Mukhtaran Mai vs. the Rest of Pakistan

rahul

Before we can discuss that evolutionary cycle (if it exists), we might want an understanding of

(1) What is this beast called religion? How do we recognize it when we see it?
(2) where do religions comes from?
(3) What are religions for?
(4) Can religions change?
(5) How can religions change?
(6) How would we know if a change has taken place?
(7) Which brings us back to (1)

Re: # 110
Raw_Dust, that is hardly unique to Islam. Even Bible and Christianity are that way. There are many explanations that have been given and I feel that the evolutionary cycle that every pedantic religion has to go through is the most applicable. The reason for this cycle should be discussed in detail, and if really there is a pattern there.

Re: AlephNull:
``Now here is the really interesting question – a good general answer to which would give a tremendous amount of insight. How did Muslims – as individuals and as a group - get to be that way? More generally, why are these attitudes about not tearing into religious belief so prevalent among many religious believers? Why did such attitudes hold sway over a good part of the population of the world for a significant fraction of human history?``

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

My guess is it will take another ten years or so for a new generation of Muslims to grow up who might wanna stretch the border of revising Islam to the extent that certain Quranic verses will be confronted and completely abandoned along with Mohammad`s exalted status.

Re: # 108

aleph,

...... i never thought i would ever say this, but this was an excellent post and i agree with you a hundred percent ............

dost-mittar #106

{{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 – indeed they should be more so because they may be based on irrational mythologies and have a greater impact on peoples and societies.}}

Bravo dm-ji – you have restated a point that I have made several times. I personally would state it much more strongly. A free society – the only kind I would like to live in – should permit any and all absolutely unfettered criticism of religion, religious doctrines, religious figures, religious practices, etc. – satire, lampoon, outright ridicule and absolute contempt included. None of that nonsense that the discussion of religion always be ‘appropriately respectful’ … etc.

The result of not permitting absolute free speech in any domain is corrupting in the extreme. There is very likely a strong causal connection between the familiar asinine Islamic attitudes to free discussion and the hopeless backwardness of the Islamic world.

{{there is a lot more interest in learning about Islam and its Prophet, and more and more curious people are reading the Quran and the life of the Prophet and are not always getting the same message that some of you would like us to take.}}

dm-ji – would you like to hazard a guess why this is so? Is it that non-Muslims are deluded, or perversely wrong-headed, when they decide that the Book has absolutely nothing of value to offer the modern world? Or is it that believing Muslims have had their brains bludgeoned into submission to the Book and the Prophet through prolonged and very intense societal brainwash?

{{Secondly, and perhaps because of the above, one finds that Muslims are more sensitive to any critical remarks about their religion than others.}}

IMO the difference you have observed is real and very pronounced. The effect is probably heightened by the Islamic doctrine of the alleged universality and perfection of their religion. Believing Muslims and those who have grown up in an Islam-dominated environment seem to think that their idiot attitudes on respecting religions in general and Islam in particular are ‘obvious’, ‘natural’ and normative – that all ‘right-thinking’ people ought to agree. A range of methods is used to pull dissidents into line – from castigating the outspoken for ‘low-class’ behaviour, to mob violence and lynching.

Now here is the really interesting question – a good general answer to which would give a tremendous amount of insight. How did Muslims – as individuals and as a group - get to be that way? More generally, why are these attitudes about not tearing into religious belief so prevalent among many religious believers? Why did such attitudes hold sway over a good part of the population of the world for a significant fraction of human history?

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.``

............ i think that is an understatement - rather condescending, i might add ....... the fact of the matter is that most muslims go berserk at the slightest criticism of their ``faith`` and many are ready to blow themselves up to kingdom come ......

but anyway, thank you for being so understanding .............

tahmed, Romair, t and others:
I have never said, believed or implied that Muslims are killers, rapists, or otherwise less decent human beings than others; indeed, I hold the opposite view. I have been at the forefront of condemning any violation of Muslim citizens’ rights, whether by Indians, Americans in their bombing of Afghans or Iraqis or Canadians in picking on Muslims or “Muslim-looking” people (which sometimes includes me!) here at chowk and elsewhere.

But I do make a sharp distinction between people and their religion. 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 – indeed they should be more so because they may be based on irrational mythologies and have a greater impact on peoples and societies.

I also believe that religious icons and books of all religions – Old Testament, Manu’s Smriti and others have as many harsh verses as the Quran. It is true however that Islam seems to be coming under discussion more these days than other religions. It was not always so. Part of the reason is that in the post 9-11 world, there is a lot more interest in learning about Islam and its Prophet, and more and more curious people are reading the Quran and the life of the Prophet and are not always getting the same message that some of you would like us to take.

Secondly, and perhaps because of the above, one finds that Muslims are more sensitive to any critical remarks about their religion than others. For example, the substance of my post# 40 was to state that Islam or Mullahs should not he blamed for Mukhtaran’s plight; yet people ignored the substance and went for a qualifying clause. Compare that to post #50 where I referred to the “heinous abuses” of human rights in the Hindu religion and no one responded.

Romair:

It is not that I do not respond to your posts, but that we sometimes seem to be talking past each other. You ask me to defend a statement that Muslims rape and kill non-muslims whereas I would severely condemn anyone who makes such a statement. As far as my post#40 is concerned, I did quote the following verse from the Quran on UP, ``And all married women are forbidden unto you EXCEPT those captives whom your right hand possesses. It is a decree of Allah for you.`` 4:24.

hamidm #104 you write to Romair ``.......... but what does ginger have to do with mukhtar mai ?........ ``

Ginger was my ex-boss`s boss secretary. May Ginger and the ex-boss`s boss both Rest in Peace. Ginger put fear in the hearts of every rogue. So has Mukhtar Mai.

Re: # 98

romair mian,

..... i don`t know about ``classy`` drinkers ..... we learned to drink bhang with the malangs of bari imam and when we were at uet we used to invite the sweepers from ghoray shah to make bhang fo us ................. is that classy enough for you ?

..... unfortunately a monkey will never understand the pleasures of ginger ............

.......... but what does ginger have to do with mukhtar mai ?........

Romair #35

`` People seem to be associating Mukhtar Mai`s rape with maulvis. I don`t think any maulvis were involved. I believe the local maulvi actually helped her. And I think she is, herself, now, teaching Quran, in her own school.

In her case, it was a panchayat based tribal/feudal judiciary system, which gave the order.........Apparently, everyone seem bent on using her incidence to push their own points. I think people should figure out who the guilty party is, and highlight them.......

It is all a question of authority. Whenever one entity has authority over another, it can get away with anything it wants..........All such incidences happen in the tribal/feudal areas..........That whole system needs to be changed...........``

The system seems more interested in bolstering the feudals. Why put her on a exit control list ?

Romair:
you need to un-ghettoized your mind first and all that seeming anal retention and Mush-fetish. Ethanol is known throughout the ages to do just that.

cheers.

#98 by Romair

Khisiyani billi khamba nootchay!

Not everyonbe can understand it. It is God`s gift to human!

Jiss nay Sharab nain piti, O jamaya ei nain!

Mukhtaran allowed to go abroad: NA told




Dawn Report

ISLAMABAD, June 15: The government told the National Assembly on Wednesday that it had allowed Mukhtaran Mai to travel abroad. Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao said the decision to remove the Mai’s name from the exit control list (ECL) had been taken on the instructions of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz as he replied to complaints made during the past few days by several parliament members. Some MNAs accused the government of putting her under house arrest.

“There are no restrictions on her movement; she can go wherever she wants to go,” the minister said while interrupting National Assembly proceedings when the house was discussing and voting on demands for grants for government ministries and departments as provided in the budget for fiscal year 2005-06.

The statement came a day after the United States also voiced its dismay at Mai Mukhtaran being prevented from travelling there and telling her story, a move that another government minister called interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs.

Mr Sherpao, who spoke when the prime minister was present in the house, said there had been no restrictions on her and that the government’s only concern was to provide her security and justice.

Mr Aitzaz Ahsan of the People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPP), who is also Mukhtaran’s lawyer and has seen raising the issue in the house, welcomed the government’s decision. However, he aid it would have been better if it had come before the American concern became known.

Ms Mukhtaran told reporters in Islamabad on Tuesday that she was “virtually under house arrest” and that she had cancelled a planned trip to the United States because of her mother’s illness.

However, human rights activists feared that she had made the decision under pressure from authorities who did not want her to go abroad and speak about her ordeal.

Mr Ahsan, who earlier went to the prime minister’s desk and talked to him for a while, said he had urged Mr Aziz to remove her name from the ECL in order to give a positive message abroad rather than take steps that could depict the Pakistani society as barbarous.

Minister of State for Health Shahnaz Sheikh regretted American comments on Mukhtaran Mai’s case and asked: “Why should they interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign country?”

In the morning, Mr Ahsan said he had learnt that Mukhtaran Mai had been trying to contact him for legal advice but was apparently prevented by the authorities from meeting him.

He also quoted Human Rights Commission of Pakistan chairperson Asma Jehangir as telling him that Ms Mukhtaran was being pressurised to change her lawyer.

Nadeem Saeed adds from Multan: The government has confiscated the passport of Mukhtaran Mai, it was learnt on Wednesday evening.

She was reportedly taken to the US embassy in Islamabad amid tight security where she asked the officials to return her passport which she had submitted for the American visa.

Sources said that Mai’s passport was later on seized by the Prime Minister’s adviser Nilofer Bakhtiar. Mai Mukhtaran was told by the authorities that her passport would remain in the official custody for the time being.

Her passport was confiscated after removing her name from the ECL. Later, the government sent her back to her village Meerwala in Muzaffargarh district on Wednesday evening under “unprecedented” security umbrella, sources said.

Meanwhile, one of the 13 detained accused in the Meerwala case, Ramzan Pachaar, was released on Wednesday evening from the Muzaffargarh district jail after submitting two bail bonds of Rs 50,000 each. However, there are conflicting reports about his re-arrest. Muzaffargarh’s acting district police officer DSP Ijaz Baloch denied that the accused had been arrested again. “At least none has brought it into my knowledge even if this had happened,” he added.

The review board of the Lahore High Court had ordered on Friday last the release of the 13 accused in the case, who were detained under section three of the Maintenance of Public Order on the application of Mukhtaran Mai.

Eight of the accused were acquitted by the trial court on August 31, 2002, while five were acquitted by the Multan bench of the LHC on March 3 last. The victim had expressed threat to her and her family’s life as her ‘perpetrators’ were set free.

sattar2: #97: ``Insisting on a sharp separation between Quran and shariah oversimplifies the issue and is bound to draw well-founded criticism.``

There is a difference between calling a whole group of people rapists and also insisting that their religion encourages it, and critiquing something. The former is bogotry. Unless one can prove it and back up one`s claim with facts. It is quite nonsensical to suggest that it is alright for a Muslim to rape a non-Muslim.............Anyone who suggests, or believes that has gone bonkers. In fact, I don`t even know of any interpretation of even Taliban style Shariah which encourages Muslims to rape non-Muslims..........

Had NTSyed or Naqshbandi or Urstruly suggested that Islam allows the rape of non-Muslim women, everyone and their grandmother, would have jumped on them. People would have picked up their wine bottles and started throwing them at these guys. It would not have been well-founded criticism then. They would have been called barbarians. I think it would have been correct to jump on them. And it is equally correct to jump on (not physically) anyone who tries to push such bigotry.......

Quran and Shariah are two different things. One is a book, which is the basis of Islam. And according to Muslims, is God-sent. Shariah is a man-made concept (and is recognized as such, by everyone) that is not binding on any Muslim. It is an attempt made to interpret the Quran by various individuals. Thus, there is no one set Shariah. They are a dime a dozen. And will continue to differ, between geographical regions and between centuries. An interpretation of Shariah from someone in a third-world Pakistan, today, will be very different from that of a first-world Pakistan of 200 years from now.........

Thus it is impossible to even quantify a, ``separation between Quran and Shariah,`` since, while there is one set Quran, there is no set shariah. And there never will be...........

HP/Hamidm #82: “That right there shows that you don’t know much about this subject. Have you heard about the wine collectors? Have you ever looked at wine cellars?”

Actually, I was talking specifically about classy Pakistani drinkers.

There are certain assets everyone needs to have to pull off something that is otherwise un-natural to their species. Gori women try hard to wear shalwar qameez, but just don’t have the class to pull it off. Desi girls try hard to wear shorts, but just don’t have the legs to pull it off (barring a few).

Similarly, very few Pakistani guys have the class to pull off drinking. If for no other reason, because they all talk about it too much. The wine aficionado from Napa Valley will not talk about his wine collection, or his drinking exploits, twenty-four hours a day, to everyone or anyone. He will only do so, amongst other wine aficionados. And he will not do so, to push himself, or try to make a social point about his beliefs.

I think drinking should be banned in the West because it causes too many divorces and too many traffic accidents. Even though goras have the class to pull it off. While it should also be banned for Pakistanis, also. Not because it causes divorces or traffic accidents in Pakistan (which it rarely does). But because Pakistanis lack the class to pull it off.

Any Pakistani who has had one bottle of the, “good stuff” feels some strange need to wear it on his sleeve, announce it to the whole world, and make it a central part of his personality…………This includes Pakistani journalists who feel they have to mention their drinking habits in every article they write……….

“..........you remind me of the guys who hang around the greyhound station downtown with their bottles ``hidden`` in brown bags ! ........... they never mention their drinking and try to be as discreet as possible ..........”

I have never had a drink. More importantly, I have never been on a Greyhound…….So I cannot comment on this one………….But I have hung around many classy drinkers………..And some very un-classy ones also………….Class is something that is in-built…………And one can spot it from a distance…………..

Ok … Mukhtaran Mai can go to hell … and as long as ideological bickering is going on … here are some thoughts:

Basically I am of the opinion that Quran does not allow raping of non-Muslim women, be they war-booty or concubines or whatever. A rape remains a rape …

DM and hamidm have raised valid points about Quran and shariah. The difference between these two is not quite as cut and dry as tahmed seems to insist. Quran does not make Muhammad a policeman of god … correct … but it does make several accommodations for Muhammad, and elevates him to a position that is apparently not reserved for everyone else. Points raised in this context deserve careful consideration ... and cannot be dismissed easily by making curt, blanket statements.

Quran does say that Muhammad’s job is simply to convey the message. But from what I recall reading, this statement seemed to be in context of those who choose not to accept Muhammad’s message. That is, if people do not accept Muhammad’s message, Muhammad is only responsible for conveying the message.

However, in case of believers, Muhammad’s role is expanded beyond that of one merely conveying the message. From what I recall reading, he is also discharged with explaining the message, teaching wisdom to believers and purifying them … and leading them by examples. He is also called something along the lines of “source of mercy for all worlds” … and the “best example” for believers.

Furthermore, Quran declares Muhammad`s wives as “mothers of the faithful”. Quran declares it a monstrosity for a believer to marry Prophet’s wives after the Prophet’s demise. In some places Quran mentions that reward and punishment for Muhammad’s wives are twice as much as that for other believers.

Quran says all this … as it supports intercession … as it demands obedience to Muhammad … while still emphasizing the message of equality and emphasis on individual responsibility. And then there is Quranic support for khilafat … which only complicates the issue further …

Furthermore, history of Islam provides abundant evidence that Muhammad was not merely a conveyer of the message … but he also assumed the role of the undisputed head of the community, claimed to have had received revelations in addition to Quran, led armies to wars, and combined the role of religious and temporal leadership in one seat. He foretold the establishment of institution of khilafat ... in a supportive manner. The khalifas (Abu Bakr, Omar … etc) that followed simply walked in his footsteps … just like Qruan commanded them to do.

There’s more … but I’ll pause for now. I’ll dig up references if needed …

There are many ways to slice this pie. Insisting on a sharp separation between Quran and shariah oversimplifies the issue and is bound to draw well-founded criticism.

++++++++++++++++++

tahmed Sahib, you are quick of take offense when Islam is put down. However, you yourself are not above taking shots at Ahmadis and their faith at your fancy. Without being provoked you’ve called them hero-worshippers, blamed them for looking up to humans for guidance, suggested that in some ways they are indistinguishable from followers of Maudoodi, and that they are non-Muslims for believing in continuation of propohethood. All this for Ahmadis accepting Mirza Sahib as a prophet of Allah and following Quran as it makes sense to them …

Similarly, on the other board Naqshbandi was unhappy about Nadeem Paracha’s blasphemy against Naqshbandi’s prophets. However, Naqshbandi Sahib has at times himself made incorrect, extremely degrading comments about Mirza Sahib, whom Ahmadi-Muslims accept as a prophet of Allah.

Why such hypocrisy? … I remain at a loss for explanation. It is probably rooted in an absolute view of divinity, humanity, and morality … with a somewhat egoistical take on things.

ntsyed Sahib, if Quran can demand that under certain circumstances it may be ok to kill people for following other faiths (according to you), then what’s wrong with raping other women under certain circumstances? Your cousin Naqshbandi is all for turning captive women into concubines. And yes, he too has a long list of rightly guided men of god to validate such views.