Blasphemy Law: An Academic Investigation

re: saminashah # 505

I take my hat off to you, lady.

Urstruly Sahib (#497) stated …

“1. First Admonish them

2. Second, refuse to share bed with them, if they dont mend their ways.

3. Beat them lightly…”

If mullahs Urstruly has his way … he would then stone her to death … and call it Ijtehad. I am sure he would find some dubious verse in Torah, ancient Egyptian scripture, or the TV Guide to justify this … and call it the verdict of Quran.

PS: How come mullahs never rally to stop the evils of dowry, child kidnappings, and domestic violence in our societies? But they are always there … with rowdy processions, fiery speeches, and street demonstrations … to ensure Ahmadis who recite kalima are imprisoned … or that the fukcin’ Barbari mosque is adequately avenged.

temporal

Sorry to disappoint you dude but I wont let you lay the guilt trip on me for something that neither I nor my system of values is responsible for.

In my last post the sentence ``As I wrote in 734 that the basic principles ....`` should be read as ``As I wrote in 437 that the basic principles....``

PM # 504; 786786 # 508

I have used the term ``spouse`` deliberately in my post - Islam prescribes same strict standards to either sexes as far as offence of adultry is concerned; not only that but penalty is also the same. As I wrote in 734 that the basic principles as elaborated in 4:34 and 4:35 can be equally aplicable to either sexes, based on the principle of jurisprudence called ``Logical Equivalence``. Please read Argument # 2 in the article to understand what is LE. But I am no idealist fool.I admit that what I am proposing here has a lot dependent on societal outlook and attitude. My intention was to show the expanse of latitude in the principle as elaborated in both verses.

farangi-hydra #502:

[…Riffat Hassan, a professor of religious studies at the University of Louisville, said the Quran requires only that dress be modest…]

…have you read or heard what riffat says directly (not through peter smith)?…did you read her in-depth interview in daily jang recently?…you’d scamper back into your rat-hole if you had…
…..t

Samina Shah #482

I am very much impressed by the dynamic Iranian society.

Only an independent and equal people can fight this way.

Otherwise here in America people go to pub or die on streets. At most they come out if police kills or maims some black.

In response to saminashah, who wrote:

“You benefit from your society and you know it.”

Big time. I’m affluent, educated, and I’m comfortable. My biggest worry in a day is whether to eat chicken or beef for dinner. I do know it, where did I deny it? I know exactly how I benefit from being a Canadian. My sister, my mother, as well as the rest of my family drew benefit from the society we live in. It does work across gender lines, in case you didn’t know. It would tickle us pink to see all and sundry as happy and comfortable as us, and we do our little bit to help others. Others do much more, and kudos to them.

We were all better off in the economic environment and relative peace of Canada than, say, our relatives who remained at home in Pakistan in their middle-class household. Better jobs, better education, better food even. I will readily admit to that.

She then writes:

“So knock off the bs. Why not, for a change, ask your ma and sister how they feel the manifestations of misogyny and when you listen, keep your mouth closed?”

For a change? Don’t preach to me, or presume to divvy up my family along empowered-men, ignored-female lines. You have no idea about the dynamics of the relationship between me and the females of my family, my respect for their ideas and opinions, how instrumental they have been in shaping my life, let alone whether I’ve discussed gender political issues with them or not. So why don’t you keep your mouth closed, and knock off your BS.

Now, even more annoying is your misuse and appropriation of the word misogyny. You seem to have lost touch with the reality that your peculiar usage of the word contains an EXPLICIT and PERSONAL attack on those who may not happen to agree with your particular political view points. So misogyny is divorced from the intent of any would be perpetrator, it’s a concept unto itself, you being an arbiter of what is and is not misogynistic. Very good. If people don’t agree with you, invoke misogyny; call them names.

There is a greater context to your usage of the word, and the word doesn’t fit inside it. So I might be a woman hater because I, say, don’t see the manifest “evil” of gender roles in a traditional society. And so I by definition become a part of “the problem”, and am guilty of something I never even experienced – especially towards my loved ones.

Further, you ask me to ask my mom and sis…ask them what? Like YOU care what they think! If I read you correctly, they must realize they are either victims or accomplices of male oppression (me being one of the oppressors of course), or they will be dismissed as too stupid for not realizing it or excused as being in just plain denial. End of story.

In response to PM, who wrote:

“_digit: is Zeenat bibi wouldn`t happen to be your sister or ma, now, would she? Naaah... so just keep on the blinders, brother. Easy when you`re living in faragiland, isn`t it?”

Blinders? Oh yes, I see….no doubt she COULD have been my mother or sister, you thinking me a women hater and all. Let us do pretend like I have no sympathy, or that I approve of her fate. Sure. Very clever Patrick. No doubt, I’m chanting “glory to the Mastoi”, jumping up and down with joy, in the process spilling some acid I was gonna use in a drive-by-chucking later today. Yup, you got me pegged boy.

Spare me your self-righteousness, and stop gloating over such incidents as vindication for your viewpoints. Blinders, my arse. I’m painfully aware of what goes on in this world, especially in the part of the world I associate myself closely with. If you don’t see the inherit cheapness of projecting my relationship with the females of my family to Zennat bibi’s suffering, then I pity you.

And in truth I am absolutely perplexed at how you’ve arrived at posting what you did above, given the nature of my original post. Is denying your conceptions and use of the word misogyny tantamount to condoning such acts? Ah yes, silence in such matters is complicity. Sure, if you say so. Or how about: if you’re not part of the solution, you’re a part of the problem. So, from what you know and can gather then, what the hell are YOU doing for Zennat that I’m not? Writing messages on Chowk? May God reward you an atom’s weight…for indeed this is an atom’s weight of good you do.

Your as impotent as I am in this matter. But what`s more, your going the extra mile and accusing me of being an accomplice. Sorry dude, that doesn`t wash.

The mullahs are all too busy implementing blasphemy laws … deciding how to punish apostates … and persecuting Ahmadis … while not bothering to help the people in dire need.

The zeal with which minorities are persecuted … demonstrations are held … Ahmadis are locked up in prisons for reciting kalima … mosques and churches are attacked … is nowhere to be found when it is time to help the poor and the needy.

Clearly the mullahs are not interested in serving the cause of the people. Their only goal is to gain political power … while debating who is, and who is not, a Muslim. This article is a sorry reminder of such a pathetic outlook in life.

WOMEN`S STATUS

Faith promotes equality, Muslims say

--------

By Peter Smith

The Courier-Journal



Riffat Hassan, a professor of religious studies at the University of Louisville, said the Quran requires only that dress be modest.

Staff photo / Bill Luster

_________________________________________________

[[Incidentally, she is the one also mentioned as in post # 492.

That shrew really needs someone SEXIST to make her purr.Who ever called someone a pussycat as an insult? Now only if she could return the favour and call me a TopDog.

``Kitnay shireen hain teray lubb kay raqueeb

gaaliaan khaa kay bay muzza naa huaa.``

And now the rest of the story:

_________________________________________________

When their father took up the Quran seven years ago, Tacoma and Ebony Ansar of Louisville eagerly joined in his spiritual search and converted to Islam. Now students at duPont Manual High School, they proudly wear the scarf known as the ``hijab,`` which covers their hair and neck.

Although many critics of Islam see the hijab as a symbol of the oppression of women, the Ansars don`t. Ibrahim Ansar, a retired police officer who was a lifelong Baptist until his conversion, said he didn`t require his daughters to wear the hijab because Islam forbids forcing religion on people, but they decided to do so themselves after attending Islamic education courses at a local mosque.

``Just because we wear hijabs, it doesn`t mean we`re being condemned,`` said Ebony, a sophomore. ``You`re showing how much you care for your religion, and people should respect you.``

Tacoma, a junior, pointed out that Muslim women have not only the right -- but the duty -- to be educated: ``In Islam you have to seek knowledge from the cradle to grave. (That obligation is) on both sexes.``

Nonetheless, the role of women in Islam has gotten attention, particularly in recent weeks because of media images of oppressed women covered head to toe in Afghanistan under the Taliban`s rule.

Women there were beaten if they defied that dress code, and they were denied educations and the right to hold most jobs.

Despite the election of female heads of state in Muslim countries like Turkey, Pakistan and Bangladesh, some Muslim nations have restricted women`s rights in the last two decades, as they associate women`s freedoms with Western vices like promiscuity, family breakdown, latchkey children and drug abuse, according to Riffat Hassan, a Muslim feminist theologian at the University of Louisville.

In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive cars. In Pakistan and many other countries, families commit ``honor killings`` of their own female relatives if they are suspected of sexual immorality.

Many local Muslims say abuses of women represent misguided cultural values -- not any sort of religious edict. And they point out that Islam`s founding prophet, Mohammed, made revolutionary changes allowing, for example, women to be educated, own property and work outside the home.

``Islam liberated women a thousand years before Christianity did,`` said Vicki Lateef-Diop of Louisville, a convert to Islam who wears a head scarf at prayer but not at other times. ``Other than slavery, the liberation of women was the first thing (Mohammed) put into order. He denounced the bad treatment of women.``

Even so, even moderate Muslims are shocked by seeing actresses and models in sexually suggestive or explicit Western TV shows, movies and billboards.

Hassan, a professor of religious studies at U of L and founder of an organization trying to stop honor killings in her native Pakistan, said that the Quran requires modest dress -- but not the hijab or an even more concealing veil.

``You don`t become Muslim merely by putting a piece of cloth on your head,`` said Hissan, who does not wear a hijab. If women want to wear it, ``then fine.``

``The feminist movement was about options.``

Hassan said news reports often don`t distinguish between women who choose to wear the hijab and those who are forced to: ``Any time they see a Muslim women in a conservative dress, they think she`s backward.``

But Hassan acknowledges that it`s not just Westerners who must be educated about the Quran. She also works to convince some Muslims that traditional views about the inferiority of women were based on bad theology.

Traditional justifications of male superiority include the beliefs that Adam was created first, that Eve was created for him out of one of his ribs (and a crooked one at that), and that she tempted him into disobeying God.

But, Hassan said, those common beliefs are traced to the Judeo-Christian Bible, which Muslims respect, but not as an authority equal to the Quran. Islamic scriptures tell a different story, she said: that men and women were created equally, at the same time.

Although some local Muslims view Hassan`s views on the hijab as radical, they agree that true Islam respects women.

``Women are just like men: They are creations of God. They have a vital role. Without them life would not exist,`` said Aly Farag, who frequently leads prayers at the Louisville Islamic Center. ``There is no abuse, no insults in any way. If one culture or another does injustice to women, that is the trouble of that culture, not Islam.``

Still, women and men pray separately at local mosques, with women sometimes in different rooms. A woman can lead other women in prayers, but only men can lead both sexes. Although some American religious bodies have female pastors or rabbis, there is no movement to have female imams.

``When we worship, we stand shoulder to shoulder, hip to hip,`` said G.A. Shareef, a local Muslim activist. ``It is impossible for men and women to stand shoulder to shoulder, hip to hip and worship with any concentration.``

Family roles, he said, are traditional: ``In terms of economic earning, the primary responsibility is put on the male. The responsibility of raising a good family is put on the wife.``

However, he added, ``if the family can be managed properly, both can work.``

Both Ansar girls said they want to go to college and are considering careers such as medicine, education or nursing. Though they won`t have to deal with this question for a while, they hope to balance family and career responsibilities while giving priority to their children.

``I would like to work, but when they`re really young, I would take a leave off of work,`` Ebony said.

Their classmates accept their decision to wear the hijab, they say, and they are involved in school clubs, community service and ``everything any other teen-ager would do -- hang out with friends, family,`` Tacoma said.

Religious duty is ``not mostly about the head covering; it`s about acting righteously and pious,`` she said. ``That`s on the male and the female.``

re. Urstruly #497:

``Now take for example, the 4:34 in my post # 437. Qura`n teaches us following demeanor in case we find our spouses to be disloyal to us.

1. First Admonish them

2. Second, refuse to share bed with them, if they dont mend their ways.

3. Beat them lightly.

Now, if one knows a little bit of human psychology he would know that in such cases where a man finds his wife in bed with other man, the violence is the first thing that occurs to him.``

You really should say ``wives``, not spouses up there, Urstruly, otherewise some innocent onlooker might acutally think that, God-forbid, a woman has the same right as her husband in this case.

But what`s more interesting is that you should read the ayah, which deals with `disobedience` on he wife`s part, to extend to infidelity! Taht is quite incredible. I suppose the punishment`s for zina have no qu`ranic basis, given this gentler, almost superhuman, prescription on how to deal with unfaithful wives (not spouses).

Dost Mittar

re: Without trying to defend a brutal punishment, do the Western Human Rights ogranizations have the right to determine the appropriate cultural mores of Non-Western societies?



Human Rights organizations work in tandem with non governmental organizations and other grassroots structures and are instrumental in publicizing policy that is unjust to the respective citizens of particular countries. They are usually called in by the citizens, lawyers, workers and orgs committed to protecting citzenry against civil or govt. brutality. The idea that a cultural more is more important than the dignity, health, safety and freedom of a human being is one apologists will have you believe.

Secondly, I seriously question the belief that the idea of dignity, equity, freedom of thought, expression and safety is purely a Western construct. While there are countries with well integrated cultural mores and values who do heinously violate the human rights of citizens inside and outside their borders (I`m thinking of the 3,000 al Qaeeda skeletons found in a mass grave today), the precedents are there. I.e., Nothing that the US govt. commits in the name of democracy will be hidden from us or the world, because a great number of us hold our govt. accountable for its actions. Most of us operate on a universal set of values that respect the bodies, minds and lives of all beings.

re: The very nature of any criminal act involved in adultery may be in doubt according to the current (circa post-sixties) Western thought, do all other societies have to subscribe to this view? Wasn`t adultery considered a crime even here until not so long ago and isn`t it a valid ground for divorce even now? Now, one can certainly argue, on the basis of common justice, that both parties involved in adultery are equally guilty and should receive identical punishment, but where does a society`s autonomy in deciding what is an appropriate behaviour or not (for example wearing a hijab or not letting women go out unescorted) is overridden by the international human rights as written by a white Judeo-Christian society?

Look, I`m not an advocate for adultery. And luckily most of us know enough to let a person settle his/her personal business with god or whomever he/she need to without imposing our own badly repressed envy and hate on adulterers. The point here is choice vs. societal controls.

My informal gauge tends to be the harm test. Adultery obviously symbolizes the difficulty/lack of intimacy in a marriage (or maybe not; I`m no Dr. Ruth :)). These difficulties can be or not be resolved in a dignified manner; either divorce or therapy or what have you. These are the options to mature, responsible, dignified adults.

What is NOT dignified is the tantrum chest beating clothes rending hystrionics of the betrayed spouse -and that immaturity made into punitive and cruel religious policy-you know that a greater social control is at stake here. Women suspected of adultery are stoned to death because they pose a threat to 1. an system based on the honor of a male/family in terms of their abilities to determine the actions of a female human being/property

2. supposedly they undermine the mores? No, they are undermining patriarchical and gendered networks-

A woman who leaves her gender defined private sphere can no longer be physically contained in one place, is no longer responsible for personally caretaking the domestic work or raising her and her spouse`s offspring-in the past, women working was considered a ``western`` more until the reality sunk in-that women did not want to labor at unpaid domestic work, or underpaid labor, and wanted to be self sufficient.

A quick digression:

During the Partition, my Nana Jan and Nani Jan`s village was under siege (a history that we all too sadly share). My Nana wanted to stay in Agra (he was born in Mathura)and hoped it was possible. Once it became clear that his friends could not protect him, he was forced, in the terrible chaos of that time, to consider his choices for his family if his house was overtaken. He and my Nani decided that my two uncles could escape and run to the next town. They also decided that they would kill my mother and my Khala with their own hands to save them from the dishonor of rape and shame.



They survived that night without being assaulted, but they left Agra the next day. My grandfather and grandmother decided that they would equip their daughters with such an education that there would be no possibility that my ma and Khala would ever be vulnerable or dependant in a violent crisis. Where did that cultural value come from? My grandfather had a Masters and my grandmother was literate in Urdu and the Q`uran-but a child bride without formal education. Yet, they and the parents of my uncles and aunts made the same decisions- to the same result- every woman in my family is a proffessional.

Similarly none of the women in my family wear hijab or chador. They wear duppattas during namaz but they neither force it on or off their daughters. Where did that cultural more come from? (Btw, we`re all from India:))

An interesting article on a development effort in Pakistan can be found here:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1026143924838&call_page=TS_News_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=Columnists

re. Urstruly to temporal:

``This is exactly what we all Islamists want. We want to establish a society which has its values based on Qurra`n and Sunnah, which is the only way to get us out of this shameful misery we all are in.``

Urstruly, maybe following the values based on Qur`an and Sunnah AS YOU INTERPRET IT will indeed lead to a better society. The problem is, deciding what is the corect `interpretation` (which, as Hobbes will tell you, is a moving target anyway) might take an eternity, during which time innocents will continue to pay the price for vileful, self-instersted or downright sadistic interpretations of the Qur`an and Sunnah. One would have thought that the example of this experiment in Pakistan would be enough to clearly illustrate this point. Easy for you to ask for such implementations. I wonder if you would be so generous with time were it your sisters or mother who was victimized TWICE while Islamic scholars debated the validity of punishing `zina` vicimts of rape.

In the meanwhile, you may think about walking your talk and actually move to a society in which Islamic law is most practiced. There is always Iran if you argue that Pakistan is only nominally Islamic. Such a move would greatly enhance your credibility, and save you from having to suffer the ignominy of living in a society where horrible atheists, godless heathens and shameless homosexuals are free to do all sorts of things to hurt your delicate sensibilities.

URTRULY:497

Why such an exclusive focus on the adulterous wife? What about if the wife catches her husband in such a position?

Now that is what happens MOST of the time? Is`nt it?...anywhere around the world. Irrespective of cast,creed,race,nationality,disability blah blahs, it is the philandering male who gets away with murder. Isn`t that so?

The cry and anguish of the human-female is across cultures, religions, and political systems. It is NOT muslim specific or exclusive. If at all, an Islamic system provides The Panacea.

Kis sey mehroom-i Quismat kee shikayat keejay

Humney chaha tha kay murr jaaen,so voh bhee nahua

AS a precondition to be an imam, caretaker and caregiver one must apply the rulings and restrictions on ones self first. That IS the essence of the message of the Criterion, the Quran.

If one is unable to provide,is unable to be muslim role-model,is unable to be judicious and trustworthy in his daily affairs then one forfeits each and every investiture thus ordained.

No human being would tolerate or should ever tolerate a system where the rule is `` Do as I say, and not as I do``

[That,in a nutshell, is the crux of the problem among the nations who are pretenders-to-freedom. Never ever refer to them again as third world, under-developed, or `developing`. They are the slaves who are still pleading for a return of their chains, because the howls from the woods are unnerving them. The comforts of the masters home is ever so appealing.

In order to tame an elephant, first they put a heavy iron chain to his leg & tether it to a post. After several disasterous attempts to free itself, it eventually gets resigned to the new status. Food is served! in plenty and of the choicest menu. Now the chain is removed. The elephant now refuses to move beyond the imagined tether-reach, until....

``Itnay maa`noos sayyad sey ho gaayay

ubb rihaa ee milee bhee, tO murr jaaengay``

Urstruly #497

Actually it is related also to inclination. And that becomes obvious in husband wife relations.

So:

1- Admonish

2- Keep away from bed.

3- Beat them (Shariah specifies lightly).

Once it is adulterous affair thing usually end on ``La`aan`` or divorce.