Sunday, July 31

Plan Of Action

I think I need a fling or two before I go back home to get married; y'know for the sake of any future marriage I may have (see here).

I'm thinking a nice wholesome Hindu or Sikh girl (without being racist white girls are so last decade and I feel that as an Asian I should stick to and promote our own fantastic girls). Someone with standards, who doesn't just date anyone and even possibly someone who is also looking for a fling before their own arranged marriage.

Of course I should be careful to find someone who's NOT willing to convert, otherwise I might find myself in the sticky situation of actually having to marry them. Oh, and I won't tell them how they're just acting as a facilitator, because, well, it won't be an important factor in our relationship.

So? What do you all think? Unusually proactive, I know, but it's a sound plan of action I think...

43 comments:

  1. shak & a no strings attached relationship - I just can't see it happening

    ReplyDelete
  2. LMAO, i really am starting to enjoy reading your blog Shakil. Keep up the good work. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. why not with a muslim girl? you can fuck her up the ass but then she'll still be a virgin right?

    p.s. no offence- i guess hypocrites shouldn't be offended anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shakil, I guess education and intelligence really have no correlation after all!

    ReplyDelete
  6. the sad thing about it is, i do feel guilty and sorry and ashamed about making such a comment. i apologise for making it, nevertheless, i am sure it puts the point across quite plainly- freedom of speech is fair- gratuitous and pointed denigration of particular faiths/beliefs be it in jest/as a parody, is pathetic and quite thick. i agree wholeheartedly with kunal's comment- education and intelligence really have no correlation in this particular case.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. *rolls eyes*

    you just love the drama!!

    drama queen!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. i think rohit and kuni may have missed the fact that shakil is satiring muslim guys who have one last fling with a non-muslim girl before they get married to a good little muslim girl from back home

    ReplyDelete
  10. >>why not with a muslim girl? you can fuck her up the ass but then she'll still be a virgin right?

    I am quite surprised you stooped so low Roey..

    ReplyDelete
  11. >>I am quite surprised you stooped so low Roey..

    Its just a silly joke thats turned sour. Don't think Shakil meant anything by it. And Rohit has apologised for his comment. Theres no need to make a issue out of it. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. love you Sofi. :-D

    ReplyDelete
  13. chalo koi baat nahin. moqa tho phir ayega..joking.

    ReplyDelete
  14. a parody that was written insensitively at best... for me this is how distant/impersonal one way communication can easily offend - a bit like the media constantly telling us theyre not Terrorists, they're Islamic Terrorists, and Bush isnt a Christian mass murderer, he's a defender of his nation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @turtlebrain - i hope everyone must have got that, the offence might not have been intended, but was insensitive to something maybe many muslims have been almost forced to become desensetised to.

    ReplyDelete
  16. >>a bit like the media constantly telling us theyre not Terrorists, they're Islamic Terrorists, and Bush isnt a Christian mass murderer, he's a defender of his nation.

    *woooosh*

    ReplyDelete
  17. My point was that the way things are written or said often clearly implies (deliberately or subconsciously) more than what the simple facts of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  18. >>My point was that the way things are written or said often clearly implies (deliberately or subconsciously) more than what the simple facts of the matter.

    are you referring to this blog in question or in general?

    ReplyDelete
  19. You have my blessings.. =P

    ReplyDelete
  20. >>I am quite surprised you stooped so low Roey..

    i'm unsurprised you don't get the point. the fact of the matter is, what was written was insensitive and poorly satirised and pretty much denigrated and cheapened hindu and sikh women. i s'pose things only seem to matter when they apply to you.

    as for stooping low- i think the blog is far lower in nature but it'd be too "whoosh" for your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  21. well turtlebrain seems to have got it.

    as for LSD's point about "the way things are written or said often clearly implies (deliberately or subconsciously) more than what the simple facts of the matter." then at least one of the comments on here should be subject to the same criticism from everyone who criticised shak. (although rohit did apologise right away. yet the fact remains that if LSD's comment applies to shak, then it also applies to rohit) and, correspondingly, sophie should have criticised shak as well as rohit.

    i'm also not convinced, as rohit believes, that shak has actually criticised any particular faiths or beliefs. what he HAS denigrated is the attitudes of some.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "and pretty much denigrated and cheapened hindu and sikh women."

    hmm, not entirely sure that it did.

    ReplyDelete
  23. By the way, LSD, what did you mean by "but was insensitive to something maybe many muslims have been almost forced to become desensetised to."?

    ReplyDelete
  24. >>hmm, not entirely sure that it did.

    well, i'm looking at it from a hindu person's perspective and my other hindu friends seem to think so as well. oh dear osama...you might just be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  25. >> well turtlebrain seems to have got it.

    i think everyone else did as well- it's not the fact that this is a parody- it's the expression used therein and the context and the content that makes it insulting.

    >>although rohit did apologise right away. yet the fact remains that if LSD's comment applies to shak, then it also applies to rohit

    err...the whole reasoning behind the comment was to make the point that if i said something in the same sarcastic way about muslim women, it'd have the same effect on muslims as shak's comment has on hindus/sikhs. the fact of the matter is, my comment was just as sarcastic as the blog- the difference being, i apologised post-ecrit.

    >>what he HAS denigrated is the attitudes of some.

    without doubt you're not wrong- nevertheless the whole point was the mode/tone/manner of expression osama. have you missed the point here?

    ReplyDelete
  26. > at least one of the comments on here should be subject to the same criticism from everyone who criticised shak.

    >as for stooping low- i think the blog is far lower in nature but it'd be too "whoosh" for your mind.

    most definitely, and it applies to that comment from Ro too, more so for its crassness, the end doesnt always (ever? ill avoid the tangent...) justify the means.

    > By the way, LSD, what did you mean by "but was insensitive to something maybe many muslims have been almost forced to become desensetised to."?

    writing things about muslims in a negative context is pretty common - so much so that i tend to get a bit annoyed and then move on - or write an email/fax to the author if its particularly offensive

    ReplyDelete
  27. >> well, i'm looking at it from a hindu person's perspective and my other hindu friends seem to think so as well.

    and at least one hindu female here doesn't seem to have reacted in the same way. but then different people will react to the same thing in the different ways.

    as for your friends, how well do they know shak? most of us here know shak and know he often says things in a sarcastic way. and more importantly, i think i know shak well enough (don't know if others think they know him well enough) to pretty much be able to identify when he's putting forward his views, and when he's actually having a go at someone else.

    >> oh dear osama...you might just be wrong.

    maybe, maybe not. let's look at what shak wrote.

    "I'm thinking a nice wholesome Hindu or Sikh girl".

    Not sure how that cheapens or denigrates Sikh or Hindu women. Heck, he could have written "I'm thinking of a Hindu slag who'll cop off with anyone." Unfortunately I have seen idiots on the MB post that they go with hindu girls as hindu girls are easy. Now THAT's denigrating. A not uncommon reaction to that has been some hindu or sikh guy saying that muslim girls want to do it with hindu or sikh guys as what they want is a real good seeing to which they can only get from a non-muslim. (There's also some really weird stuff going on on the MB and elsewhere to do with 'ownership' of women. But that's for another discussion.) And to make clear, the issue here for me is not Sikh or Hindu women. We could reverse everything, have a hindu guy writing a sarcastic post, and have him write "I'm thinking a nice wholesome Muslim girl..."

    "Someone with standards, who doesn't just date anyone..."

    Not sure what's wrong with that either. Don't see how that's denigrating.

    "...and even possibly someone who is also looking for a fling before their own arranged marriage."

    Again, same here. Heck, this DOES happen. I have some muslim female friends who decided to have a fling before their own arranged marriage. I'd be surprised if there were no Sikh or Hindu women who did the same. Although, of course, I have no proof that there are.

    "Of course I should be careful to find someone who's NOT willing to convert..."

    ok, fair enough not everyone's willing to convert. And you can have a relationship with someone, indeed a very fulfilling relationship with someone even if you've decided that you won't marry them.

    "Oh, and I won't tell them how they're just acting as a facilitator, because, well, it won't be an important factor in our relationship."

    Okay, now that's denigrating as it sees these women just as a "facilitator". But the point still remains that shak's not denigrating sikh or hindu women, but quite clearly having a go at muslim men who hold such attitudes.

    >> if i said something in the same sarcastic way about muslim women, it'd have the same effect on muslims as shak's comment has on hindus/sikhs

    not necessarily. true, sophie responded. but then i did point out that if she responded to your post, she should have responded to shak's as well. for what it's worth, back in my days as a lecturer, i knew a saudi ph.d. student doing a Ph.D. in public health, looking at the rise in STDs in saudi arabia as women in pre-marital relationships had anal sex to maintain their 'virginity'.


    Tell me, would you have had the same problems with a post that said "american or australian"..."who is looking for a fling before they head back home to settle down"..."who's not willing to move here permanently"...?

    ReplyDelete
  28. >> nevertheless the whole point was the mode/tone/manner of expression osama. have you missed the point here?

    what, that it was written in a satirical way? nope haven't missed that point.

    and if anything, shak's been too easy on the idiots who hold such attitudes. as i've mentioned, going by what's written on the MB, some muslim men seem to go with hindu / sikh women because they think they're 'easy'. now that, i do think is denigrating.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  30. >> writing things about muslims in a negative context is pretty common - so much so that i tend to get a bit annoyed and then move on

    interesting. other muslims writing things about muslims in a negative context, or just anyone writing things about muslims in a negative context is pretty common?

    ReplyDelete
  31. rohit i think you maybe need to take a step back, calm down and put things into perspective.

    i don't blame you for misreading the blog. although shakil intended it as a satire of muslim guys who do that, it wasn't actually clear that that's what it was. i have to admit that even i almost raised an eyebrow when i read it, but because i know shakil i knew that there would have been more to it than it's face value. given that you've known shakil a lot longer than i have, i would have thought you may have thought to ask him what what he meant first before jumping down his throat. and fair enough even if you did jump to the wrong conclusion and lost your temper (we've all done it), at least once it was made clear to you what he had meant, the reasonable thing to do would be to draw a line under the whole affair as an understandable misunderstanding.

    at best shakil deserves a heckling off stage for a badly executed satire

    ReplyDelete
  32. salaam

    O that was a lengthy deconstruction of separate sentences! The point of view shak was putting across, leaving whether it had an element of his own thoughts or was entirely a parody of others' aside, included implications that Hindu/Sikh girls are a target, that theres a good excuse to toss em and not 'having to marry them'. It wasn't really clear to me in this post that shak doesn't agree with this or think its small minded - only by knowing him I would have estimated that to be at least partly the case, that cant be taken for granted on a public blog. My feeling is if this was just to a friend 1-2-1 (incl MSN i guess) is wouldnt be a problem.

    > other muslims writing things about muslims in a negative context, or just anyone writing things about muslims in a negative context is pretty common?

    both. tune into many media and have a count if you prefer taking the temperature statistically, though im pretty sure people have done that already

    anyways - seeing as the two parties arent contributing here shall we call it a day? i think a mistake has been made, and understood as such.

    ReplyDelete
  33. >> seeing as the two parties arent contributing here shall we call it a day? i think a mistake has been made, and understood as such.

    some pretty valid points have been made here and the debate should be allowed to continue, Harry...

    ReplyDelete
  34. osama, the fact of the matter is, knowing shakil is pointless, but it did take a cheap shot at women. at least one hindu woman thought it was ok to write that- you're comparing one to about 10 or 12 other hindu people who read that and reacted extremely badly. moreover, i think that satire, if poorly expressed can lead to this- initial resentment, misunderstanding and anger.

    Moreover Osama to have gone through and deconstructed the blog as such fails to underline the tonal value of the written word. Everything has a mode of expression; I sincerely believe you have missed the point that I made- that writing even in satire has limits.

    You ask me if I should ask Shak why he wrote it blah blah- I ask you back why didn't he ask me before writing it? You say, his blog he writes what he wants- I say, well, he and I are friends and friends care about each other's sensitivities. He has subsequently accepted that this thing pissed me off and has apologised and I have done in kind for any out of order comments I made- I do believe that the issue here between him and I is closed.

    >>Tell me, would you have had the same problems with a post that said "american or australian"..."who is looking for a fling before they head back home to settle down"..."who's not willing to move here permanently"...?

    i agree- and this is why i believe you have missed the point that i made- people will only be sensitive to what's sensitive to them- obvious as hell no? if i'd said that about a muslim girl, i'm sure the reaction would have been bad a la sofi. so we have to cater for the audience's sensitivities.

    i spose from my side- issue closed.

    ReplyDelete
  35. >>if i'd said that about a muslim girl, i'm sure the reaction would have been bad a la sofi.

    presumptious roey!

    ReplyDelete
  36. >>you're comparing one to about 10 or 12 other hindu people who read that and reacted extremely badly

    which 10 or 12? the ones you showed it to? they obviously didn't react badly enough to post a comment

    >>i spose from my side- issue closed

    oh no way! really??? i was hoping for a fight :-/

    you're such a drama queen rohit

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'd just like to say, that, if you are going to have anal sex, try to get your partner (who will be receiving) to have a thorough clean there first, otherwise it can get very messy,.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Bj, I just want you to know that there are people around..who are desperately waiting for more advice/tips/pointers etc from your good self.

    ReplyDelete
  40. im sure there are plenty around. you just write way.

    ReplyDelete