Orya Maqbool Jaan has to spend a Hot summer day in burqa to realize that Malala was just making a statement, not criticizing.
How comes its Malala or her Father's fault if she thought that Sikandar-e-Azam was a hero. Our whole Pakistan, with pride, name their son Sikander and think that it means Shujaat,
Mullah Umar was the leader of same Talibans who ended up shooting Malala. Was Orya Jan expecting Malala to call Umar some kind of hero? Why the hell Orya is so ticked about Malala disrespecting Mulla Umar? Right there it shows that the person is biased and pro taliban. His review is no different than the book he is claiming to be agenda based, cause his review is also agenda based.
I agree with Mulla umar point and when Orya says 'mera mazhab tehzeeb ye nahin sikhati ke ek aankh wale mulla ke liye wo lafz (kana) use karoon'.. I thought don't we hear kana Dajjal from minbers of our masaajid?
In respect of Sikandar issue, the main point was attack on syllabus which is a grey area... Orya got a basis while saying why should we teach our children about defeats? Who teaches negative history to their children? Pakistani syllabus have been criticized for inclusion of lessons on personalities like Hazrat Khadija and Hazrat Abu Bakar.... so Malala was simply speaking on a controversial issue and in the language of west.
Ansar Abbas was so disrespectful to Hoodbhoy. "I am Malala" is just a book written by 16 year old kid with the help British journalist so yes it does contain flavor of western opinion about Pakistan. Overall, this book is not that sh!tty which our media fabricated.
My father’s college held a heated debate in a packed room. Many students argued that the book should be banned and burned and the fatwa upheld. My father also saw the book as offensive to Islam but believes strongly in freedom of speech. ‘First, let’s read the book and then why not respond with our own book,’ he suggested. He ended by asking in a thundering voice my grandfather would have been proud of, ‘Is Islam such a weak religion that it cannot tolerate a book written against it? Not my Islam!’ (I am Malal)
Looks like Malala’s haters in the ratings-hungry Pakistani media just can’t leave the poor girl alone.
Malala didn’t even support Rushdie. She said her father found Rushdie’s book offensive but suggested reading that book in order to offer an alternative perspective through a book of their own. Isn’t that how things work in a civilized society? When someone says something you find offensive, you either ignore it or-- if you have a lot of time on your hand–you engage the person in a discussion in order to present your perspective on things.
The part in red is a factual statement; she isn’t “implying” anything here. Perhaps you’re reading between the lines, finding some ulterior motive where there’s none.
I know that minus-- and that’s a minus with a capital M-- Pakistani problems like insecurity and additional threat of things like burglaries, nepotism in society, load shedding etc. that afflict Pakistan, the standard of living of the average person in the developed world is not necessarily a lot better than the living standard of rich English speaking Pakistani elite. However, the segment of society who has things relatively fine in Pak is, unfortunately, a tiny miniscule of the overall Pakistan’s population. The quality of life of majority of Pakistanis is comparable to what one would observe in Europe in perhaps the dark or the middle ages: extreme poverty; malnourishment; kids who never really get to enjoy a childhood; misogyny and patriarchal attitude toward women; appalling healthcare; and poor, if at all, schooling. That holds especially true for people belonging to Malala’s background who are not born with a silver spoon.
An unwarranted, ad-hominem attack. It’s not cool to whip anti-Western and anti-American hysteria and sadly you’ve been doing that a lot recently. You should know that Pak unfortunately doesn’t really have the best of ‘reputation’ in your native country. Browse through your famous ‘Rakshak’ forums for example. Even your Prime Minister, Mr. Manmohan Singh’s comments about Pak in the United Nations no less recently were hardly flattering; President Obama, in contrast, never made similar disparaging comments even though Pak has a given a lot of grief to his country and NATO. You do not need to have aced International Relations 101 in college to know that considering Pakistan’s poor economy and the somewhat hostile neighborhood in which it’s situated, Pakistan MUST strive to have good relationship with all countries, including its neighbors of course, and also and especially Western nations like the UK and the United States.
Err, no. Even if you have a problem with the positive publicity that Malala has received abroad, you should be taking out your ire at the savages who attacked her instead of, repeatedly, casting aspersions on a teenager’s character. She never asked for it. As for the publicity, thankfully hatred isn’t a cottage industry in the developed world. So there was a lot of interest there in Malala Yousuzai’s life story just as there’s a lot of interest and almost universal adoration for people like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi, people who have extraordinary life stories. Malala is an extraordinary teenager. And that makes her special. To me, much of the rest of the world, and for many Pakistanis too, Malala Yousufzai is an incredibly positive young person, symbol of bravery and a reminder of the importance of universal education, an embodiment of hope, an icon.
You’re a rare outsider who doesn’t like her. Though, I can bet if you were named, for example, “Krithik Kumar FaaKhta” or “Kenneth Kevin FaaKhta” or “Kenshou Kimihiko FaaKhta” most likely you would have been impressed by Malala instead of looking at her with some transnational conspiracy-ladden goggles. Which is why there’s something dangerous and much more to such criticism of Malala than meets the eyes. Because although you’re an outsider, if your train of thought is not completely uncommon among Pakistanis, then that’s a cause of sadness IMHO. Why? Because that suggests that just like Pakistan couldn’t ultimately tolerate its Benazir—another incredibly brave Pakistani woman—perhaps Malala will not be welcome or safe in her original country. Which begs the question: Will Pakistan overcome all the deluge of hatred and intolerance that are tearing it apart from every direction? Will it even survive in the end and survive as a country that bears some resemblance to Jinnah’s Pakistan as a progressive nation? Hopefully it will. We can hope so. But sadly if doesn’t, at least Malala will be safe in a great country i.e. the UK whose people have taken a liking to her and will not let extremists hurt her.
PS: I hope I didn’t step on anyone’s toes here. Happy posting!
My father’s college held a heated debate in a packed room. Many students argued that the book should be banned and burned and the fatwa upheld. My father also saw the book as offensive to Islam but believes strongly in freedom of speech. ‘First, let’s read the book and then why not respond with our own book,’ he suggested. He ended by asking in a thundering voice my grandfather would have been proud of, ‘Is Islam such a weak religion that it cannot tolerate a book written against it? Not my Islam!’ (I am Malal)
What freedom of speech? abusing someone's holy figures is not freedom of speech. This is a western concept and based on hypocrisy. On one hand they talk of tolerance and on other they advocate hate and hate speech.
Looks like Malala’s haters in the ratings-hungry Pakistani media just can’t leave the poor girl alone.
Malala didn’t even support Rushdie. She said her father found Rushdie’s book offensive but suggested reading that book in order to offer an alternative perspective through a book of their own. Isn’t that how things work in a civilized society? When someone says something you find offensive, you either ignore it or-- if you have a lot of time on your hand--you engage the person in a discussion in order to present your perspective on things.
The point is why talk about Rushdie in her book and that too without any context. Seems that Lamb wanted to cover everything that hurt Pakistanis and Muslims in this book. Why should Malala who is just 16 be talking of Satanic Verses published before her birth and why should that be covered in her book. She would have talked about issues which portray Islam and Muslim in positive light, but they are not covered in book. why this selection of thoughts?
What freedom of speech? abusing someone's holy figures is not freedom of speech. This is a western concept and based on hypocrisy. On one hand they talk of tolerance and on other they advocate hate and hate speech.
talk this 'freedom of speech' crap against Jews and then see what happens.
two Canadians, Ernst Zundel and Kiegstra, wrote in denial of holocaust, they were arrested, tried, convicted and put in jail while Zundel was extradited to Israel to face further charges. 10-15 years later, they are still in jail.
why don't they apply the same principles when it comes to something against Jews.
