported the massacre of hindus celebrate the surrender to this multi religion group that reported to a Hindu Prime Minister? Mostly because Religion was not a major issue. The fate of Hindus in the country has, however deteriorated in recent times, owing to the parallel and interrelated rise of Hindu nationalism in India and Islamic fundamentalism in Bangladesh.
That pogrom ended in December 1971, and its victims, while initially Hindus, included equal if not more muslims by the time war broke out formally. Indeed, by 1973, the first leader of independent Bangladesh was pleading with Hindu refugees to return.
And those moral paragons in the Republican Party of America were so anti-Democratic India that they happily ignored what was happening in East Pakistan. Nixon nearly resorted to military action, sending a US task force to break the Indian blockade, in a move that still gaunts relations between the worlds largest democracy and the worlds most powerful democracy.
The history of the region is complex. The Islamicization as you and I know it came under Zia in the 1980s.