Top 10 incredibly stupid things Pakistani politicians said in 2016

[RazaGujjar]

Husbands should be allowed to beat their wives??!?!

Only "lightly"

 

[RazaGujjar]

My favorite quote from a pakistani politician is "Degree, degree hoti hai bava jali ho ya asli."

 

[Tipu7]

The bias here probably isn't of the journalist, more likely your own bias to excuse any comment as long as it qualifies as vaguely religious.

As for the statements themselves, they're at the very least unnecessary. Stupid perhaps not. Number 9 especially has no place in our society.

All these statements are random picks by Media men inorder to generate spicy work for sake of ratings. Taken completely out of context, words & meanings twisted and too much lime light on one less important statement while important ones are ignored deliberately.

E.g, No9. We all know that ''Mullahs demands Husband rights to beat the hell out of their wives'' but do you know about rest 50+ recommendations they made in same publications related to Woman Right bill?

I bet you cannot even recall 10 of them, why bcoz Media never discussed them in first place. This is how things work in a illusionised society of ''Free Media''

Husbands should be allowed to beat their wives??!?!

So husbands should be allowed to beat their wife's? Come on man... How is that even right?

Yup, but Last resort when all other available options rule out and several conditions are properly met.

 

[Zibago]

This list is heavily populated by baboons

 

[saiyan0321]

This list is heavily populated by baboons

With special appearances by our moulvi tabqa. The list would be filled with them if they had greater political power and political representation. :p :p

 

[litman]

all those desi americans if you have problem with 9 please read surah nisa verse 34. i wrote about it in some thread when that mulvi said so and i dont have time to explain this to educated jahils here. read yourself and if you disagree go and argue with the ONE who sent that book. bye

 

[Jungibaaz]

All these statements are random picks by Media men inorder to generate spicy work for sake of ratings. Taken completely out of context, words & meanings twisted and too much lime light on one less important statement while important ones are ignored deliberately.

I agree with you, this is the pattern and behaviour of media everywhere, as necessitated by their very nature.
But still, even with all the context in the world, some of these statements are odd. For instance, what mighty purpose does the President of Pakistan hold in preventing Pakistanis from partaking in Valentine's day?

Put it this way, forget the religious and cultural angle, if the President was quoted advising Pakistanis to avoid Cinco de Mayo celebrations, would you object to it being quoted as stupid, unnecessary or odd of a president to say?

E.g, No9. We all know that ''Mullahs demands Husband rights to beat the hell out of their wives'' but do you know about rest 50+ recommendations they made in same publications related to Woman Right bill?

I bet you cannot even recall 10 of them, why bcoz Media never discussed them in first place. This is how things work in a illusionised society of ''Free Media''

Media is free in the sense that it is free to be sold to whatever generates revenue. And you're right, I can't even recall 5 recommendations of CII besides the wife beating ones. The media doesn't bother with those, sure, I can agree.

But do you excuse that single recommendation that made headlines because the media missed out the rest? I certainly don't. Call me ignorant, but you'd have a hard time trying to convince me of that point even with the other 49 being fully justified.

Even if we set aside the implications in Pakistan, the political implications are far reaching thanks to the world we're living in. I saw the British press reporting this and Brits responding with the assumption that therefore wife beating must be the second most popular sport of ours after cricket. And even forgetting the politics, I know for a fact that I've never needed to beat anyone to get my point across, not least a family member or wife. At worst you'd be enabling wife beaters.

 

[Valar Dohaeris]

If you or I said it, it wouldn't matter. Coming from the President of Pakistan, it is a stupid quote, if not stupid it ought to maybe bother you that your president concerns himself with petty things such as this. Nevermind his actual opinion.

This is exactly what I am asking, why the president is being called stupid for saying what is right ?

Please tell us the intentions of the author, you already dismissed him as a desi-liberal for each point where something remotely religious was the subject of ridicule. So, what's his intention as hinted at in the part in bold?

I have already stated that he is a desi-liberal and his intentions dont comply with the title. He is not evaluating 10 most stupid things said by politicians rather most of the time he is trying to ridicule things said at national which are even remotely connected to religion.

So are you saying the CII chairman said no such thing about wife beating? That he was misinterpreted by the author, myself and others? Or that he said something along those lines but our reaction was somehow wrong? (This one you'll need to explain)

Or is it that it's debatable when it comes Islamic guidance and therefore it would be wrong to include his quote on the list? In which case I already addressed the issue in the previous post. (see below)

Yar where did I said that he has said no such thing ? Or did I said that he was misinterpreted by you or the author ? Or anything about that the reaction was wrong ? Please read my post again, please. You surely misread my whole message. I dont know why.

 

[Jungibaaz]

This is exactly what I am asking, why the president is being called stupid for saying what is right ?

You're not getting it. I spelled it out for you in the previous post and your point of discussion hasn't budged. Okay, even slower now:

-I do not agree that this quote is 'right'. However you define it to be so.
-It is a nonsensical matter. Whether or not a Muslim celebrates Valentine's day or not really isn't of concern to anyone.
-It's a petty and trivial matter for someone of his position to be in, which is why we were thoroughly ridiculed in the international media.
-So stupid was this quote, or so it would seem to me, foreigners, international media and biased desi-liberal authors that Mamnoon Hussain did a U-turn on the whole statement:

http://www.dawn.com/news/1239467

He retracts it recognising its stupidity. And here you are still defending it.
Good luck with that buddy. Who knows, maybe Mamnoon Hussain is a secret desi-liberal or he caved in to pressure by the author.

I have already stated that he is a desi-liberal and his intentions dont comply with the title. He is not evaluating 10 most stupid things said by politicians rather most of the time he is trying to ridicule things said at national which are even remotely connected to religion.

If he were to ridicule anything religious, he'd need a list indexed somewhere in the millions, not these few quotes. For instance, please explain how 2, 6, 8, 10 are remotely religious.

Rather I would level this charge at you, a list of stupid things said by politicians and you pick the religious ones to defend for whatever reason you see fit.

Yar where did I said that he has said no such thing ? Or did I said that he was misinterpreted by you or the author ? Or anything about that the reaction was wrong ? Please read my post again, please. You surely misread my whole message. I dont know why.

Nice footwork. Alas if it wasn't futile.

I asked YOU to explain your point, not for you to strawman the questions I gave you. I've read your posts and each time they do not clarify your positions.

Take this argument spaghetti for example:

The debate is about the point which CII chairman said, not about what is mentioned in the Quran. Because the religious ruling regarding physical punishment of the wife is quite logical and different from what Maulana Sherani said or what media heard.

Please tell me this...

Explain it to me as if I were as stupid as the strawman that your response was to.

You defend number 9? Correct?
If so, why do you defend it? It is a simple question.

A) Do you agree with beating a wife lightly?
B) Do you think that CII did not mean that wife beating was acceptable that they were misinterpreted?
C) Or that C it is religiously justified, and that therefore it doesn't belong on the list?

Which is it? Pick one and spare us the dodging, strawmanning or whatever else seems fit.

 

[The Sandman]

These were the most funny lol they're complete idiots man. Ya mere Allah again we're going to have a debate whether beating wife is ok or not khuda ka khof karo Musalmano!

 

[Sliver]

the middlesex thing took the cake for me. lol. is it really true that a Muslim loses some sanctity stuff by saying that name? the number of Muslims living in that place in UK need to say their address so many times - what happens to them?

arent some cities in Pakistan named after hindu gods or something? is that also an issue?

 

[The Diplomat]

Yup, but Last resort when all other available options rule out and several conditions are properly met.

There is always another option, I always regret to say this but if things become so bad sometimes divorce is the best thing to do.

because they are husbands ...isn't that clear enough...what world do you live in ..... On serious note leaders don't make statements out of thin air...there is a following who still believe in this sh1t....Husbands beating their wives is a reality and a right...thus such statements raise no eyebrows there...Unfortunately this is a sad truth

If the leaders them self are uneducated then they don't deserve to be leaders. And people who follow them are equally crazy... Just like the political joke in the country, I don't understand how these people still have followings...

 

[Imad.Khan]

all those desi americans if you have problem with 9 please read surah nisa verse 34. i wrote about it in some thread when that mulvi said so and i dont have time to explain this to educated jahils here. read yourself and if you disagree go and argue with the ONE who sent that book. bye

This is the verse that you mentioned

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

Ref: https://quran.com/4/34

But there are other translations as well

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). Regarding the woman who is guilty of lewd, or indecent behavior, admonish her (if she continues in this indecency then), stop sharing her bed (if she still continues doing this lewd behavior, then), [set forth for her the clear meaning of either straighten up or else we are finished and when she returns to proper behavior take up sharing the bed with her again], but if she returns in obedience (to proper behavior and conduct) then seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.”

Ref: http://www.islamtomorrow.com/articles/women_treatment.htm

The above link also provides you an explanation of the verse.

So even if we take the first translation as more accurate, even then the verse gives you conditions which i have listed below for all to understand.

1. Men are in charge of women ( their wives ) because they provide for her

So if a husband doesn't provide he is not in charge

2. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard.

The women need to guard their modesty while he is away

3. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance

what classifies arrogance? so if we literally take arrogance as the word then if she isn't arrogant than the condition isn't meet. But if we take the previous part of the verse as reference then it could mean that she is not guarding her modesty.

4. [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them

So you can't just strike her, first you need to give them advise, then sleep separately in different beds and if she still doesn't mend her ways then you can strike her. But question here arises, how hard are you allowed to strike? and what is actually considered a strike? Is pinching considered a strike?

So in conclusion and in short, a husband can only strike a wife if she has not been protecting her modesty and the husband has already taken steps for her to mend her ways.

Hope this helps

 

[Flash_Ninja]

1,4,5 and 9

Seriously?

You honestly believe Sindh is turning into "Kafiristan"?

And you believe men should be allowed to beat their wives?

Fair enough on 4, and 5, but the others are inexcusable.

 

[litman]

This is the verse that you mentioned

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

Ref: https://quran.com/4/34

But there are other translations as well

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). Regarding the woman who is guilty of lewd, or indecent behavior, admonish her (if she continues in this indecency then), stop sharing her bed (if she still continues doing this lewd behavior, then), [set forth for her the clear meaning of either straighten up or else we are finished and when she returns to proper behavior take up sharing the bed with her again], but if she returns in obedience (to proper behavior and conduct) then seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.”

Ref: http://www.islamtomorrow.com/articles/women_treatment.htm

The above link also provides you an explanation of the verse.

So even if we take the first translation as more accurate, even then the verse gives you conditions which i have listed below for all to understand.

1. Men are in charge of women ( their wives ) because they provide for her

So if a husband doesn't provide he is not in charge

2. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard.

The women need to guard their modesty while he is away

3. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance

what classifies arrogance? so if we literally take arrogance as the word then if she isn't arrogant than the condition isn't meet. But if we take the previous part of the verse as reference then it could mean that she is not guarding her modesty.

4. [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them

So you can't just strike her, first you need to give them advise, then sleep separately in different beds and if she still doesn't mend her ways then you can strike her. But question here arises, how hard are you allowed to strike? and what is actually considered a strike? Is pinching considered a strike?

So in conclusion and in short, a husband can only strike a wife if she has not been protecting her modesty and the husband has already taken steps for her to mend her ways.

Hope this helps

dear i really know what it means . i talked about it when that mulvi gave that ruling. the ignorant people made fun of the mulvi and actually they were making fun of Quran and they didnt even know what's written in Quran. thanks to you for elaborating the ruling rather then just laughing about it as most of the people do here. people dont even know the diference between something recommended or allowed as last resort. A muslim can even eat pig as a last resort when he doesnt get anything else to eat and is in danger of losing his life.
about light beating there are instructions. hitting on face, severe beating leading to some fracture or permanent mark ,burning , honor killing etc are forbidden. you seem to be educated person so you must also read the incident of hazrat Ayub AS and his wife in Quran. you will get an idea of light beating .