Sunday, September 04, 2005

Shabana Rehman Nude Photos

Bjørn Stærk is getting a lot of hits from Pakistanis searching for nude photos of Norwegian-Pakistani comedienne Shabana Rehman. So am I. And since I'm always interested in getting more Muslim visitors, I decided to make a post called "Shabana Rehman Nude Photos", which will appear on a Google search. No, I don't have any, but I want more traffic:

Shabana Rehman 1 - Pakistani editors 0

Shabana Rehman about the negative coverage of her in Pakistani newspapers: "Over the last two days I've received over a hundred offers of marriage from the readers of precisely these newspapers, who want to get in touch with me, who wonder if I can get them a Norwegian passport, or if they can buy nude pictures of me, or buy my body, or put them in touch with potential Norwegian wives, the letters decorated with Western pornographic pictures. That's how much the condemnation of hypocritical and ethically cripled Pakistani editors is worth." And let me add that my blog is getting a lot of hits these days from Pakistanis searching for nude pictures of Shabana. The only one I know of is this, but congrats for looking. Perhaps I can interest you in some of her ideas instead?

Shabana Rehman: The Migration of the Heart


My father died in 1996. He was only 52. There was nothing unusual about his death. But there was about his final wish. He asked to be buried where his children, the next generation, lived, and not in the country of his ancestors. This is an unusual choice for people in his generation of immigrants. A proud Pakistani, buried in Norwegian soil. As I watched his coffin being lowered into the earth, a truth struck me with a force I could not escape. It was like being confronted with an Icelandic vulcano.

For there, by my father's grave, I saw no roots. For a person who takes for granted the community one belongs to, to stand there and see no roots it was like time stood still. By my father's grave I saw something different. I saw a dream of freedom. Who then was I, where do I belong, if this was my father's goodbye? Last week the answer came to me in form of a miracle: I became the aunt of a little princess. When I looked into her eyes for the very first time, I saw neither a Norwegian nor a Pakistani, a Muslim nor a Christian. I saw a free human being. She was also born with extra large feet. That is good. She'll need them. That generation is going to make new history, for they represent the migration of the heart.

My father had a dream: To live in a country where he could escape the hell of poverty, where you do not measure a person's dignity by where or as who you are born. Most people believe in roots, in differences, in categories. By my father's grave I could find no roots. He was one of many parents who throughout their lives had fought to give their children a more dignified life than he himself had been offered. There we stood, before his gravem and watched as nationality, religion, ethnicity and roots were buried, in a country that he was neither born in nor felt at home in. And yet it became a powerful symbol to us, his descendants. By my father's grave I saw no roots. I saw only a dream, a dream of the emmigration of the heart, and the immigration of freedom. I saw a dream of freedom, and the price he paid for it. The migration of the heart is the dream of freedom. That is my message to you today.

12 Comments:

At September 04, 2005 3:40 PM, Blogger erp said...

How lucky the new little princess is to have an aunt like you to help her through life, but don't be surprised if she considers herself Norwegian, not Pakistani.

After all, being a Pakistani is a rather new phenomenon. If Gandhi hadn't brow-beaten the British into forcing India to partition off a large corner of its territory and give it to their minority Muslim community, there would be no Pakistan. You'd all still be Indians and your loyalty and roots would be to Delhi instead of Islamabad.

In fact, it's striking how many similarities there are between Israel and Pakistan. Both were created as a result of the British domination in their respective corners of the world. The Muslims taking territory away from the majority Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. was perfectly okay with the world community, while Israel and the Jews . . . well that's an old story and why bother repeating it, except to say it was decided not perfectly okay with the world community.

An important difference between these two countries created in the 20th century is that Pakistan's neighbors haven't been trying to push them into the sea since the first moment of its existence as Israel's neighbors have been doing. Yet Israel is a force for good in world. It's a democracy whose Arab citizens enjoy full rights even to being members of the Knesset. They have been in the forefront of medical and agricultural research while enduring a relentless war with terrorists, while Pakistan, let's say hasn't exactly been a force for good in the world, but has instead added to the unrest and violence.

 
At September 04, 2005 9:54 PM, Blogger CH said...

erp:"there would be no Pakistan. You'd all still be Indians and your loyalty and roots would be to Delhi instead of Islamabad."

Well, there was a lot of civil unrest preceding the whole split. And I am not sure the muslims would in fact pledge aleagance to Delhi today. We might have seen a civil war instead, or a seperatist movement with the bloodshed that follows..

 
At September 05, 2005 12:51 AM, Blogger erp said...

ch.

Hindus and Buddhists who were the original inhabitants of the Indian continent welcomed the Muslims immigrants and they lived together amicably for centuries until civil unrest was fomented by the Communists with Gandhi's willing collaboration.

India was forced through world opinion to accede to Muslim demands and partition their country into two and finally three parts (Bangladesh was originally part of Pakistan) in order stop the violence and pander to Muslims.

Of course it didn't stop the violence and the world a far more dangerous place today with Pakistan heavily armed including nuclear weapons and it didn't even stop the bloodshed in India because Muslims are still fighting for more Indian territory almost a hundred years later.

The young aunt who wrote the charming story posted here probably doesn't know any more history than you do. The schools have been very successful in their non-teaching or selective teaching of history.

 
At September 05, 2005 12:57 AM, Blogger Fjordman said...

Hindus and Buddhists who were the original inhabitants of the Indian continent welcomed the Muslims immigrants and they lived together amicably for centuries

Erp: Do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about? Muslims attacked and massacred Indians one thousand years ago.

 
At September 05, 2005 1:56 AM, Blogger erp said...

The history of that region of the world is complicated and convoluted and this isn't the place for an in depth history lesson.

The point that I was trying to make is that Pakistan was made up out of whole cloth from India and prior to that point the various religions had been living together more or less amicably for, you note I said, hundreds, not thousands, of years.

Since the non-Muslims were in the majority by then and Muslims were in the minority, they must have been welcome because the majority populations were living with them in peace.

The reason I'm making this point is because a lot of the anti-American hatred I believe is because of anti-Israel and anti-Semitism. Anti-Israel because of the belief that land was taken from the indigenous Muslims and given to the Jews and I'd like people to realize that this is exactly the same way that Pakistan was created.

 
At September 05, 2005 8:36 AM, Blogger ik said...

erp,

a couple of points

1. You said - "If Gandhi hadn't brow-beaten the British into forcing India to partition"
This is not true - It was Jinnah (with full backing of Muslim Ummah) in collaboration with the British who partitioned India. Gandhi repeatedly mentioned that "India will be partitioned over my dead body" - He agreed to the partition to prevent the civil war.
The mistake Gandhi made was that the partition agreement (24% Muslims getting 25% of undivided India) included a "exchange of populations" clause and Gandhi ignorantly (he had no understanding of Islam - he only had some understanding of the British mentality) told the Hindus that they would HAVE to learn to live with the Muslims and hence no Muslims would leave India.

At the time of partition the nationalists felt betrayed by Gandhi because he had repeatedly said that there would be no partition - hence he was assassinated.

In hindsight I feel (my opinion) that partition was a good thing - because otherwise with the Muslim birth rate and aggressiveness by now already India would have been declared "Islamic republic of India" - and the west would have been dealing with at least 20 versions of Irans and Pakistans in the region.

The mistake Gandhi made was that he refused to continue with the "exchange of populations" which has now left us with this exploding Muslim population (7% in 1947 to 15% in 2001) which will eventually declare civil war/partition or will just wait to get to 50% and then take over the country.

2. You said "Hindus and Buddhists who were the original inhabitants of the Indian continent welcomed the Muslims immigrants and they lived together amicably for centuries"

I do realize that this kind of opinion comes about because for the past 500 years just about everyone who has touched Indian history (Muslims/British/Marxists) has been constructing fiction for pushing their own agenda.

Believe me it is not true - The only "peaceful" (relatively) time was when Akbar was ruling because he tried to construct a secular state(supposedly - that is what we are taught in school). Even then I recently found that the head Mullah in Mecca wrote to Akbar in effect "Why are you so lenient towards these infidels/polytheists?" and Akbar replied "it is just a tactical move to stabilize the empire-once I have sufficient power and control - then I will continue on my duty to Allah (butchering of infidels) - even this letter exchange I read on some nationalist site and I have no way of knowing if it is true since all the Indian history writing has been completely controlled by Marxists since the 1970s.

The reasons it appears amicable is this

1. We cannot be like Muslims (exterminating minorities when we have a majority,abusing other religions etc. etc.)
2. The Muslims will not/do not change

This is the point at which all civilizations dealing with Islam get stuck. Notice Israel is stuck at the same point (whole mideast is Judenrein openly whereas Israel cannot declare itself "Arabrein")

The West will get stuck at the same point.

Only solution is complete physical separation - whoever sits on our side has to convert to our religion (notice the solution is not "racist")

3. the reason Muslims could rule as a minority is because Hindus do not have a religious identity to organize them - they identify themselves by language/caste/sect etc. also most of India is agricultural and Muslims had only to take control of urban centres to "rule" - the majority of population was in rural areas and had no "weltanschaung" of anything outside their village.


Also PLEASE Please try to resist the tendency to draw analogies - it becomes ridiculous (just superficial similarity) - eg jews were persecuted - muslims were persecutors. Jews lived on that land long ago - muslims did not have any claim to pakistan- muslims have 50 -60 countries to go to - jews had none - hindus will have none to go to either etc etc. and many many more things I can point out.

 
At September 05, 2005 8:52 AM, Blogger ik said...

erp,

Here is a letter to the editor in a nationalist newspaper written by someone - I do not agree to all of it - just posting it here

The interest of the nation or that of the Hindus have never figured in the lust for power and self-promotion of the Hindu leadership either before independence or afterwards. All through the 20th century, ever since Gandhi came on the scene, Hindu leaders have treated India as their personal fiefdom and Hindus as slaves. Gandhi did not mind even the slaughter of the Hindus provided it kept the Muslims happy.

VP Menon whose brilliance and objectivity was recognised both by the British rulers and the Indian leaders had this to say about Gandhi: "He lived for it (Muslim community). Indeed he eventually died for it!" (The Transfer of Power in India, Orient Longmans, Delhi, 1957, p 442). Nehru who succeeded him after independence, provided for special rights and privileges - Articles 25 and Article 30 - for Muslims in the Objective Resolution moved by him in the Constituent Assembly even before Clement Atlee, the British Prime Minister, had announced his Government's decision to grant independence to India.

Nowhere else in the world except India would one find that a minority has been given a separate homeland and yet allowed to stay on in the same country. India is the sole example where a majority has been reduced to the status of a second-class citizenary. lt is testified by the fact that the most sacred places of the Hindus are still under occupation of the Muslims even after six decades of independence. Is it not the same minority, which plundered the Hindu civilisation for six hundred years?

Christian Europe was also subject to Muslim invasion for 1000 years. Has it given it invaders separate homelands or superior rights to Muslims on its soil? British saved the Hindu civilisation from the clutches of Muslim barbarism at the battle of Plassey in 1757 AD. Before their departure in 1947, the British performed their last act of grace.

To put an end to the ever-recurring Hindu-Muslim discords, they agreed to the creation of Pakistan for the Indian ummah, but only after the Muslim community had overwhelmingly voted for the division of India in the election held in 1945-46. Muslim leaders were at least forthright and honest to the core. They repeatedly declared in 1946-47 that because of their religious compulsions Muslims could never live peacefully with Hindus on the same soil.

True to its name. Pakistan - the land of the pure - Hindus and Sikhs were ethnically cleansed from its Western wing in 1947-48. Jinnah, descendant of a Gujrati parent created a homeland for his community - a unique feat in world history. Gandhi, another Gujrati, destroyed the Hindu identity by re-sowing the seeds of Islamic rule in India.

Gandhi perpetrated a fraud on Hindus driven out of Pakistan by not asking Muslim to leave for their Darul Islam. The rise of Gandhi on the political horizon of India after the death of BG Tilak in 1920 was the second greatest calamity that befell the Hindus after the establishment of Muslim rule in India in 1206 AD.

 
At September 05, 2005 11:41 PM, Blogger PD111 said...

erp posted : Hindus and Buddhists who were the original inhabitants of the Indian continent welcomed the Muslims immigrants and they lived together amicably for centuries until civil unrest was fomented by the Communists with Gandhi's willing collaboration.

You are being sarcastic, right?

DP111

 
At September 06, 2005 12:17 AM, Blogger PD111 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At September 06, 2005 12:20 AM, Blogger PD111 said...

Just in case anyone is in any doubt, the greatest holocaust that took place in history, is the one that muslim invaders perpetrated in India. Some 70 to 80 million Hindus, Buddhists and others, were killed over the period of muslim rule.

These are the ones that were killed. What is not included are the much greater number of deaths that must have occurred as a consequence of the devastation of agriculture - the main economy of the time.

In addition some 30,000 temples were destroyed, and countless others converted to mosques.

The killings of the peaceful Buddhists was so devastating, that Buddhism's home in Afghanistan was totally eradicated. The last remnants of Buddhist presence was effectively destroyed by the Taliban. Even in India, they were so devastated, that most Buddhists fled North to Tibet etc.

In all this debauchery, the much vaunted peaceful Sufis continued to play a pivotal role, by making sure that the muslim invaders adhered strictly to the tenets of islam ie, slay the idolators without mercy, and take their women and belongings.

If you wish to know a little bit about the tragic encounter of Hindus with muslims, I think you should read some of the writings of Hugh Fitzgerald over at Jihad Watch, and Serge Trifkovic.

Two links. First one is on the genocide in India that has no comparison in history.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4649

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=1024

There is a lot more on the site below

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=1024

Not pleasant reading at all.

DP111

 
At September 06, 2005 12:31 AM, Blogger PD111 said...

ik posted : The rise of Gandhi on the political horizon of India after the death of BG Tilak in 1920 was the second greatest calamity

Quite agree. Just one minor quible - the secong greatest calamity is going to occur as a consequence of the rise of Gandhi - when the exploding muslim population in India starts to demand its rights.

DP111

 
At September 07, 2005 9:01 AM, Blogger ik said...

pd111,

They are always demanding their "rights" and continuously pushing the envelope.

The problem will arise when Muslim intransigence runs into rising Hindu self confidence - at some point the curves will intersect

 

Post a Comment

<< Home