Islamism - 6

[Guest]

When Muslims try to force you into their religion, they also force a little bit of themselves into you.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->MANDI BAHAWALDIN, PAKISTAN — A Christian youth was critically manhandled and sodomized by several unidentified Muslim men on the night between June 2 and 3 rd after he picked up a quarrel with his Muslim age fellow while playing Cricket in a play ground near District Headquarter (DHQ) Hospital MandiBhawaldin, ANS has learnt.

The trouble for 16-year-old Christian man, Imran Masih started when his Muslim friend, Naveed called him by the words « Essai and Choora, » the bywords for Pakistani Christians used often by the Muslims to disgrace them.

This triggered a physical altercation between them. Naveed’s father, Muhammad Sadique, an ambulance driver of the DHQ Mandibahwaldin as well as the private driver of the Medical Superintendent, Amjad Iqbal arrived at the scene of incident and took the Christian youth to his home under the pretext of « reconciliation ».

As the Christian youth entered Sidique’s drawing room several Muslim men, who were waiting for their « victim » started forcing the minor boy to convert to Islam. Imran did not knuckle under the pressure and refused to embrace Islam. This angered the Muslim men and they started thrashing Imran with kicks and fists while some even bit him at his chest and other parts of his body to bully him into submission.

The Rays of Development (ROD), a non-governmental organization that investigated the case told ANS that most of the assailants were drunk.

He went on to say that the Muslim men tucked his mouth in a sofa and stood on his hands and feet.

Later, they subjected him to sexual abuse one by one, he added.

The Muslim men allegedly continued to bugger the Christian youth throughout the night between 2 nd and 3rd June and threw the unconscious youth in the street outside their house
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://www.weaselzippers.net/2007/06/pakis...-christian.html

[Guest]

<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/Image7.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

[ramana]

Thanks Mudy!
The pictures show the faces of women from the begining of the Slave dynasty onwrds till British period ` 1920s. One can see that the early pictures resemble the images frm Darfur and the Taliban Afghanistan. The civilizing aspect of India allowed the women to come up with the transparent veil to the Ghoongat and finally abandonmnet in Modern India. This is all apart from the burqa.

[Guest]

Good post Mudi. Mujra is popular in Pakistan. All the mullahs, clerics, terrorists love watching overweight aunties do their thang.

It's also interesting that almost every aspect of Pakistani culture is a raped and foreign one. Language, dress, dance, religion...hell, they even construct fabulous Arab and Persian genealogies to signify an unbroken Islamic tradition. What a confused people.

[Guest]

So did India have some kind of veil system before the Mughal invaders?

[ramana]

I dont think so.

First the word Mughal in context of Mrs. Patil's speech was misquoted. It was Muslim invaders she referred to in her speech per Indian express.

I would refer to "Ancient Indian Costume" by Roshan Alkazi who is an expert on the subject. Unfortunately her book published by NBT , Delhi is out of print. There is online scan of most of her book at the 4to 40 site which is linked in the Indian dress styles thread.

LINK to IF thread

She goes through a very detailed study of sculptures and paintings to make her conclusions. I recall no reference to veils in ancient India.

However Purdah system is different. This is a total distortion of how purdah works in pre-Islam and Islam Arabic lands.

[Guest]

From one of your posts in the "other" forum, I thought you had said there was a veil system before the Mughals. Maybe I was confusing between Veil and Purdah. So what is the difference between the two?

And under which system would the 'gunghat' come from? If I am not mistaken in the Northern India, the ladies wear it over the head to show respect to elders. And isn't gunghat an extension of saree?

'onestly confused.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>J&K priest issues fatwa against Army for rebuilding mosques</span>

SRINAGAR: Kashmir's Grand Mufti, Mufti Muhammad Bashir-ud-Din, has issued a fatwa against accepting money or help from the Army in rebuilding mosques and shrines.

In a statement here, the Grand Mufti said: "The Shariat (Islamic) law does not allow any person or persons other than the Muslims to do such an act (building mosques)."

The Grand Mufti, according to Islamic law, has an authority to issue legal opinions and fatwa on interpretations of Islamic law.

"In my capacity as the Mufti Azam (Grand) of Jammu and Kashmir, I declare that this shall be treated as a verdict within the purview of the Shariat that no person or persons, organisation or organisations other than Muslims can construct, renovate any mosque or shrine."

The fatwa further said any help from non-Muslims in the construction of mosques would be construed as interference in the religious affairs of Muslims.

The Army has been lending support and financial assistance in Kashmir under Operation 'Sadbhavana' and so far over Rs 10 lakhs has been spent for the construction and renovation of 11 shrines in the Kashmir Valley.

Reacting to the fatwa, the spokesman of the Army's 15th corps, Lt. Col. A.K. Mathur said: "We only help construction/renovation of religious places if there is a request from the people. If the people don't want our help, there is no force from our side."

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the Valley's chief priest, who is also the chairman of the moderate group of the separatist Hurriyat Conference, has also criticised the Army for "interference in the religious affairs of Muslims of Kashmir". 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/JK_prie...how/2082470.cms
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Wholly agree with mufti-e-azam. Army should stop interfering in Muslim affairs.

'Sadbhavana' with mufti? shaThe shAThyam samAchareta - kautilya

[ramana]

<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Jun 20 2007, 06:29 PM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Jun 20 2007, 06:29 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>From one of your posts in the "other" forum, I thought you had said there was a veil system before the Mughals.</b> Maybe I was confusing between Veil and Purdah. So what is the difference between the two?

And under which system would the 'gunghat' come from? If I am not mistaken in the Northern India, the ladies wear it over the head to show respect to elders. And isn't gunghat an extension of saree?

'onestly confused.
[right][snapback]70362[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The veil system as the pdf shows came with Muslims(circa. 1192 Second Battle of Terain) and thus was there before the Mughals(circa. 1526- First Battle of Panipat).

If you see the pdf again you can see the Ghoonghat evolved as an Indian veil. It is an extension of the dupatta and continued with the saree.

Have you seen the ghoonghat in South India? Say Rameswaram or Kanya Kumari? No. Covering the head is a dhimmi custom.

If you see the pictures shown in Roshan Alkazi's book on Ancient Indian costume there were no instances of any veil/sheil or ghoonghat /voonghat in ancient India.

The respect vespect is a rationalization for continuing the practice of veil. Mrs. Prathibha Patil is saying to get rid of old 'enforced' customs.

---
BTW, sent you an e-mail and about resetting..

[Guest]

Thanks for the clarification. I failed to make the distinction between Muslim influence and Mughal influence.

I don't remember anything from my Kanyakumari visit, so do they wear something different or similar?

It is tough to imagine that people in Rajasthan would not have evolved a dress system that would protect them from the dust/sand storms. Boys and men wore turbans, the women had to have some cover, right?

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indonesia Bags a Big One! Bali Bombing Mastermind...

Jakarta, 21 June (AKI) - Indonesian police have arrested key Bali bombing suspect, Malaysian national Noordin Mohammed Top, the well respected Detikcom news agency reports. He is considered the mastermind behind a series of bombings in Indonesia, including the 2002 and 2005 Bali nightclub attacks which killed over 250 people. Police arrested Top on 14 June, in Brebes Central Java and intend to announce this on 1 July - national police day in Indonesia, Detikcom said, quoting an unnamed source.

Noordin is now believed to be the head of the group known as Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad - which is said to be the original name of al-Qaeda. Sidney Jones the Southeast Asia director of the International Crisis Group recently told Adnkronos International she believes there is still a link between Noordin and the radical elements within JI - represented by Abu Dujana - but the level of collaboration is still unclear. Her view is shared by other experts.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2007/06/...esia-bags-.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->> Bhavabhuti in his Mahaviracharita gives a clear vivid evidence
> of purda. When Rama sees Parasurama coming towards him, he
> directs his consort Sita, `Dear one, he is our elder,
> therefore turn aside and veil yourself' [ Mvir.Ch. Act II,
> p.71 ] [ 1200, p.70 ]
> The Kalibhana grant also tells us that the women of the royal
> household observed purda in Orissa [ 1200, p.70 ] [ In.H.Qu.
> XX (1944) p.242 ]
> Vachaspati tells us that women of good families did not come
> without a veil in public [ Vach. ] [ 1200, p.70 ].
> Some women were so much devoted to their husbands that they
> would not even look at the Sun regarding him as a parapurusa.
> If the servants were found seeing the faces of queens, they
> feared punishment. [ Sis. XII.20.17 ] [ 1200 p.70 ].
> The free mixing of men and women was considered bad in
> Sriharsha's works [ Nais.Ch. XV.3 ] [ 1200, p.70 ].
> `Harsha's [1099-1101 ] [Lohara dynasty] coins [depict] a half
> cross-legged goddess [and ] a veil appears on the head ' -- [
> Coin.39]
>
> From "Veiling of Women in The Brahmanic Religion"
> by Thanabalu Kalimuthu, courtesy Prof. D.N. Jha<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From Yahoo Group Hindu Civilization.

I don't if the references cited are accurate, people who have those works with them can check.

[Guest]

<b>Who Are CAIR's Paymasters?</b>
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...91574&secure=28

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Veil of segregation

A new law prohibits Saudi women from sharing office space with men, writes Donna Abu-Nasr

Female bank employees are being partitioned away from their male colleagues in their workplaces under new rules enforcing Saudi segregation of the sexes, a move women say is squeezing them out of the few business realms where they have been gaining more rights.

In one case, a woman banker reported to work only to be told she would no longer be working at her usual place alongside her male colleagues. Her office has been relocated to a women-only suite, set up on the ground floor so she and other female bankers won't mix with men taking the elevators to higher floors.
 
Another woman has been told she will soon be separated from her male colleagues by partitions being erected in a corner of the spacious floor she has long shared with them. Both women spoke on condition of anonymity to protect their careers.
 
Saudi Arabia has long enforced a strict Islamic lifestyle in which men and women are segregated in public, including at schools, universities, restaurants, lines outside international fast food outlets and bank branches catering to customers.
 
But the latest measures targeting several bank headquarters in Riyadh have stunned many female bankers who believed the Government had turned a blind eye to the mixed environment at their offices because it wanted Saudi women to advance at work. Women have long been banned from several professions, especially in the legal system, and academic majors, such as engineering, journalism and geology.
 
The kingdom's labour law prohibits the employment of women in "hazardous jobs or industries" and allows them to work only "in all fields suitable to their nature" without specifying what those are.
 
Banking is one of the few professions where Saudi women have gained more rights in the past few years - as part of a reform drive. Female bankers say they now make up to 15 per cent of the staff.
 
No one knows exactly who issued the new segregation rules. Managers have refused to provide written orders to women. Officials at the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, the kingdom's central bank which many suspect is behind the new action, did not return several calls made by this writer on Sunday and Monday.
 
The measures are a major setback for women, who have long struggled to prove themselves in this male-dominated society. Saudi women are believed to make up less than 10 per cent of the workforce and have mostly worked in the education and health sectors. Saudi women say the new rules contradict Government assertions that it wants to provide women with more employment opportunities.
 
They also contend the rules constitute a breach of several agreements Saudi Arabia has signed with international organisations, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
 
"Nothing has been done to eliminate discrimination against women," said historian Hatoon al-Fassi. "The new measures discourage women from work and from seeking leadership positions, and they encourage employers to hire men instead."
 
Five female bankers interviewed by this writer said they worry the measures would deprive them of their jobs or lead to their demotion. They said they doubt the orders will be reversed because it will be hard for officials to defend actions that the religious establishment deems offensive. The women insist they were not breaching Islamic principles by working with men. They said banks already had strict rules governing interactions between the sexes. For example, female staffers had to keep the mandatory black abaya, or cloak, and veil on at all times.
 
They could not wear make-up, hold closed-door meetings with the male staff or date them.
 
Many also could not attend business lunches with male clients for fear the religious police would arrest them for illegally mixing with men.
 
The women said they don't know how the banks will function with key staffers and executives hidden away on different floors or behind partitions.
 
The woman ordered to the ground floor said not only her working conditions were changed, but also her duties. Her bosses would not tell her why she was given a different job. It was only when she saw a story about the new measures on the Website of the Dubai-based, Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya TV that she understood.
 
"My life changed overnight," said the woman. "I can't attend meetings. I can only talk to my male colleagues by phone ... It's a big mess."

http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=3

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like Islamic societies are increasingly becoming ''progressive.'' Ironic, a year or two ago there was program on one of the European channels on women's rights in saudi arabia. This saudi ''feminist'' went on and on, raving to the western female journalist, about how things are changing for the better for women in the arab society, and that it won't be long before they can drive and do all those wonderful things that women in other societies can do. The change is in the air....Blah..blah..blah.

Fast forward a year or two, and the women are completely isolated physically, sitting by themselves in a separate room, talking to themselves. If this is the Saudi society's idea of change for the better, oh boy...

[Guest]

Islam’s Other Victims: India
By Serge Trifkovic
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 18, 2002

Adapted from The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam by Dr. Serge Trifkovic.

The fundamental leftist and anti-American claim about our ongoing conflict with political Islam is this: whatever has happened or does happen, it’s our fault. We provoked them into it by being dirty Yankee imperialists and by unkindly refusing to allow them to destroy Israel. But two things make crystal clear that this is not so:

1. The political arm of Islam has been waging terroristic holy war on the rest of the world for centuries.

2. It has waged this war against civilizations that have nothing to do with the West, let alone America.

This is why the case of Moslem aggression against India proves so much. Let’s look at the historical record.

India prior to the Moslem invasions was one of the world’s great civilizations. Tenth century Hindustan matched its contemporaries in the East and the West in the realms of philosophy, mathematics, and natural science. Indian mathematicians discovered the number zero (not to mention other things, like algebra, that were later transmitted to a Moslem world which mistaken has received credit for them.) Medieval India, before the Moslem invasion, was a richly imaginative culture, one of the half-dozen most advanced civilizations of all time. Its sculptures were vigorous and sensual, its architecture ornate and spellbinding. And these were indigenous achievements and not, as in the case of many of the more celebrated high-points of Moslem culture, relics of pre-Moslem civilizations that Moslems had overrun.

Moslem invaders began entering India in the early 8th century, on the orders of Hajjaj, the governor of what is now Iraq. (Sound familiar?) Starting in 712 the raiders, commanded by Muhammad Qasim, demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces, killed vast numbers of men — it took three whole days to slaughter the inhabitants of the city of Debal — and carried off their women and children to slavery, some of it sexual. After the initial wave of violence, however, Qasim tried to establish law and order in the newly-conquered lands, and to that end he even allowed a degree of religious tolerance. but upon hearing of such humane practices, his superior Hajjaj, objected:

"It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man."

In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 men.

The significance of these events lies not just in the horrible numbers involved, but in the fact that the perpetrators of these massacres were not military thugs disobeying the ethical teachings of their religion, as the European crusaders in the Holy Land were, but were actually doing precisely what their religion taught. (And one may note that Christianity has grown up and no longer preaches crusades. Islam has not. As has been well-documented, jihad has been preached from the official centers of Islam, not just the lunatic fringe.)

Qasim’s early exploits were continued in the early eleventh century, when Mahmud of Ghazni, "passed through India like a whirlwind, destroying, pillaging, and massacring," zealously following the Koranic injunction to kill idolaters, whom he had vowed to chastise every year of his life.

In the course of seventeen invasions, in the words of Alberuni, the scholar brought by Mahmud to India,

"Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion toward all Moslems."

Does one wonder why? To this day, the citizens of Bombay and New Delhi, Calcutta and Bangalore, live in fear of a politically-unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan that unlike India (but like every other Moslem country) has not managed to maintain democracy since independence.

Mathura, holy city of the god Krishna, was the next victim:

"In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted." The Sultan [Mahmud] was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included "five of red gold, each five yards high," with eyes formed of priceless jewels. "The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground."

In the aftermath of the invasion, in the ancient cities of Varanasi, Mathura, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple survived whole and intact. This is the equivalent of an army marching into Paris and Rome, Florence and Oxford, and razing their architectural treasures to the ground. It is an act beyond nihilism; it is outright negativism, a hatred of what is cultured and civilized.

In his book The Story of Civilization, famous historian Will Durant lamented the results of what he termed "probably the bloodiest story in history." He called it "a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."

Moslem invaders "broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan," displaying, as an Indian commentator put it, the resentment of the less developed warriors who felt intimidated in the encounter with "a more refined culture." The Moslem Sultans built mosques at the sites of torn down temples, and many Hindus were sold into slavery. As far as they were concerned, Hindus were kafirs, heathens, par excellence. They, and to a lesser extent the peaceful Buddhists, were, unlike Christians and Jews, not "of the book" but at the receiving end of Muhammad’s injunction against pagans: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them." (Not that being "of the book" has much helped Jewish and Christian victims of other Moslem aggressions, but that’s another article.)

The mountainous northwestern approaches to India are to this day called the Hindu Kush, "the Slaughter of the Hindu," a reminder of the days when Hindu slaves from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afghan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia. The slaughter in Somnath, the site of a celebrated Hindu temple, where 50,000 Hindus were slain on Mahmud’s orders, set the tone for centuries.

The gentle Buddhists were the next to be subjected to mass slaughter in 1193, when Muhammad Khilji also burned their famous library. By the end of the 12th century, following the Moslem conquest of their stronghold in Bihar, they were no longer a significant presence in India. The survivors retreated into Nepal and Tibet, or escaped to the south of the Subcontinent. The remnants of their culture lingered on even as far west as Turkestan. Left to the tender mercies of Moslem conquerors and their heirs they were systematically destroyed, sometimes—as was the case with the four giant statues of Buddha in Afghanistan in March 2001—up to the present day.

That cultivated disposition and developed sensibility can go hand in hand with bigotry and cruelty is evidenced by the example of Firuz Shah, who became the ruler of northern India in 1351. This educated yet tyrannical Moslem ruler of northern India once surprised a village where a Hindu religious festival was celebrated, and ordered all present to be slain. He proudly related that, upon completing the slaughter, he destroyed the temples and in their place built mosques.

The Mogul emperor Akbar is remembered as tolerant, at least by the standards of Moslems in India: only one major massacre was recorded during his long reign (1542-1605), when he ordered that about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus be slain on February 24, 1568, after the battle for Chitod. But Akbar’s acceptance of other religions and toleration of their public worship, his abolition of poll-tax on non-Moslems, and his interest in other faiths were not a reflection of his Moslem spirit of tolerance. Quite the contrary, they indicated a propensity for free-thinking in the realm of religion that finally led him to complete apostasy. Its high points were the formal declaration of his own infallibility in all matters of religious doctrine, his promulgation of a new creed, and his adoption of Hindu and Zoroastrian festivals and practices. This is a pattern one sees again and again in Moslem history, down to the present day: whenever one finds a reasonable, enlightened, tolerant Moslem, upon closer examination this turns out to be someone who started out as a Moslem but then progressively wandered away from the orthodox faith. That is to say: the best Moslems are generally the least Moslem (a pattern which does not seem to be the case with other religions.)

Things were back to normal under Shah Jahan (1593-1666), the fifth Mogul Emperor and a grandson of Akbar the Great. Most Westerners remember him as the builder of the Taj Mahal and have no idea that he was a cruel warmonger who initiated forty-eight military campaigns against non-Moslems in less than thirty years. Taking his cue from his Ottoman co-religionists, on coming to the throne in 1628 he killed all his male relations except one who escaped to Persia. Shah Jahan had 5,000 concubines in his harem, but nevertheless indulged in incestuous sex with his daughters Chamani and Jahanara. During his reign in Benares alone 76 Hindu temples were destroyed, as well as Christian churches at Agra and Lahore. At the end of the siege of Hugh, a Portuguese enclave near Calcutta, that lasted three months, he had ten thousand inhabitants "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire." Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were offered Islam or death. Most refused and were killed, except for the younger women, who went into harems.

These massacres perpetrated by Moslems in India are unparalleled in history. In sheer numbers, they are bigger than the Jewish Holocaust, the Soviet Terror, the Japanese massacres of the Chinese during WWII, Mao’s devastations of the Chinese peasantry, the massacres of the Armenians by the Turks, or any of the other famous crimes against humanity of the 20th Century. But sadly, they are almost unknown outside India.

There are several reasons for this. In the days when they ruled India, the British, pursuing a policy of divide-and-rule, whitewashed the record of the Moslems so that they could set them up as a counterbalance to the more numerous Hindus. During the struggle for independence, Gandhi and Nehru downplayed historic Moslem atrocities so that they could pretend a facade of Hindu-Moslem unity against the British. (Naturally, this façade dissolved immediately after independence and several million people were killed in the religious violence attendant on splitting British India into India and Pakistan.) After independence, Marxist Indian writers, blinkered by ideology, suppressed the truth about the Moslem record because it did not fit into the Marxist theory of history. Nowadays, the Indian equivalent of political correctness downplays Moslem misdeeds because Moslems are an "oppressed minority" in majority-Hindu India. And Indian leftist intellectuals always blame India first and hate their own Hindu civilization, just their equivalents at Berkeley blame America and the West.

Unlike Germany, which has apologized to its Jewish and Eastern European victims, and Japan, which has at least behaved itself since WWII, and even America, which has gone into paroxysms of guilt over what it did to the infinitely smaller numbers of Red Indians, the Moslem aggressors against India and their successors have not even stopped trying to finish the job they started. To this day, militant Islam sees India as "unfinished business" and it remains high on the agenda of oil-rich Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, which are spending millions every year trying to convert Hindus to Islam.

One may take some small satisfaction in the fact that they find it rather slow going.

[Guest]

Post 252:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->> From "Veiling of Women in The Brahmanic Religion" by Thanabalu Kalimuthu, courtesy Prof. D.N. Jha<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bharatvarsh, I think the matter is even more complicated. <b>I'll get to the point I wish to make in the next post</b>. First though, about the bit you pasted. Is that by the same communist hysterian D.N. Jha who wrote the following priceless source of infinite laughter?
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/agarwal.html What is the Aryan Migration Theory?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is likely that the early Aryans had some consciousness of their distinctive physical appearance. They were generally fair, the indigenous people dark in complexion. The colour of the skin may have been an important mark of their identity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Never mind that no one's even found any stuff that they're certain is Oryan, let alone found any Oryan corpses they will swear to. Yet Jha wants us to believe he has read their thoughts. After that little gem, people would have to triple check anything he says/writes before accepting it.

As for citing sources, it's the trait of the Eminent Hysterians to pepper their lies by flashing some random sources here and there - in full knowledge that at least 99 out of every 100 readers won't bother checking up sources; and 99 out of a 100 of those that would, won't have access to/be able to read (or understand the language of) the sources their eminencies had bandied about. For instance, see here, Her High High Highness does the usual communist hysteria by following the standard communist methodology:
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/arti...shakashmir.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Elst quotes Romila Thapar "otherwise they would look up my footnotes and see that I am quoting from the texts of Banabhatta's Harshacharita of the seventh century AD and Kalhana's Rajatarangini of the twelfth century AD. Both texts refer to such persecutions."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Koenraad Elst, referring to Rajatarangini And this is said explicitly in the text which Romila Thapar cites as proving the existence of Hindu iconoclasm. If she herself has read it at all, she must be knowing that it doesn't support the claim she is making. Either she has just been bluffing, writing lies about Kalhana's testimony in the hope that her readers would be too inert to check the source. Or she simply hasn't read Kalhana's text in the first place. Either way, she has been caught in the act of making false claims about Kalhana's testimony even while denouncing others for not having checked with Kalhana.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Moral: communist hysterians lie about history, then lie about their sources and, when caught, lie about their lies. So going by their track-record, until all the statements and refs made by Jha and his little helper can be corroborated, I am completely within my rights in assuming their guilt until innocence is proven.

Looking at the title of the dude's work which Jha cites (which, frankly, says it all), I have even more trouble giving it any credence. But ignoring that as well - I'll be <i>assuming</i> the refs are true below - onto the second issue I have:

One of those works referred to, mentions Sita 'veiling herself' before Parashurama out of respect:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bhavabhuti in his Mahaviracharita gives a clear vivid evidence of purda.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've a question about it. That book, going by its name, appears to be on a Mahavira. Is it the same Mahavira as the last Jain Tirtankara? <i>If so</i>, the person who wrote it was either contemporaneous with him or lived after the Mahavira. Depending on whose dating we follow, Mahavira himself is dated to slightly before the Buddha or (according to the west) contemporaneous with. Either way, nowhere near Ramayanam's time. Any account the writer(s) of the book on Mahavira had about Rama is then obtained either from earlier Hindu Pauranic literature or - where it's not in accordance with said Pauranic lit - from the writer's own imagination, since too huge a time has passed between Rama's period and Mahavira's period/period of author of the Mahavira book.
As I said though - that's if the literature in question was about the Tirtankara Mahavira and also depends on whether the event about Sita can be corroborated in mainstream Hindu Puranas (in sections not added or interpolated later).


<b>But all this is irrelevant now that I have finally been able to make my way to the only point I really wanted to put across on this topic. See next post.</b>

[Guest]

Eminent Hysterians aside - who know nothing - why does no one refer to Persia? In Persia, it was the custom among the females of the Zoroastrian royalty and aristocracy (and in general, amongst all brides) to wear the veil. The royal and aristocratic women were to be veiled in front of men who were not their relatives. It was a sign of their rank. From what I have read on Iranian-Zoroastrian pages where they posted quotations from books, the veil was not a religious mandate amongst Zoroastrians. Some of the males and definitely the priests were also veiled at times - for different reasons. Amongst men it was also fashion and a sign of status, amongst priests it's because they weren't/aren't allowed to pollute the Sacred Fire.

The importance of what I just stated above, with respect to the Indian case, is two-fold: Persia was near India and had a veiling custom earlier than our confrontation with the Religion of PEACE; and the fact that significant parts of northern India were under tribute to Persia for at least a while - long enough to take over some of their fashionable customs: everyone loves copying the fashions of the aristocracy of successful nations. (Somewhere on IF I read that Hindus were in the Persian army fighting against Greeks - give me some time, I'll find that again.
<b>ADDED:</b> Found link
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Greek author Diodorus Siculus tells how in <b>316 B.C.</b> the Indian commander of a hired-army in Iran is killed, upon which his two spouses argue about the privilege of becoming the sati.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->)

Anyway, here's some supporting stuff for what I have just said (though what I'd originally read on it came from some Iranian-Zoroastrian site or forum where there were extensive articles on it). Don't know to correct most of the characters that have gone astray below, so am not attempting it:
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/...6a026.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>ÙAÚDOR</b>, a loose female garment covering the body, sometimes also the face. The etymology of the word is unknown; connection with Indian chattra “parasol” is uncertain (cf. ùatr).
<i>In Early Literary Sources
Among Zoroastrians
In Islamic Persia </i>

<b>In Early Literary Sources</b>
At least as early as <b>Achaemenid times Persian queens were hidden from the people.</b> Plutarch, discussing the reign of Artaxerxes (r. 404-359), writes that Queen Stateira was beloved by the common folk because the curtains of her carriage were always up, and thus the women of the people were permitted to see and greet her (“Artaxerxes,” 5; cf. Xenophon, Cyropaedia 6.4.11). <b>The fact that women of royalty were carried in cur­tained carriages gave rise to a motif in Persian narrative literature, the most celebrated example of which we find in the epic of V^s o Ra@m^n, with material dating from the Parthian era. There (p. 93), V^s is not only sitting behind curtains (parda) but also wearing a veil (neqa@b) on her face (cf. Bakòt^a@r-na@ma, ed. Sáafa@, pp. 5-6).</b>

In the Pahlavi texts ±a@dor is mentioned in at least two cases: in the Riva@yat ^ He@m^d i AÞawahiÞta@n, a 4th/10th-century Zoroastrian legal text (ed. Safa-Isfehani, p. 33.9), <b>±a@dor is mentioned, together with the sarband and wa@Þmag, as a female head dress worn by Zoroas­trian women;</b> in the Ma@daya@n ^ Yo@iÞt ^ Friya@n, a Pahlavi text (6th century?) based on (lost) Avestan texts (cf. Yt. 5.81-83), we read (3.56) that Hufriya@, the sister of Yo@iÞt, a Turanian Zoroastrian, and the wife of Axt, an opponent of the new, Zoroastrian, faith, put on a veil (±a@dur) when she was requested to answer the question whether the pleasure of women is from dress and housewifery rather than being with their husbands.

<b>Persian classical texts provide us with a wealth of passages in which we find women of different periods and different classes covered with either ±a@dor or other forms of head dresses.</b> For instance, when ˆ^r^n's conversation with the new king and her stepson ˆ^ru@ya is over, she removes her ±a@dor to show him that it was her beauty—unseen by others—that worked like magic upon the dead king, K¨osrow Parve@z, and nothing else (ˆa@h-na@ma, Moscow, IX, pp. 2940 v. 534).

<b>Veiling was not limited to women but was practiced also by the Persian kings.</b> Ebn Esháa@q (d. ca. 150/767) relates in his S^ra (I, p. 42) that K¨osrow Ano@Þ^rava@n (r. 531-79) came into the audience hall to receive Zuyazan of Yaman covered, and only when he was seated on the throne under the hanging crown was his veil removed. K¨osrow Parv^z's head was veiled when he was brought to the house where he was to be confined during his last days (D^navar^, ed. Guirgass, p. 112; T®abar^, I, p. 1046).

<b>Bibliography :</b> Bakòt^a@r-na@ma, ed. D¨. Sáafa@, Teh­ran, 1347 ˆ./1968. Moháammad b. Esháa@q, S^rat Rasu@l Alla@h, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Das Leben Muhammeds nach Muhammed b. Ishaq bearbeitet von ¿Abd-al-Malik b. Hisham, 2 vols., Göttingen, 1858-60. Fakòr-al-D^n As¿ad Gorga@n^, V^s o Ra@m^n, ed. M. A. Todua et al., Tehran, 1349 ˆ./1970. Ma@daya@n ^ Yo@iÞt ^ Friya@n, ed. E. W. West, in M. Haug and E. W. West, The Book of Arda Viraf. Pahlavi Text Prepared by Destur Hoshangii Jamaspji Asa . . ., Bombay and London, 1872 (repr. Amsterdam, 1971), appendix I: The Tale of Gôsht-i Fryânô. N. Safa-Isfehani, ed. and tr., Riva@yat-i He@m^t-i AÞawahista@n [sic]. A Study in Zoroastrian Law, Harvard, 1980.
(Bijan Gheiby)

<b>Among Zoroastrians</b>
There does not seem to be any evidence of veils, either covering the body or just the mouth or head from the Achaemenian period. Instead covering the mouth with the fingers, apparently as a gesture of deference to avoid offending the monarch with the smell of one's breath, is seen for example in a relief from Persepolis where a Median official, separated from Darius by two beehive-­shaped incense-burners on chest-high stands, holds the tips of the fingers of his right hand over his lips (Hinz, pl. 19 opposite p. 64).

<b>In Iranian painting of the Parthian and Sasanian periods, however, especially from S^sta@n and Sogdia, servants are shown wearing the mouth-veil</b>, Pahlavi pada@n or pada@m (Av. paiti.da@na-, borrowed in Armenian as p¿andam; see Russell, pp. 482, 486), which Zoroas­trian priests still employ ritually to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (see Kawami, p. 48).

<b>First-century women wearing veils completely cover­ing their heads and faces are seen in a marble relief from Palmyra (Ghirshman, 1962, pl. 96); in 2nd-century Palmyrene sculpture veils covering the head but leaving the face exposed are common (ibid.; pls. 93-95).</b> Women in Sasanian art, other than royal figures, appear most often in cheerful settings as musicians or dancers. In the latter case they often twirl long scarves or veils of a diaphanous material (see, e.g., Harper, pp. 77-78, and cf. clothing), but their heads are rarely covered. Silk was also sometimes used for the ritual mouth veils (Persian Rivayats, p. 296), but Dhabhar points out that this usage should properly be condemned as the silk worm was traditionally regarded as an Ahrimanic creature (ibid., n. 1).

Parsi women today do not cover their faces, but the sari is traditionally draped over the head, especially on solemn occasions. An imported Persian woolen cloth of the Achaemenian period found at Pazyryk in Siberia depicts women before an incense burner on a stand with veils draped over their crowned heads and unveiled serving-women standing behind them (Rudenko, pp. 296-97 and pl. 139). To this day, Parsi women carry an incense burner about the house at dusk, and this scene may represent an ancient form of the same domestic observance, since women have never taken a formal role in Zoroastrian public rituals.

<b>Zoroastrian village women of the Yazd area wear a ±a@dor wrapped around their necks and heads (Boyce, Stronghold, p. 12, and pls. VIa-b), but all the face and some hair is allowed to show, a tradition maintained in the face of Muslim opposition.</b>
(Bibliography follows at original link)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The veiling of women in Islam is by diktat of the koran though - as the <b>same article</b> continues to show (though first this is preceeded by some para speculating on something that may or may not be true, don't know myself):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>In Islamic Persia</b>
In the Islamic period ±a@dor, or ±a@dar (lw. in Ar. Þa@der), designates the loose, enveloping, sleeveless outer gar­ment worn by women in Iran in compliance with Islamic regulations on dress (for dialect variations see Doerfer, III, pp. 17-18), called in Arabic melháaf or melháafa. The veiling of women was common in pre-Islamic Iran (see above), and it <b>may be that some of the rigors imposed on them in the early Islamic period—as in 4th/10th century Daylam, where women were allowed to go out only at night, wearing black clothes (Spuler, p. 382)—­represented a continuation of pre-Islamic custom.</b>

<span style='color:red'><b>Islamic requirements that have led to the wearing of the ±a@dor derive primarily from Koran 24:31 and 33:59.</b></span>
[...]
(The remaining bit goes deeper into these koranic injunctions (as well as the hadiths and the islamic practise of veiling in islam's history). Pretty interesting. Certainly disproves the late and lame islamic apologetics that the "veil was all Persia's fault".)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://jorge.paulodesigns.com/wedding/ceremony.html
<b>The Persian Wedding Ceremonry, Its History and Symbolism</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mirror (of fate) "Aayeneh-ye Bakht" and two Candelabras (representing the bride and groom and brightness in their future) one on either side of the mirror. The mirror and two candelabras are symbols of light and fire, two very important elements in the <b>Zoroastrian culture. When the bride enters the room she has her veil covering her face. Once the bride sits beside the bridegroom she removes her veil</b> and the first thing that the bridegroom sees in the mirror should be the reflection of his wife-to-be.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->A lot like the 'western' custom of the veiled bride, right? Be that as it may, it is certain that 'honeymoon' - even the English word is translated from Persian - came from Zoroastrian tradition.
And on the same page, we see that some vestiges of their influences on clothing, including wedding clothes, still remain in the north of Old India (Pakistan):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Traditionally, both the bride and the bridegroom would dress in white with wreaths of flower on their necks, something similar to the Hawaiian Lei. <b>These wreaths of flower are still worn in modern wedding ceremonies in Pakistan (which used to be part of the great Persian Empire)</b>, but it is eliminated from the Iranian wedding ceremony. The color white is a symbol of purity, innocence and faithfulness. Today most modern Iranian couples follow the western dress code and style.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, even some islamic sites agree that the Zoroastrians had a concept of veils (but then sometimes, ignorant islamis argue that that somehow means there is no concept of the veil in islam - they are wrong of course as seen in the 1st link above which quotes from the Koran, but I will get back to the islamic covering below):
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_101_...from_purdah.htm
<b>Islami article called "VEIL LIFTED FROM PURDAH"</b> tries to blame Zoroastrianism for the islamic veil; whereas it only succeeds in pointing out that the purdah was an invention of Zoroastrian society for a longish period. But this does in no way deny that the <i>islamic</i> veil is islamic (even in such a case where Iranians converted to islam may have chosen to adopt the local cloths and styles instead of the Arabian style).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The practice of covering the face completely except for the eyes originated in <b>Zoroastrian Persia of old where the patrician (aristocratic) women wore the purdah</b> in order to distinguish themselves from the plebeian (of lower social class) women. This Zoroastrian CUSTOM has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Shari'ah of Islam!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, the final thing: the <i>biblical</i> veil is very much a part of islam, because it is very much christoislamic. <b>See also next post.</b>
It is prescribed by the koran (see http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/...6a026.html again) because islam stole its idea - plagiarist religion that it is - from christianity which got it from the babble. Islamic veiling is different from the phenomenon amongst Zoroastrian and original Arabian (and Syrian and other ME) cultures. The purposes were different even among Zoroastrian and Arabian cultures themselves: in Arabia it was both for climatic and fashion reasons, for Zoroastrians it was fashion and class distinction as well as at one time to prevent (aristocratic) women from being seen - that is, for social reasons, nothing religious. What I am saying is: the phenomenon occuring in these two major different cultures seems similar on the surface, but occurred for entirely different reasons.

Though it must be said that some think the Persians introduced this concept into Judaism (like Zoroastrians introduced the idea of praying 5 times a day into islam). Don't know how true that is.

[Guest]

See #257 first.

Christian Byzantium is well known to have had the veil.
<b>The christoislamic veil is biblical in nature. Example of appearance in bible of covering the head of women (includes christian reasoning):</b>
http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_...n/1co11_04.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1 Corinthians 11:4 For any man to pray or to prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 And for a woman to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 It is exactly the same as if she had her hair shaved off.
<b>1 Corinthians 11:6 Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too.</b> Link
1 Corinthians 11:7 But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but a woman is the reflection of man's glory.
1 Corinthians 14:34 As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part.
1 Corinthians 14:35 If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly.
1 Timothy 2:11-12 During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet.
Ephesians 5:22-23 Wives should be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is the husband the head of his wife.
Ephesians 5:24 And as the Church is subject to Christ, so should wives be to their husbands, in everything.
1 Corinthians 11:3 I should like you to understand that the head of every man is Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:3 The head of woman is man.
1 Corinthians 11:3 And the head of Christ is God.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even in The Netherlands until 50 years ago (watch any WWII movie set in NL) you'd have seen young women wandering around in scarves - the old generation still does. It's not for the cold - those scarves aren't warm like mufflers which the men wore when it was cold. No. The reason is the bible. (This might also be why Russian women until at least 50 years and more ago - and under communism, going by the films of that time - still wore scarves.)
Times of the Dutch/Flemish painters: look at many paintings and you'll see women had their hair covered most of the time with long cloths (like the one Scarlet Johanssen wore in the film Girl with a Pearl Earring or whatever it's called). Go back to the Middle Ages, nearly all women had their hair covered ALL THE TIME with long cloths - that was certainly due to the christian religion, even <i>if</i> afterwards they kept the tradition going because of inertia or some other reason. Go back to Byzantium and the veil is there.


<b>Heck, look at the nuns and their habits along with the head gear. That's the most obvious example.</b> Every order of nun that I know of in NL and DE had their hair covered. Watch 'The Sound of Music' say - although the heroine's hair on the front showed from under her head gear when she wore it, I've never seen this happen in real life. Watch any old or historical film on nuns.
Though this is all well-known stuff, Indian christos don't appear to know how imperative veiling is amongst their female kind. They imagine the veil is solely islamic. Mwahahahahahaha.

Anyway, though I digressed, I had several points to make and find it impossible to summarise:
- Islam certainly has the veil - it's christoislamic, as both the babble and koran command it. The reasoning is religious and very strict. Islam did not get the idea of veiling the woman from Zoroastrianism, although it may - on contact with Persia - have borrowed certain forms from there. Islam just kept the Arabian fashion/custom and made it religious, mandatory and then on top of that introduced further islamic rules to inhibit women's external appearance and expression.

- Zoroastrianism had the veil for a different, non-religious reason; had a system similar to purdah (as N India knew it) and large swathes of Northern India was for a time under Persian control and there are certainly a few signs that that region been somewhat influenced by Persian contact clothing-wise.
Note that I am in no way pleading for reinstating any female-veiling system prevalent in a period of late Zoroastrian Persia. Only saying that (1) I've not read any proofs that it was religious nor any proofs that the early Zoroastrians did this to the same extent as the later ones; (2) it was not misogynistic but more for class distinction reasons - and it seems some men used the veil for similar reasons; (3) haven't come across any indication that Zoroastrian women were threatened of being beaten up for not wearing their veil - like islamic Afghan women today are - or threatened with having their hair cut off (like the bible commands for christian women who go around with their hair exposed).

- Just because India most likely derived the Persian variety (when under the influence of the Persian empire) before islam, doesn't mean that when the muslims (and their later subset, the Mughals) did invade, these didn't strictly enforce their sharia terrorism concepts. Islamis have been known to do this in lots of places where they invaded in medieval times. Whether Iranianised muslim invaders had accepted the Iranian style of veil when enforcing the islamic concept of it or whether they just kept to the Arabian covering when they attacked different places (Afghanistan, Turkey, Berber country, Syria, Iran, India) is moot. By the time they got to India, they wanted the (existing?) Persian and other veil-styles *enforced* - not for any Zoroastrian-social or fashion reasons - but for islamic ones. They certainly added immense cause for women to stay indoors in the North. Even if the clothing custom of a veil had already been introduced earlier, even their Eminencies cannot find evidence that it was either violently impressed on the women at that earlier time, or even uniformly in all of India before islam came with its religious reasoning for the veil.

It's hard to find a way for me to clearly say what I wish to explain, but here's my attempt:

(1) The hysterical Hysterians have conveniently ignored all Zoroastrian influences from Persia on India. When even islamis admit that Purdah is originally Persian (regardless of how the concept got transformed under islam; though, as seen from the koran, the *islamic* veiling system can not be blamed on Persia) - still, their communist eminencies are historically and geographically-challenged. In their narrow view of hystery, if they can somehow prove a form of x existed before islam in India, then islam can't be blamed for the form in which x exists today, and it must be entirely native to the 'evil Hindoo religion'. It would be rather inconvenient for them to acknowledge that Purdah does not appear to be overtly offensive in the Persian context (because it's not mandated by Zoroastrian religion), and that under islamic rule the existing custom was exacerbated and perverted by islam - perhaps that's why the reds choose to ignore Persia altogether in their arguments against Hindoooooooism.

(2) Even though it may have been used in India before, it does not mean that islam didn't enforce their own terrorist regulations concerning *islamic veiling* on the Hindu population - i.e. for islamic reasons, and pushing it on people through violence - a la Afghanistan. (Meaning it was no longer for fashion or other social reasons. This is the same as how Arabian women who were already wearing their veils because of the weather, were *made* to wear it because of islam after Arabia's conversion.)

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nilofar to fight Pak radicals, rejects asylum offers

Wednesday, June 27, 2007
15:18 IST
Islamabad: Refusing to take asylum abroad, Nilofar Bakhtiar, who had to quit as Pakistan's tourism minister for hugging her para-jumping instructor in France, has vowed to fight religious extremists who damaged her political career.
After the Pakistan Muslim League (Qaid) to which she belongs refused to come to her aid when she came under attack from Islamic radicals, Bakhtiar has turned to the judiciary and civil society.

Alleging that radicals had taken control over her party, whose women's wing she headed until recently, Bakhtiar has met over 50 activists and urged the Supreme Court to take cognisance of the formation of a "state within the state."

The ‘Nation’ newspaper quoted Bakhtiar as urging "civil society and both the electronic and print media to help me in eradicating extremism from the heart of the capital."

Bakhtiar had to quit the cabinet after pictures of her hugging the French instructor created a furore among Islamic groups.

Mufti Yunus, a cleric at Islamabad's notorious Lal Masjid, issued a 'fatwa' against her, forcing her to leave the government. She is now seeking an apology from him. "Now I will see them in the court," she said here menacingly.

The reference to the "state within the state" was linked to the increasingly aggressive activities of Lal Masjid, whose seminary students have abducted policemen and women they allege are amoral and have also committed violence against music stores.

The former minister did not name the three countries she said had offered her asylum. "I did not accept any of (the offers) because I want to serve the women of my country, no matter how much it costs me."

She said she was unhappy with the government and with PML(Q) but denied that was planning to join the Pakistan People's Party of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
http://content.msn.co.in/News/Internationa...270607_1517.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jun 26 2007, 10:57 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jun 26 2007, 10:57 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bhavabhuti in his Mahaviracharita gives a clear vivid evidence of purda.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've a question about it. That book, going by its name, appears to be on a Mahavira. Is it the same Mahavira as the last Jain Tirtankara?
[right][snapback]70568[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Husky, mahaakavi Sri bhavabhUti's grand work of poetic drama is about the life of Rama. Title is probably dedicated to another most wonderful mahAvIr - 'mahAvIr vikram vajrangI' Sri Hanuman.

I am suspicious, "Dvijendra" N Jha is lying as usual. I am going through this great poetry (through a TIkA of vIrarAghava), hope to get back.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->so, the person who wrote it was either contemporaneous with him or lived after the Mahavira. Depending on whose dating we follow, Mahavira himself is dated to slightly before the Buddha or (according to the west) contemporaneous with.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Great poet probably lived in the 7th/8th century.