A growing potential for a world wide religious war?

Over the years I’ve watched the increase of Muslim incidents through out the world, having long ago considered it to be more explosive than most world religions. The reasons behind this is that it resists change. The religious leaders are nearly fanatical about maintaining the code of the religion, right down to dress and sexual discrimination.

I remember one publicized incident years ago where after a civil war, where one Islamic nation went modern, it was retaken by traditionalists, and solders were harassing women in the streets wearing modern clothing, ordering them to dress traditionally. At times they ripped the clothing the women wore and smacked them around.

Moslem rules hampered Desert Storm, I read, because we attacked on their Holy Day in one instance. As a general rule, war respects no Holy days as history displays but when we attacked on Ramadan, we generated a lot of Moslem ire. It was like they wanted us to kick out Sadaam, including turning his soldiers into dead meat, but not on Ramadan. Then, we had to not go into his nation after him because his being Moslem would trigger some Moslem code where Moslems unite, even if enemies, to destroy infidels.

In other words, kill the bugger, but respect his religion or we’ll get mad at you.

I’ve paid attention to the rise of black Muslims, who the regular Muslims do not acknowledge because of their distortion of their beliefs.

Now, in Afghanistan, the Muslims in power are destroying ancient and valuable statues of Buddhism in response to the law that there be no graven images of man nor beast, despite pleas from the international community. I wonder if this means even non-religious statues? The controlling group is trying to force the nation to become absolutely pure Moslem.

In Michigan, where there is a high population of Moslems, they are demanding religious foods in Dearborn schools. They are getting them. Apparently, animal must be slaughtered with the least pain and the blood drained in a certain way and pork is forbidden. Similar to Kosher foods.
Some of the schools are 90% Muslim!

Now, how do they know how chickens and beef are slaughtered generally? Most slaughter houses do it fast, as painlessly as possible and hang the carcasses to drain. Chickens are decapitated usually by machine, beef is usually killed with a ‘humane killer’ that delivers a bolt into the brain, causing instant death. No one beats cows with hammers letting them slowly die, or tortures chickens prior to plucking them.

Even the strict Jewish religion doesn’t mind if their people eat burgers at Burger King, dine on extra crispy KFC, though they prefer to avoid the pork. Even so, some modern Jews eat pork.

Correct me if I am wrong, because here, where I live, we have a very, very tiny Jewish community, but I don’t recall Jews demanding strict Kosher foods in public schools that their children attend.

Even here, the Muslim women walk around in traditional clothing, consisting of hoods and long robes or dresses. The Muslim guys, well, they sport around however they choose.

I’ve watched the squabbles increase over seas and the violence escalate as the 21st century became available to the Moslem nations, along with some strange compromises. I recall a photograph in a news story showing a room full of Moslem women working modern computers, each dressed in concealing long clothing like from the times their people lived in tents and burned camel dung for cooking.

Now, should we be aware of the potential for a Holy War between the Moslems and everyone else? Each time, it seems to me, that a Moslem nation embraces modern technology and stuff like the rest of the world, some bearded, religious fanatic grabs up modern weapons and starts a religious war to shove everyone back into the stone age beliefs.

I’m starting to think that within the not too distant future, we are going to again get involved in a Holy war. Especially since Afghanistan is real close to Pakistan, which now has nuclear capability and fanatics do not usually care how many infidels they kill nor with what, just so long as the killing is done.

As a side thought, this is America. Do our schools have to cater to every religious diet in the world? Aren’t our food generic enough? What if some group pops up who wants goats meat served? What about a group demanding fresh goat blood to drink? Cows are sacred in India and dairy products are not even allowed in the same room as meat so what if a group starts griping that the dairy products in our schools need to be next door for religious reasons, or hamburgers should not be served in the same room as chicken? What if their religion demands that they consume wine with meals – not that there is one that I know of, or they suddenly decide that their children should not be forced to sit with agnostics, Christians, Buddhists and Jews?

Or, what if they demand to be segregated from whites, blacks, Indians and Orientals on religious grounds.

Will we do it?

wow. care to trim that one down a bit? I mean, seriously, you have about 3 or more debates going on in there:

  1. potential for world wide conflict on a religious basis

  2. how fair is it that a religious majority in a public school demand specific concessions to their religious beliefs

  3. how Jewish are these (certain) folks

  4. Should those in power in Afghanistan be able to destroy ancient artifacts contained in their country based on religious beliefs

there may be more. my head hurts.

(ftr, on #2, as far as I can see, on a practical matter, if you’re operating a school, yes, even a public one, and you know that 90% of the kids in that school will not eat certain foods due to strict religious beliefs, it makes less than zero sense to me to not make some allowance for that. I mean, what’s the alternative? the school provide required lunches, knowing that 90% won’t eat it and it’ll be tossed?)

Sigh, how many different misconceptions can get packed into one OP? How much rather blind religious prejudice in one little posting? Dunno, let’s take a look.

Spyder’s OP:

What are “Muslim” incidents? I believe we’re really talking about Mid-East terrorism. Well, let’s take a step back. Firstly, a lot of this is concentrated in the Syria-Israeli-Palestine-Jordan-Lebanon area. There it is not “Muslim” but perhaps better “Arab” as there are significant numbers of non-Muslim Arabs here.

I don’t see a “Muslim” component per se, this is about political struggles for resources. Religion is just a flag or an icing on the cake. If everyone was X, Y or Z, given the limited resources, pop growth and competing land claims, there would still be issues. Nothing inherent to any particular religion here.

The basis for this is what? Do you know anything about the religion. I can’t claim to be well learned in it, but I am aware that (a) most Muslims are not Arabs (b) have nothing to do with Mid-East issues © are ordinary joes.

All religions resist change. Or segements thereof. Next?

Ahhh, again here you confuse Arab Islam with all Mulsims. Further, you take the extremists to represent all Muslims and in fact all Muslim leaders. They’re not even a majority.

If you came to do business in the Mid East, North or West Africa, you’ll find a minority of women wearing the extreme thigs like the burqa (or purdah) the face covering. In fact I would say a slight majority of women don’t wear any head covering at all. Depends on the country to an extent. Don’t have much contact personally with religious leaders, but judging from the reality I see on the street, people adapt to modern times like everywhere else. Most resistance I see and hear about is really based on economic inequalities, but more on that later.

So, laying aside this gem of ignorance, what do we have next?

I don’t even know how to respond to this gem. One Islamic nation went modern. I just have to dimsiss this as a gem of ignorance. I suspect you might be confusing a few things. Perhaps Algeria, post 1991 – although it did not “just do modern”, perhaps Southern Yemen after uniting with North Yemen. Perhaps Iran. Or perhaps no single clear idea at all.

Shrug. We were being hosted by Saudi Arabia, among the most conservtive nations on this wonderful little planet. I don’t recall anything in particular, but if we didn’t attck on one Friday or perhaps more likely on a high holy day then what’s the big deal. Hardly hurt the prosecution of the war. Oh wait, you refer to Ramadan.

Let us pull ourselves out of our little self-referential world and expand our horizons. Imagine that a non-Xtian power attacked a largely Xtian country on Xmas day. I daresay that we could anticipate no small amount of dismay, anger etc. over this from the religious in the community. Even the non-religious or non-practicing would likely find this to be offensive.

Now, let’s try to wrap our minds around this. Ramadan, as annoying as I find it, is like one long Xmas --not our modern Xmas but old-fashioned observatn Xmas. Even the least pious Muslims --and they are many-- do their best to refrain from sinful acts, such as swearing, getting into disputes with others, thinking bad thoughts even. And one is supposed to do praiseworthy things, such as give alms etc. And of course the fasting part. Admirable in its goals if nothing else. It’s hard to exagerate the degree of reverence the month holds.

Of course there’s lots of hypocrisy, and the whole intifada continued right through this past Ramadan. Hwoever, largely the idea is non=Muslims should respect the month and people get very agitated at percieved slights.

Well, yes. By the way, you might do better if you understood the “they” here is really “us” plus the Gulf States. Understanding that just as Xtians have different countries, styles and so forht --i.e. are not a monolithic group, then you might achieve an understanding that the same is true for Muslims. This will aid greatly in understanding why your over-generalization is offensive.

This is just plain ignorant and wrong.

The invervention as authorized by the international community was only to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occuption. No one besides hawks in the USA and GB to an extant wanted an invasion of Iraq. Not the Europeans, not Russia, not China… Get the picture. Nothing to do with “Muslims” This misunderstanding is just stunning. (as well as stunningly illogical since in fact even freeing Kuwait meant non-Muslim and Muslim fighting the Iraqis, ergo if there was some such “code” it should have been triggered anyway)

(a) Afghanistan is something like 99% Muslim.
(b) Has been Muslim for 1400 years.
© The Taliban are a particular sect whose interpretations are hyper-extreme.
(d) The body of Muslim thought today completely accepts non-religious images
(e) As evidenced by the survival until these idiot country-bumpkins took charge of the rather large number of Bhuddist statues as well as antiquities in Egypt and other countries, Islamic law has never called for such wholesale destruction as these morons are doing. Only the cessation of idol worship.
(f) As I noted in my post in the Pit thread on Afghanistan, the Taliban’s actions have provoked a massive outcry among Muslims – as reported in the Arabic language press. An article yesterday quoted a leading Fqih or religious intelletual virtually calling the Taliban – hard to translate this, but close to apostates. This is not ordinary.

It is pure Muslim. Rather the Taliban are trying to force teh country to adopt an extremely illiterate, reactionary and frankly barbaric version of the religion.

They are to Muslims as semi-literate fundies(*) in the States are to Xtians, intolerant fuckheads.

(*: i.e. the sorts of peopel who claim Catholics aren’t Xtians, not meaning by this otherwise moderate folks who prefer a literalist reading of texts.)

O horrors! They are taking over? Lock yer wimmins away. It’s hard not to read this as racist. Very hard.

So what, Jewish kids can get kosher food, Muslim kids can get Halal food. Whats the problem? Are you being forced to eat halal food?

[Snipped the bizarro rant about slaughter]

I’m sure observatn jews on the board will enjoy you implying they’re not modern.

AGain, its hard not to read this as racist – or really just ignorant religious prejudice.

You’re wrong. [sarcasm] The uppity jews do indeed like to have kosher food, and horrors of horros, observe their high holy days. Damned uppity bastards. [/sarcasm]

This is your problem why?

This goes from bad to worse, doesn’t it? I won’t comment on your stunning ignorance about Islamic history – everything I typed came out pit worthy.

How about this: most of the dress around here (Cairo, and Tunis when I am there) is modern interpretations of what people feel to be their religious duties. I never see traditional costumes. Ever.

I also don’t mistake one clothing style as representative of “modern” or what’s in people’s brains. Some of the smartest and most independant women I’ve encountered to date have worn the Hijab (modern version, a sort of wrapping around the head and neck, leaving the face uncovered). It’s their choice, part of their identity.

I don’t mistake showing off the bod for being more advanced, its an idea just as moronic as the Victorian ideas that somehow folks who didn’t wear their style of clothes, i.e. most any non-European, were primitive.


Each time I see a post like this, I become more and more despairing of our education system’s capacity to instill a modicum of knowledge about the outside world in people’s heads.

I have yet to percieve that.

I snipped the rest of this… well can’t say it here.

Assuming the debate is whether or not a world-wide religious war between Islam and “everybody else” is in the offing, I say, No. The reasons: insufficient unity among Islamic nations, insufficient military power for anything but the most local of military campaigns, and no economic incentive to do so (in a number of Islamic contries, petroleum exports make up the bulk of the economy; historically, attempting to shut off the flow of oil has hurt these countries as much as their perceived enemies).

BTW, the OP makes a number of sweeping generalizations concerning Islam that are likely to get questioned here, including the assertions that 90% of some Michigan school districts are “muslim” (cite, please), that the most militant Islamic countries are theocracies (what about Iraq? Syria? Libya?), and this statement:

…which to me shows a profound misunderstanding of Islam in general and the relationship between these two countries in particular (hint: it is less than cordial).

And Ramadan is a holy MONTH, not a holy day.

I think the OP needs to read Islam for Dummies, if that exists, or some similar primer to the Islamic beliefs.

Well, I’ll try to take this step by step.

Firstly Collounsbury
, I find your response to my post unnecessarily acerbic and hostile, especially since it was not designed to concern racism. I suppose being polite is out of the question for you?

I admit to having a basic ignorance into the complexities of the Islamic/Moslim religion, and have mostly taken note through the news media reports, but I have noticed a sharp increase in such reports over several years.

What I do know about the religion is that they have a combination of acceptance towards all peoples verses unbending intolerance towards nonbelievers. Something similar to early Christian times circa the Crusades. Christianity was bloody. This religion certainly is beginning to show signs of becoming the same as modern influences intrude.

Yes, modern. I might be biased, but people deliberately suppressing sexual equality, forcing religious laws over governmental ones, living pretty much behind the times and resisting change in ways that are not military, money making or power enforcing seem to me to be living in the past. Most nations in the world give their people freedom of choice.

We have a very small Muslim community here. The women dress from the top of their heads to their toes. In the picture of the link below, they are doing the same, and it gives the percentages of Muslims in some of the schools.

Click here: 02/24: AOL News: Mich. Muslims Want Halal Food

In previous wars, we discovered that the enemy of the time rarely had any problems with attacking on Christmas or Thanksgiving. Look at Pearl Harbor. We were attacked in our main holiday month. When you go to war, niceties are usually dropped, at least since sometime shortly after the beginning of WW2. Korea taught us more and Vietnam taught us even more lessons. Sadaam’s troops had little problems with pushing into alien territory and blasting everyone in sight, and when they fled, having little guilt about doing as much damage as possible and stealing anything not tied down.

So, we should have given them, what, a day, week, month of rest because of Ramadan? You think Sadaam would not have used that time to reinforce his troops and move them into better positions?

Agreed on your post of Afghanistan. No comment there.

I find this comment offensive.

I also find it offensive for a public school system, which has to serve everyone, in a country which separates church and state, to have to serve various religious meals. If they wish not to partake of various foods, say, like pork and beans, then the school, of course, should have alternatives, like chicken and rice, red beans and rice, meat loaf, or a selection of vegetables. Vegans in schools manage to get enough to eat.

Kosher foods are expensive because of the very strict way they are made. Yes, I know how they make Kosher foods, complete with the blessings and no non-Jewish person is to touch the food until it has been packed and sealed in containers.

I heartily agree with a varied menu, but not catering to any specific religion. I mean, they squabble over prayer in school, squabble over sex education, squabble over racism, and, as I’ve read here, squabble over even the pledge of allegiance. So, aside from providing a good, varied selection of good food, should schools have to bring in religious meals?

When I was in school, if I disliked the menu offered, I had options and the ability to either pack my lunch or go to the early opening deli and grab a sub.
From what I’ve been told, schools today offer an even greater selection of food items than before.

I think I might consider it similar to me going to a Catholic school, I’m not Catholic, during the times when meatless Fridays were enforced, and not liking fish. I don’t think I’d demand a burger, but would either bring my lunch or eat other available items.

I also resent your attitude here.
Not everyone lives within areas that have large Jewish communities and I don’t recall being offensive concerning them.

OK. I might have a problem here because I don’t see any purpose to people clinging to ancient identities, which seem to cause so much problem in some races in the US. To me, time moves foreword. I don’t care what my ancestors dressed like, what traditions they had or if they were kings, queens, princesses or princes. I’ve never met them and I consider myself American and I live in Now. The British have an admirable way of combining Now and their historical past without living in the dark ages or appearing to do so.

And, I resent your last remarks. You know, I’ve taught a lot of people various things in my line of work and disposed of many a wrong impression or conception. I’ve yet to get sarcastic at someone coming up with the wrong ideas, or conception of what is to be learned. Their ignorance is simply a lack of facts or a conglomeration of the wrong ones.

I met a 32 year old, educated woman who actually believed a male penis had a bone in it. I did not ridicule nor berate her, but explained it all in detail, even to providing medical, illustrated texts.

I actually met an adult who was pretty sure our rockets into space broke holes in the atmosphere and didn’t smack him in the face with derisive, sarcastic comments, but provided him with the knowledge he needed by explaining things.

You attitude, for want of a better word, sucks. The impression I get from you is arrogant, smug superiority. I resent that. You, in my opinion, have no right to treat me that way.

Rocket88 was much less abrasive and more concise without being sarcastic.

I think Collounsbury let you off rather easy Spyder. Your entire OP reeked of backwater mentality and misapprehensions that might find more common footing in a bigot’s discourse on world politics.

While you may not have intended to come across in such a fashion, you most certainly succeeded in doing so. You are in possession (or have access to) one of the most powerful tools ever invented to prevent exactly this sort of misunderstanding, a computer. Please use it to do a search on Islamic culture and world politics. You might be surprised at how very wrong you are on a number of topics.

The Arabic cultures were some of the most advanced in their time. The invention of the mathematical concept of zero and sophisticated astronomy are but a few of their contributions. They had a form of the arch in their architecture centuries (if not millennia) before Rome. Almost every mechanical device you can imagine (especially reciprocating and reverse action mechanisms) was utilized by Arab builders for untold centuries before the industrial revolution. Poetry and debate are near artforms in what you perceive to be a backwards culture.

You may wish to broaden your horizons a bit in the near future. You came across as being really ignorant. I will commend you for trying to solve this problem with your inquiry, but the phrasing of your questions was pretty offensive.

You noted that a few districts were 90% muslim.
You then say that they should be happy with a “varied” selection of food. I did not see where they were asking that non=halal food be banned, only that the “varied” menu could actually be eaten by their children.

I would think that a school district that was 90% Catholic and had an all-meat menu on Fridays in Lent would encounter some criticism from the community. Any district that has a 90% muslim enrollment rate is going to have a lot of sources for muslim food.

I’m afraid that I do not see what the problem is in this issue.

If there is a potential for a world-wide religious war (and I’m not saying there is), the catalysts are going to be Extremism and **Intolerance, regardless of the actual religion involved.

Personally, I’m a lot more concerned about Christian Fundamentalists and domestic terrorism [in the USA] than Muslim or Hindu immigrants (Howdy, y’all!). Those freaks (Xian Fundies, not immigrants, even if they do talk funny) give me the willies.

First Spider, yes I am a bad person little known for my patience with ignorance nor prejudice. I am one acerbic bastid. If you wish to complain about this, please do so, but I don’t apologize for that one bit. That aside, it doesn’t change the nature of your OP nor your response wherein you simply reinforce my initial impression.

You do that.

And? Here, sit down and think. First, there’s this thing called selection bias. You recall confirming reports, don’t recall non-confirming in re a set of beliefs/prejudices etc. Think about this for a moment and consider. Second, there is a problem with our (English lang.) media. It tends to simplistically set up things in terms of “Muslims” – frequently in the most wrong-headed fashion.

What I do know about the religion is that they have a combination of acceptance towards all peoples verses unbending intolerance towards nonbelievers.

Just to show you don’t know Jack. Okay Spyder, before I have to take you apart piece by fucking piece, let me advise that you pick up a basic text on Islam and Islamic history. Or something by Espisito. Very useful for at least getting basic facts right. I at least know these, and I’m not even a Islamic specialist. (a) historically Islam has been a terribly practical and, relitavely speaking, tolerant religion. Little cases of forced conversion, generally respecting and leaving other religions alone so long as the relevant community paid its taxes. Not unbending intolerance at all. For that we need to go to say Europe, which expelled or exterminated religious minorities right up to an all too recent past. (b) there is a rather nasty current, a disturbingly modern one which is picking up on these old formerly European habits. Hijra wa tekfeer its called, and they are mean nasty motherfuckers, such as the bastards who fucking machine gunned a bunch of peacable --in fact pacifist-- Muslims in a mosque just across the border in Sudan. These guys are new.

I repeat, how about doing some ** basic ** reading before posting any further on the subject.

Spyder, are you on crack or something? Most nations in the world don’t give “freedom of choice” in a whole raft of domains you seem to refer to above. As for the rest of your … uninformed statement above, I once more direct you to the library, and hopefully something by Espisito to cure you of your raging misconceptions. You continue to display a fundamental ignorance and laughably stereotyped (although I know far too common-*-) views.

(*: I fucking want to vomit when I tell people where I work, what I do and I get questions like “do ‘they’ have cars?” — ‘Do you have to travel by camel?’ Yes Spyder, this is the level of your discourse.)

(A) Religious Freedom, if folks wanna wear the burqah and there is no compulsion then that’s their fucking business. I’m not too hot on it. Nor Mormons for that matter, but hey, that’s religious freedom. Back in NYC some of those wierdo jews go round in these wacky non-western european clothes. Spose that would freak you out too. (Sarcasm on the wierdo folks, just in case s.o. doesn’t catch it.)

(B) Take a moment Spyder and reflect on selection bias again. I don’t suppose you have any clue if the majority of Muslim girls are wearing the Hijab or Burqah do you? So you’ve seen some, maybe a lot to your eyes. Do you have any data to say that these scary people are taking over your whitebread land?

Continuing on with the vast over-generalizations:

Yes, and that provoked outrage, did it not? Review some records of the time. Now recall many of our allies were, gasp, muslims. Perfectly within their rights to want to respect their precepts. We could have gone home if we really didn’t like it, yes? Now also recall that our allies, the Gulf States, Syria, Egypt and a goodly number of non-Arab Muslim states were putting their asses on the line by (a) supporting us, including our presence in the land of the holiest shrines of Islam, a very sensitive topic after the whole colonial period thingy (b) sending symbolic troop presence to put money where mouths were. Popular opinion was really quite divided, so it made sense not to do gratuitously religiously offensive things. You do understand this don’t you? Please do note the use of gratuitous.

The history of total war is an interesting one. Not all wars are total wars. See above. One always has to tailor one’s policy and strategy to actual conditions.

You might have noted that (a) to an extent the extant of Iraqi looting and atrocities was exagerated by the Kuwaitis, but (b) the very acts above provoked widespread revulsion and are what helped lead, along with good old oil politics, to the wide-ranging coalition.

Yes, my dear fellow, because our Muslim allies requested this, because their political and moral support is what made the whole fucking venture possible. Attention to the political is what makes victories real victories in this modern world.

Tough, it’s accurate. Don’t like it, get your basic facts right and don’t write an OP that sounds like a back country hillbilly afraid of the darkies moving in.

Frankly, your objection is absurd and goes to my statement above. A little basic accommodation to the community, including offering meals which the kids can eat, does not violate Church and State.

I’m not going to get into your Kosher meal rant. Maybe some of our other posters would like to tackle that.

But further Jews and their “clinging” to their customs:

I don’t know what to say about this remarkably provincial, self-involved and ultimately flagrantly ignorant comment.

Good, next time think and read before posting something as offensive as your OP. This and your OP fully deserve every comment I have made so far.

Frankly Collounsbury, in relation to this discussion, to which I’ve avoided swearing, admittedly I’ve exposed great lack of specific understanding, but then, I expected to be corrected and properly informed, were you within arms reach of me, I would find it to be necessary to dramatically rearrange your skeleton.

Since you are not, there is not much I can do except inform you that I consider you an arrogant son of a female dog, who must feel superior to everyone else. The only recourse I have is to ignore you because I find you distasteful, deliberately insulting, which must give you a manly charge because no one here is close enough to severely bruise you physically, and while you obviously know your stuff, your presentation sucks donkey dicks. If you are trying to ‘educate’ those not as well informed, your irritating attitude undermines your efforts.

I checked the people pages for your image to see if what I suspect might be true: that you are a spindly, timid fellow in real life, hiding behind the computer and using his intelligence to get back at people for a form of petty revenge generated by past inadequacies. Alas, you’re not there.


Bye Spyder, not glad you could make it.

As for your speculation, fraid not, I’m just a bastid by nature. Probably makes it worse in the end, but we are what we are, eh?

Well, Collonsbury has already ripped apart the original argument very effectively, so I won’t bother repeating what he said. I’d just like to inquire whether Spyder thinks that it’s justifiable to prepare for the upcoming holy war just because it seems to him that violence and terrorism is increasing on the part of Muslim fanatics. Shouldn’t we have some solid numbers before we start acting on this claim?


[Moderator hat ON]

Though this may be a moot point right now if Spyder has truly left us, calling someone a “son of a bitch” is not permitted in this forum.

[Moderator hat OFF]

Small point of correction - the Arabs were not the first to use the zero. While the Arabic cultures of the Middle Ages are responsible for the widespread dissemination of the zero, the concept was created in India.

Ahhh, he was just saying bye to me. S’okay, anyway. Much worse it the silly assumption that I’m a pencil necked geek… Stereotypes up the wazoo.

Prot: We can add that both sets of ARabic numbers also were Indian derived. But gotta give credit to the ‘vulgarizers’ – othewise I’d have to seriously know how to manip roman numerals and that would be depressing. Can you imagine doing Excel sheets /w roman numbers?

Well, not to nitpick, but the Muslim co-prime minister of Bosnia (Bosnian politics is complicated) is a woman. (Or, was…they might have just had an election). Benazir Bhutto was on-again/off-again PM of Pakistan.