Death for singing? Pakistan search for condemned wedding women [Updated]

Any music other than Islam music is not allowed.
However, everyone knows Islam is the religion of peace.
Maybe it’s just a misprint
they are probably christian not muslim

Originally posted by milkyway12
And women complain about American men. How about all these feminist go to Pakistan and actually do something for their "sisters".

Its easy to complain and complain , gimme gimme gimme , and then ... you have Islam. That simply kills you. So ... does America need more help .. or Islamic nations? .

These Americn feminists....exactly what are they asking for? Equal pay for equal work? How dare they.

Many American women are aware of the plight of our sisters in countries around the world. Unfortunantely, there is little we can do beyond spreading the word to others. Which is why sites like ATS and Youtube and other sites that spread information are so important.

This tragedy is beyond words (at least words that won't get me post banned here on ATS). Thank you to the OP for posting this story. Let's keep it going.

Originally posted by draco49
The fact is, most people from the Western world have and always will be disgusted by the ways of the people of the Middle-East. We're just too far apart, both ideologically and theologically. We need to focus on the issues of the US homeland, and quit trying to save everyone from themselves. The US was not founded on the principals of global interventionism and hegemony. In fact, you you take a few minutes to read what the Founding Fathers actually say about foreign policy and the perils of militaristic interventionism, you'll find that they specifically warn against it and espouse the philosophy, "trade with all, alliance with none".

This is absolutely correct. Star for you sir. Most of us hate the crap that goes on over there, and rightly so, because we believe that any civilized peoples would value human life more than they do in some of these foreign countries. And I think we will always be right in asserting that what they are doing is wrong. The men over there are the real problem.

Think about how it is in most countries. A man is attracted to a woman, and he approaches her and maybe they start dating. All throughout their relationship, there is the chance of rejection for the guy. He could be dumped easily. The woman could mess around with another guy. Tons of scenarios could arise. I'm sure there are men here in the US that wish they could reign in the women of the nation, just so they don't get rejected, express their perceived dominance, etc...All it really shows is that those men are WEAK and are not real men at all. If you have to force a woman to be with you, you obviously are not worth being with. I think that is why this goes on over there...At least it is a big part of the cause.

BUT, with all that said, and even knowing that those men are despicable and wrong, we have no authority to go over there trying to change things. If they are ever going to repair their deficiencies, they must do it themselves for it to mean anything, and for it to have a good chance at surviving in the future. If we go over there to change things, we may succeed...But as soon as we leave, the country will revert to whatever system they had in place before the "humanitarian" operation was initiated. It is hard to say this knowing that there are innocent people over there suffering every single day, but this is why everyone should have principles they should adhere to. Would we want someone to come into our country in an attempt to change something they disagree with, but that we have practiced for centuries?

For instance, what if there were a country composed entirely of vegetarians, who were appalled that we kill animals in our country? Do they have a right to bring soldiers over here to stop this animal abuse? Because that's what it is, even if we are going to eat the animals. That's just one example, and I'm sure someone could construct a more proper scenario, but I think you all get my point.

Correct, having equal rights for all people is expecting way too much of Islam

Originally posted by redneck13
Correct, having equal rights for all people is expecting way too much of Islam

In case you didn't get the memo, the US Constitution doesn't extend to foreign nations nor does it mandate that our government engage in nation-building and hegemonic imperialism. The US Government has one mandate, and that is to serve its People. Pakistanis, Afghanis, Iraqis, etc, are NOT our people, and it is incumbent on them and their governments to solve their own problems. It is not the responsibility of our government, backed by our taxes, to engage in delivering justice to these nations. If we weren't fighting multiple wars, maybe we could spend a little more than 4% of our annual budget on education and start producing knowledgeable citizens who can contribute to society.

reply to post by draco49


Yes, more people should be educated. People that have equality and freedom should not share their good fortune with those that are repressed and enslaved it’s their own problem. People do not realize that Islam is not a religion but a way of life. It is design to keep its follower’s under direct control of the Church hierarchy, Out of the followers men are exhorted above all others, because God loves them more, they are a more perfect human than people of other faiths or women or slaves or sex slaves. I don’t know why people keep referring to Islam as a religion when it is not. Islam allows its male followers to have four wives of ANY age plus sex slaves. Well if your wife doesn’t like that, a good man will beat the crap out of her. If I live in a Muslim country and are not Islamic, I need to pay a tax to remain safe. Of course, if I wanted to change my religion I would be killed for that. Mutilation, pedophilia, brutality, murder, slavery all in a day for the followers of Mohammed. We do not have any business helping anyone outside our borders. Yes, our public school system produces people able to educate them selves however, some people have the audacity to blame the government for their stupidity

reply to post by redneck13


I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that, more than just a religion, Islam in many countries is interwoven with and indistinguishable from government. However, that doesn't change the fact that the US government's sole obligation is to its people, and not the people of other nations. I don't mean that, as human beings, we shouldn't be disgusted by their stone-age thinking and barbaric practices. I think that if you want to get involved with efforts to reform these practices and help the people who suffer under the regimes that embrace those types of ideologies and actions, there are non-governmental organizations you can support that are dedicated to doing just that. The role of our government should be, as dictated by the Constitution, responsibility to the American people. There are countless areas of our nation and policy that deserve priority attention over the aggressive nation-building campaign the US has been engaged in for nearly 20 years. Education is just one... I mentioned that we spend 4% of our annual budget on education, but did you know that we "officially" spend 24% of our annual budget on "defense", and that doesn't include the Unacknowledged Special Access Programs? If we brought our troops home and put our military focus onto a strong national defense, and at the same time got rid of the overwhelming regulations on the free-market (which only serve the global corporate interests), we'd easily be able to triple or even quadruple the education budget, drastically increase the number of jobs available, and put our country in a better position both economically and socially. In my mind, we've got to go back to the foundations of our country and get our house back in order. We're at a point where too many Americans are complacent and have forgotten history.

Music is forbidden
Anyone that doesn’t listen is blown up
www.indianresurgence.com...

Text
On April 10, President APJ Abdul Kalam was presenting the Indian Music Academy awards to maestros like Ali Akbar Khan, Dr Balamurali Krishna, Girija Devi, Asha Bhonsle and Illyaraja (music director) at a function at New Delhi. While speaking to the audience, Honourable President said, “The nation is grateful to various exponents of music in India for the great contribution you are making in preserving music and promoting unity of minds among the billions of people of this nation of multi-religion, multi-culture and multi-language”. He also said, “Indeed music is a great integrator of minds of people of Indian origin settled in various parts of the planet”. While our President was speaking all these words to praise and encourage music, he perhaps overlooked the fact that the religious creed he follows, forbids music.

Nearly 10 days later, the cleric Maulana Abdul Ajiz of famous Lal Masjid in Peshawar, Pakistan ,issued a Fatwa to enforce Sharia (Islamic Law) immediately in Pakistan and declared any kind musical pursuit, including singing and dancing, un-Islamic. He asked Pakistani singers and dancers to go to India and perform their arts there. His fatwa also promulgated that doing business in any thing related to music is un-Islamic and asked people who are running shops of audio and video CDs and tapes, to close their shops. As a consequence of these religious Fatwas, a group of fanatics blew off 3 shops in Swabi, a small town at about 100 km north-west of Peshawar.

A question naturally arises – Why Islam forbids music? In fact, Islam forbids, not only music but any kind of artistic pursuit like singing, playing musical instruments, dancing, drawing pictures, sculpting figures and so on, including even photography. To get into the root of this Islamic attitude towards music, one has to delve into the matter a bit. At the onset, it should be made clear that the creed of Islam has nothing to do with spiritualism and its ultimate goal is to turn the entire world into an Islamic empire, either by converting or by eliminating the entire population of non-Muslim kafirs and jihad is the means to achieve that goal. Hence jihad, the military component of Islam, is the greatest virtue of the creed. It is therefore compulsory participate in jihad to win a victory over the world of non-Muslims.

Islamic scholars agree that, jihad is the best form of worship in Islam

Yes we should turn our backs on humanity let our children worry about the consequences, and worry only about our financial condition

Originally posted by redneck13
Music is forbidden
Anyone that doesn’t listen is blown up

Yeah, that is a bit extreme. Islamic Fundamentalism actually has a lot of common ground with the Purtian faith of the Mayflower voyagers. The one real difference between the two, in terms of ideology and acceptable practices, is that the Puritans believed that everyone was going to hell (themselves included) whereas the Muslims believe that they are going to Heaven while the rest of humanity goes to hell. Other than that, their social practices have a lot in common.

Originally posted by redneck13

Yes we should turn our backs on humanity let our children worry about the consequences, and worry only about our financial condition

How about making sure our children are well-educated and have a solid economic base to work from? Also, the unfortunate reality is that our economic condition is the most crucial aspect of our country that needs major reform. It's not a simple matter of saying, "oh we'll just forget about our crumbling economy so we can help the poor oppressed people who suffer under Islamic Law". That's a fantasy. If we have any expectation that our country will resume its prosperity, and continue to be an example of true democracy and freedom, we cannot ignore the economic problems. And we cannot ignore the social implications of a massively uneducated populous. The problems we face are systemic, thus systemic fundamental changes are required to turn things around.

Does the United Nations have an obligation to help? They have International Charters of Human Rights, aid to the Palestinian refugees, Global Climate Change initiatives, etc., ad nauseum. If they have the obligation to help why don't they expel certain countries from membership? Why don't they ask for a military force from member countries? If they don't have that obligation, what are they doing with the billions we've given them, and why should we be members?

If the United States has no obligation to help, why did we send aid to Haiti, assistance fighting AIDS in Africa, food shipments pretty much everywhere? If a dictator decides to kill his people through starvation (talk to Ukranians), do we ship food, do nothing, or send a team to the dictator's house?

America helps, that's who we are.

I would hate to think that Americans would make no effort because we're afraid of certain groups of people, but maybe in the last couple of years or so, we have become afraid.

. Again, our educational system is able to produce people who can educate themselves. You cannot blame the government for your stupidity.
Our system of law makes no allowances for those who find their own shortcoming to be the fault of government. It is only about us.

Originally posted by charles1952
Does the United Nations have an obligation to help? They have International Charters of Human Rights, aid to the Palestinian refugees, Global Climate Change initiatives, etc., ad nauseum. If they have the obligation to help why don't they expel certain countries from membership? Why don't they ask for a military force from member countries? If they don't have that obligation, what are they doing with the billions we've given them, and why should we be members?

If the United States has no obligation to help, why did we send aid to Haiti, assistance fighting AIDS in Africa, food shipments pretty much everywhere? If a dictator decides to kill his people through starvation (talk to Ukranians), do we ship food, do nothing, or send a team to the dictator's house?

America helps, that's who we are.

I would hate to think that Americans would make no effort because we're afraid of certain groups of people, but maybe in the last couple of years or so, we have become afraid.

The unfortunate reality is that the US Government doesn't do anything for the sake of altruism. Every bit of humanitarian aid our government has provided has been on the basis of a return on investment in the form of social and political currency.

The aid we give to Haiti is completely self-serving. We've been involved in their politics since at least 1915, and are the biggest consumers of Haiti's two domestic products, mangoes and coffee, providing around 30% of their GDP. In the wake of suspected fraud and embezzlement by the-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the nations economy got even worse prompting a US-led coup d'etat, the expulsion of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and the installation of a US-approved replacement, Michel Martelly. US interest in Haiti revolves primarily around it's history of instability, and proximity to Cuba.

I'm not going to go into each and every instance of US humanitarian aid because that would be an entirely different topic, and the information is readily available on the Net if you're inclined to look.

As American's, we like to think of ourselves as righteous, charitable people who bring a sense of good to the world. That sounds nice and heps us sleep better at night, but it's just not reality.

reply to post by draco49

Dear draco49,

Thanks for the reply. I must not have asked my questions in the right way. Mind if I try again?

If a catastrophe hits a reasonably large number of people in a country, does anyone have an obligation or a right to help? Any individual, state, or organization? Or is the proper response, "It's not my country, so I have no right or business interfering? Does the answer depend on whether the people are suffering from a catastrophe of nature, or a catstrophe of man?

Answering those will help me understand your position better.

With respect,
Charles1952

Hi Charles

I apologize if I misinterpreted your questions. Lemme try again and let's see where we end up! I think that, at the most basic human level, we should all be doing our part to to help our fellow Man. So at that level, I think it's really up to the individual to decide if and how to help. There are numerous non-profit international humanitarian relief organizations, and it seems to me that the easiest and most productive way an individual can help in the immediate term is to donate money and/or resources to one or more of those organizations (i.e. Red Cross). This also includes the local community level. There are a lot of communities that have gotten together and started their own grassroots-style relief programs, such as organized food donation programs and overseas relief funds. As an individual, you could get involved with one of those programs, or start one yourself in your own community.

Things start to get murky once you go beyond the community level into government. The US government was created on the basis of freedom, personal liberties, and a laissez-faire Libertarian ideology; every other aspect of US government is structured around those basic ideals. The US government has one basic mandate, and that is to serve the interests of the American People. Prior to 1914, before the banks seized control of our monetary system and began the process of global corporatism, America prospered because we had a truly free-market system which encouraged rapid innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit that has been the hallmark of the "American Dream"; that is, the idea that anyone with a good idea and strong work ethic can become a financial success. Our Industrial Revolution emerged during that period of time and was, arguably, the peak of the American ideal. We went horribly wrong when we allowed bankers like the Rockefellers, JP Morgan, and the Rothschilds to take control of our currency system and eventually off of the gold standard. It was this newly formed Federal Reserve that gave us our first bubble in the early 20's (the "roaring 20's they called it), and our first depress shortly afterward, The Great Depression. We've been on an escalating cycle of bubbles and depressions ever since. Our money is now based on a perverse system of credit and debt that virtually forces us into greater and greater economic peril because, at this point, the public-at-large sees the alternative as too difficult to handle. That alternative is to abolish the Federal Reserve, return to the gold standard, and lift the numerous industry regulations that have stifled American ingenuity and free enterprise. It's the multi-national corporations that support these regulatory measures, because they make competition nearly impossible for the average man, leaving these corporations with ever growing influence and market domination. Our involvement in the Middle-East, going back to the late 70's and early 80's, is based primarily on controlling the world energy market. It's the oil companies, bankers, and other global corporate interests who fund US election campaigns and, ultimately, determine who gets elected. And not just at the Presidential level... these companies fund campaigns all the way down to the local level of government. What we're left with is an elected body of officials, from the top all the way to the bottom, who owe their positions and loyalty to the corporations who funded them and put them into power. Obviously, this is a great conflict of interest, since an elected official's loyalty should reside solely with his constituents. So now, we're fighting multiple wars in the Middle-East on behalf of the global corporate interests, almost as if our military was their private security force. In the meantime, our economy has dropped to a shameful low, with unemployment higher than it's been in nearly 100 years. All our money goes to repaying debt on currency the Fed printed years ago, and it gets worse everyday. Right now, the only people prospering are these huge multi-national corporations, and the banks. Everyone else is in survival mode.

So, the question is, how can we expect the government to provide humanitarian aid to foreign nations, when the obligations of government back at home have been derelict for decades? We cannot. The only way to fix it is to stop this policy of global interventionism, increase our education spending so our children and grandchildren have the knowledge and capacity to continue on, and abolish the Fed - returning to the gold standard. If we do these things, the economy will again flourish and progress, and there will be more resources both in money and in knowledgeable people. Then we can consider foreign humanitarian aid and relief. Trying to make that a priority now would be contrary to our economic capabilities.

I hope that covered what you were asking. I know it's a bit lengthy. Let me know what you think! have a nice evening

reply to post by draco49

Dear draco49,

Thanks very much for the reply, it was one of the best I've seen in a long time. Do me a favor, when you get tired of or irritated at ATS (and you will), just take a break from it for a while then come back. You are too valuable to lose.

Part of my enjoyment of your post is that there is so much in it that I agree with, particularly the premise that aid to others is best done by the individual if possible. There is no moral good in forcing someone to give up money so that it can be transferred to someone else. There may be a practical necessity for it, but I would hope that would be rare. You are right that the voluntarily funded organizations are the preferred path.

I do have some small difficulties with your positions on complete Libertarianism, the military, and the economy. Perhaps they're just differences in emphasis.

It seems you're saying that the rest of the world is not our concern until we are wealthy, secure, and without any problems needing to be resolved within our borders. Some citizens live their lives that way, but I would hope that the majority of Americans in need would still throw a quarter into the Salvation Army kettle despite having some unsolved financial problems. American citizens (and their government) throw money all over the world to help out. We seem to like it and believe it is the right thing to do.

But those gifts and organizations are designed to help out with disasters that have already occurred. What about disasters that are about to occur, or are likely to occur? It's been reported that Clinton was told of Bin Laden's location and general plans. Should we have used the military to kill and capture him before 9/11? I suppose you can make an argument either way, but if I understand you, you're saying we would have no business going after him, that option isn't on the table.

And what about using the government in disasters that would hurt the country one step removed. Say a dictator is about to short down half of the oil imports to the US. Do we say we shouldn't get involved in other countries, or do something to continue our energy supply? The world is so interconnected that a problem in any country will affect us in some way. Wouldn't participation in the world to help manage these problems be serving the interests of american citizens?

Take the extreme case where the world is divided into two ideologies, say the US and "Other." If the US ignores the rest of the world and the Others try to conquer it, is there any other conclusion possible than the US alone in the world, surrounded by Others? Surrender is the only option then.

You mentioned the importance of increasing education spending. I'm pretty sure that the case hasn't been made that increasing spending has given us better educated students. Or are you thinking of a national voucher plan? I also wonder a little at the idea I have heard that college graduates are richer, smarter, happier, better people than non-grads. A lot of them seem to be (forgive me) pencil-necked geeks or people like the student who cried on video that the failure of the Walker recall was the death of democracy.

One point I'm going to try to evade is the one you made about the gold standard. I just don't know enough to even start to be able to picture the unintended consequences. I suspect it would make for a very strong dollar which would reduce the amount other countries could buy from us, but I just don't know the details, sorry.

And I agree with you about financial corruption in Washington, but I'm beginning to wonder who is doing the corrupting. Take for example an extreme politician of the left or right. If they get office, I suspect it's because the majority of citizens they represent strongly agree with the politicians. (As opposed to those races that seem to switch back and forth every few years.) These politicians are secure in their seats and become powerful through seniority. Who, then, is in a position to demand the favor? If a corporation on one side of an issue refuses to pay the bribe, the politician can easily go to one on the other side and get money there. Corporations and other moneyed groups don't all want the same thing.

Any way, your post was brilliant and deserves a seminar to discuss, but I'm running out of letters and my fingers are tired. Thanks again.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by redneck13


No music, no dance, no art? Nothing?
Well, that ties it for me then... Muslims are certifiably Insane.

I used to think these guys were just plain OCD-like wacky with their obsessive praying and ritual washing. And their treatment of women. And Allah-this and Muhammed-that...

Now this just blows me away.

Islam goes beyond just being a religion, it's massive brainwashing with no way out.

What gets me is why us dumbass Americans have never Heard of all this stuff before. It's like discussing Islam has been a taboo here until recent years.

UPDATE:

It seems at least some of those feared dead may still be alive after all! (Reading between the lines it may be that they were condemned by the village court and their brother put out the story they had been killed in order to gain sufficient publicity to ensure the national authorities afford them what protection they can. It is still all rather unclear at this point.)

Pakistan wedding women alive, rights campaigners say

Pakistani campaigners say they have made contact with two out of five women previously feared murdered for singing in a wedding video.

Dr Farzana Bari met the two women after travelling with officials to a remote village in north-west Pakistan.

The team did not meet the other three women, but said local elders had given assurances that they were also alive.

Earlier reports said a tribal court sentenced all five to death after the footage aired on Pakistani TV.

The women had also reportedly been condemned for watching men dancing at the celebration. The men in the video appeared in court on Wednesday charged with creating the conditions for tribal violence.

The decree was allegedly issued by tribal elders for the women to be killed because it was thought their actions brought dishonour to their community, which disapproves of men and women dancing together.

After several hours climbing, human rights activists - travelling with local officials - say the two women appeared relaxed, and did not show any signs of physical ill-treatment.

"If these two are alive, I believe the others are as well," campaigner Farzana Bari told the BBC's Orla Guerin in Islamabad.

Dr Bari said that the other three women were at a more remote location that could not be reached easily.

She said that she believed there had been no death sentence from a tribal council, but there was a real risk to the women because the wedding video had been widely seen.

"There's a strong tradition in this area of taking the law into your own hands," she said. "The authorities should keep on monitoring the women. There is still a risk, we cannot relax."

Pakistan's Supreme Court ordered officials to go to the area on Wednesday to establish if the women were alive or dead...

Source

I earlier suggested the reaction of the courts would be very significant. Here's an extract from another very recent article:

...Pakistan's most senior judge Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry said he was ready to send in the army unless he had a clear report on all the women...

Source

So credit where credit's due.

And perhaps we can (almost) let out a collective sigh of relief!

It is standard for honor killings. The men claim some unusually circumstances then after everything calms down its forgotten about. Its happening all over the world. Men kill their wives or there children then claim it was some Anti-Muslim group. They go to their home country then never return. Statistic are available that state, if there is a murder in a Muslim family there is a 50% chance it is another family member. Let them go, it’s called a religion besides its only women