Mukhtaran Mai vs. the Rest of Pakistan

Dear Tahmed32:

I am now beginning to have some doubts about how you read posts. My dear sir, that statement had nothing to do with being Muslim or Islamic but with the Indo-Pakistan society. Please go see Bawander, one of my favourite films, which describes the horror that Sanwari Devi went through for a similar situation in India.

dost mittar #125 I am sorry to keep picking on your posts, but you make such off-the-wall statements, like ``What Mukhtaran has done becomes even more admirable when one realises that she probably grew up believing that there was nothing wrong in the type of punishment meted out to her. ``

Do you seriously believe that muslim women are taught that it is OK for them to be raped as punishment?? The extent of mischief that (at least as appears from such statements even by intelligent, well-meaning people like you) has been done in India wrt misrepresenting and defaming minority religions is mind-boggling.

Low Graphics Site
































Mukhtaran Mai is invited to the U.S. Read the following news item.

June 17, 2005 Friday Jumadi-ul-Awwal 9, 1426

US invites Mukhtaran Mai

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, June 16: The United States has officially informed Pakistan that gang-rape victim Mukhtaran Mai has been invited to visit the country and has also urged the Pakistan Embassy in Washington to facilitate her visit.

“We have advised Pakistani officials that she was invited to the US by a Pakistani organization based in the US,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told a Wednesday afternoon briefing in Washington. “Ms Mai is welcome to travel to the United States at any time.”

Mr McCormack described Mai as “a courageous woman who is a victim of a horrendous crime” and said that Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca has discussed Mai’s planned visit to the United States with Ambassador Jehangir Karamat.

Meanwhile, the Asian-American Network against Abuse of Human Rights, the group which has invited Mai, said on Thursday that authorities in Pakistan have confiscated her passport along with the visa and has forced her to return to her village.

“This is not acceptable. Instead of stopping her, the government should facilitate her travel,” said a spokesman for the group.

Mai told BBC that the Prime Minister’s Adviser on Women Affairs, Ms Neelofar Bakhtiar, confiscated her passport when she returned from the US Embassy in Islamabad after receiving the visa.

Also on Thursday, the Pakistan Embassy in Washington issued another statement on the controversy saying that the government was fully sympathetic to the plight of Mukhtaran Mai and had assured her every possible support and protection.

“The government has taken a number of steps to bring the accused to justice, including lodging of an appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the decision of a lower court on behalf of Ms Mai,” the statement said.

AlephNull:

I agree with what you say except that I wouldn`t single out Islam. The heart of the problem is the concept of blasphemy and this concept was not invented by the prophet of Islam.

HP:
You did not recognize the basic distinction that I tried to make between ideology and people. Blacks are not an ideology and neither for that matter are Muslims or Hindus, but I would see no problem in someone criticising Rastafarian ideology even if it is associated mostly with Blacks. As far as my being insensitive, I tried my best to be sensitive to people`s feelings while expressing my thoughts but if kafir is a hateful word, I got it straight from the Book.
It is frustrating when one cannot get through to people even when agreeing with them, which is the case here. This is a good way to get back to the topic. My views on the issue are identical to yours. I do not associate Mukhtaran`s plight to Islam but to a deep malaise in the society and a need to reform a judicial system which makes the burden of evidence too burdensome. What Mukhtaran has done becomes even more admirable when one realises that she probably grew up believing that there was nothing wrong in the type of punishment meted out to her. In this respect, it is instructive to recall the reaction of her family who protested against the decision not because Mukhtaran was innocent but because the allegation against her brother was false. This is what living in a system does to you. I KNOW! Fifty years ago, in the heart of metropolitan Delhi, I would never have offered my hand to my street sweeper and, even if I did, he would not have accepted the proffered hand but would have merely folded his hands, his eyes firmly planted on the ground.
I hope that this is the end of digression on this thread.

dost mittar #106 you write ``I have never said, believed or implied that Muslims are killers, rapists, or otherwise less decent human beings than others;``

With all due respect, this statement makes no sense. Of course there are killers and rapists among muslims, as there are among all communities. Just as the vast majority of muslims are not killers or rapists, as is also true for all communities.

you write ``Religions to me or no more than ideologies, just as Capitalism, Socialism or Communism are, and cannot be any more immune from criticism than those other ideologies``

With all due respect, that is not what I objected to. I objected to the misrepresentation of the Quran and the prophet`s life when you wrote that they both condoned the rape of nonmuslim women, and suggested that you either apologize or substantiate your statements. You did neither - instead you brought in a third element (sharia) - and then did not acknowledge the simple and basic point I made that while in Islam the Quran is considered the word of God, the sharia is merely executive fiats of kings issued in lieu of parliaments. As Karen Armstrong (one of the most popular writers on Islam in the west) has pointed out, the Quran was in fact a very liberating document for women for its times: it gave women property and other rights that even in the west were not given for another one thousand years.

So, my objection is to misreprentation of the truth. The fact that this misrepresentation has to do with the message of islam is incidental.

Eradication & Elimination and very useful words, sir. Tell me, how many religions have be eradicated throughout the history of mankind. Religion, my dear sir, is always strict and based on stirct fundamentals. It never evolves. It stays at the point of its ideological climax. It cannot afford to go back or move forward.

The only way out is to be open minded and flexible in our view of our and other people`s religions. Let your religion be your business and mine, mine. But can we achieve this when we have funamenalists or all religions in one corner, and good-intentioned eradicators of religion(s) in the other.

It is all very well to be emotional on an issue like this (I would go made if my mother or sister is raped), but let us not over-glorify the victim and over-demonize the demons who committed the crime, and those who are in power but not giving justic to the woman.

Yes, we must be thankful to Mukhtaran Mai for being a fighter. She has suffered a lot. Let us not over expose her. It is time now to let her go. She is already being assisted in a move the USA. It will be good for her to get out of here or soon her glorifiers will succeed in getting her killed. She will be at a new place and may start a new life on a good note there.

AND the Justice! Ha ha! Justice? Our courts are not designed to adminiter justice. Our legal system is imbalanced. Do anyone know how a rape is proved under the current law? Even in a fair court case it is highly unlikely that a rape victim can get justice under our law and procudure.

The whole of our political and legal system is designed for the high and mighty. And the people, victims or culprits, and just people or maybe insects. Clever insects get away with it. Stupid or poor insects get crushed. There is no justice in this system. And there shall never be justice, till the time we the people are in control of our political system.

So, let us not just write big-worded stories about the victims. Let us think and do something to re-invent our national thought.

This was refreshing, without being extreme which is quite a tough ask in this day and age.

Love, A.

#117 by HP

[And you show your class by being insensitive!

Before I rip into that a-hole’s utopia let me put a sample post here. Mind you this is just a sample post but may not be very far from facts.

“People who follow pagan rites and prostrate before animals such as rats,(rats ugh! what is next, cockroach!)snakes, monkeys, elephants and cows should not look for mote in others eyes.” And I address you as a “rat worshipping Hindu” (it is a fact some Hindu do worship rats.)]

HP Sahib, not one Hindu will deny that he/she worship rats. But how many Muslims will admit that marrying a 9-year old girl when the Prophet himself was 53 IS wrong?

re: rahul # 116

I didn`t expect that you would actually answer those questions! But as always you did an outstanding job.

The next challenge is to get ten people of different backgrounds to agree with those views. And, we would have done away with all religious fights and religious violence! :) :)

All religions must change and adopt themselves to the times, certain tenets must inevitably be dropped as they are fascistic and contradict the morally superior horseshit that these religions base their divinity upon. If the followers of the religion are unable to do this than there comes a time when the religion becomes a threat to humanity and the religion must be eradicated. This seems harsh but there is no amount of logical reasoning that will compell a hardcore believer that is so blinded by the emotions of anger and hatred to even consider any compromise.

#106 by dost-mittar
“Secondly, and perhaps because of the above, one finds that Muslims are more sensitive to any critical remarks about their religion than others.”

And you show your class by being insensitive!
Before I rip into that a-hole’s utopia let me put a sample post here. Mind you this is just a sample post but may not be very far from facts.

“People who follow pagan rites and prostrate before animals such as rats,(rats ugh! what is next, cockroach!)snakes, monkeys, elephants and cows should not look for mote in others eyes.” And I address you as a “rat worshipping Hindu” (it is a fact some Hindu do worship rats.)

There is nothing factually wrong above and if I post it five times a day, every day without fail then please tell me how “sensitive” this post would be for you. Well! It may be alright for you but I am sure there are many Hindus on this site who would remind me that the prophet was a pedophile! Or may come up with many explanations as to why they worship snakes, monkeys and rats but if I am not ready to listen I wont listen and that is all there is to it. (Now if you wanna test this out, I can do that for you everyday!)

There are many people who believe that Jesus was a bastrd! Now if I decide to post that every day with out fail, would Christians find that an excellent post?

How about a-hole goes to the south side Chicago or Birmingham, Alabama and tells all blacks in the hood that they are lazy bums and black women are welfare mama and addresses people as niggers because he wants a world where people could say whatever they want. Would you please tell me how many of his holes would be penetrated instantly? And for that matter, let him try racial epitaphs in Hispanic and Chinese neighborhoods and see how quickly he would become a tombstone.
Forget about the physical harm or people taking you for crazy. Would you personally have any problem in calling blacks niggers or other chinkos?

IMO, people learn things from home. If your parents were not careful in what they said and practiced at home, there is every likelihood that you will imitate them in your life because if they had no concept of respecting people, other religions, faith and races, rarely would kids have that concept. Most of the KKK members had their parents as KKK members too. (you is not you in particular).

Why was it necessary to bring religion in this discussion and refer to kafir and what not when there was no need for that?

Please see my previous posts on the subject and I said that mai’s visit will be used against the mullah and fundamentalists in Pakistan. That does not mean that religion or even the mullah had anything to do with what happened to her but for the simple reason that women’s rights in Pakistan clash with some religious laws in Pakistan. This is politics. Things that work for you and where they work for you, will be used for political purpose. Human rights groups etc in the US or in Europe would use her to attack fundos in Pakistan and Islamic countries. Despite saying all that I did not say anything against the religion because it has nothing with religion and all to do with politics.

Why is religion so important for you or a-hole, the self proclaimed atheists that you bring it up regularly or that is the only subject a-hole comments on and why is it only Islam and not Hinduism, Christianity, Jewish or any other faith? They all developed in the dark ages and they all have funny bones in them.

Isn’t this reverse fundamentalism?

This is late for me more on this tomorrow.

Re: # 112
kaalchakra,
It is too late but I will try to take a shot at your questions.We can discuss it sometime later, on UP.
1) Religion to me is a miracle of the highest order, surpassing all miracles ever known to humans. Please note that if God shows up tomorrow to meet me I will not be that amazed.Religion amazes me ,though.Also, I have never quite understood why should I confine myself to one religion.
You can recognize religion by fear, sin and hell. I find religion like StockHolm Syndrome.Not to say that religion is bad, but without hell it has no currency.It may be transitory or eternal, but it is the most essential component, more essential than heaven.
2) Refer #1, I have no clue. Though the characterstic element of each religion points towards an elitist conspiracy theory.Every religion seems to thrive on obedience, status quo etc. But I am able to make this remark in the 21st century, when I can discuss this with people all over the world on chowk.If I had been born 10,000 years ago, I would have thought COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY because of various reasons, I am sure about it.I would have been talking about the goodness of religions, rather than the follies.
Another important feature, which leads to the adoption and practice of religion , is the feel good factor.I may suck in everything but it may give me some solace that I am religious. A faith based life may be more satisfying than a reason based life.
3) Normative behaviour and control is required for an ethical framework. But the elitist and misogynistic spin that has been given to some religions indicates some kind of conspiracy going on somewhere. But this is according to my value of equity which is taken for a given now. But is equity a valid canonical assumption? These are questions that need to be discussed.
4) and 5) They sure can because change is the law of nature. The only thing that is constant.A religion is not just a book, it is the people who practice is, kinda like a heraclitean river. Religions are changing as you and I speak. The book is only as important or as unimportant as you consider it to be. Again, when will the change mark an epoch, and what causes is to make an epoch, is very statistical, and that was the point of my earlier post. I have no clue how that evolutionary cycle works. But I think change should be proportionate with the discussion taking place on a particular religion,logically speaking.
6) This is just my guess but you would know when there is a change in the fear of hell.That is the defining characterstic of any religion. Without a change in that, I dont think religion can change.It has to take place, consciously or subconsciously. It would have direct correlation with what kind of a person would feel that an intangible promised mythical heaven is more valuable than the tangible and real today.

Raw_Dust #110

{{Because, certain verses in Quran are indefensible? That indefensibility recursively debunk the whole religion from bottom-up hence the threat of eternal condemnation.}}

‘Recursion’ is certainly a part of the answer I have in mind, but not in the context you were using. Let me first address what you wrote.

It’s not just that ‘certain verses’ of the Quran may be indefensible on factual or moral grounds based on everything we know today – though true believers always try their best to wriggle out of the tight corners that the Book places them in. The entire Book and the usual circular reasons given for believing it are indefensible on epistemological grounds. This whole business of ‘revelation’ is so obviously open to exploitation by charlatans and delusionists – has been exploited thus down the ages. I of course do not take the Quran seriously as a source of ‘truth’. My interest is in why people down the ages have given it any credence at all and why they continue to do so.

A good place to start is with the following pair of questions:

(1) Why should one believe something – in the sense of ‘regarding it to be true’?
(2) Why in fact do people typically believe something?

It’s plain that many, perhaps the overwhelming majority of human beings – not limited merely to Muslims, or even believers in any ‘religion’ – give credence to a great deal for which they’ve seen no tangible evidence whatsoever.

To an extent this is unavoidable. Life is short and one doesn’t have the time to subject every claim to scrutiny. A great deal must be taken on ‘faith’ but with the understanding that it can be verified or sampled or tested in detail if necessary.

There are also ‘sophisticated’ believers who consciously decide to adopt a particular body of belief – perhaps regarding it as parable or evocative metaphor rather than ‘true fact’ – because of the effect it has on their minds, their beings, in granting ‘serenity’ or ‘transcendence’ or the like.

I believe, based on my observation of human behaviour, that if one discards these kinds of ‘deliberate leaps of faith’, there is a great deal that normal people believe quite literally which they cannot hope to verify even in principle using logical deduction and/or the evidence of the senses.

So we are back to question (2). Let me rephrase it. What accounts for the landscape of beliefs prevalent in human populations today – the landscape of religious beliefs, in particular? Why do some beliefs spread and persist in human populations, while others barely hang on or die out?

rahul_capri #111

{{evolutionary cycle that every pedantic religion has to go through}}

‘Evolution’ is most definitely a major part of the answer I have in mind, but not solely in the sense that I think rahul intended.

Re: # 113

I did not mean to hijack this board with a very worthy social problem, but could not resist my temptation.

Anil Kapuria

Dost-Mitter (#106}

Until not very long ago religion and ideologies had been my favorite subjects of study and discussions. Religion`s more exalted position than ideologies comes for two reasons: (a) it is someone born into it; and (b) everyone feels a need for spirituality in life. Neither of these are the case with other ideologies. However, I had always been of the opinion that therefore, religion needs to be discussed more openly and vigorously, especially its negative side-effects. Believers always propound all the positives, and play smoke and mirror with words and actions about its negatives.

It was very interesting to see how Romair and Tahmed32 jumped to a distorted meaning and implication of your statements. Two otherwise, very honorable and intellectual people. I indeed had the honor of meeting one of them.

What bewilders me is the power of religion over mind. How suddenly people are affected. Almost like opium. Lenin was probably not very wrong, when he said that Religion is the opium for the masses.

I have seen many similar effects. Not very long ago a person was passionately trying to convince me who is a good Hindu and who is a bad Hindu, so convinced was in his conviction that he could not never see others point of views. Frustratingly, I asked him what was his yardstick to measure a good or a bad Hindu, and who, when and how that yardstick was it defined. He was left searching for the answers. I knew if he felt empowered by Hinduism he would have issued a fatwa on me. Talk about passion and confidence he had though. Something that would match the confidence and passion of Romair and Tahmed in their certainty and finality of their interpretation of your statement to react this way.

Have you ever wondered, but why so?

Anil