Mukhtaran Mai vs. the Rest of Pakistan

Re: # 195

miriamk,

You`re right! We don`t need the ``Book`` to tell us the ``blatantly obvious``.

You`re also right that countless men distort the text from the Quran and Sunnah to exploit women. So you needn`t apologize for stating the truth. Rest assured, no sensibilities are offended here.

Just like you, my vote also goes for human reason. Indeed it is a divine gift, but apparently a lot of people have either rejected this gift or don’t recognize its value. Otherwise, MM controversy would have been over shortly after it occurred.

That`s where the whole problem lies - the human reason.

There were decent men and women back before the `Books`, but their `reasoning` was not heeded by the pimps, paupers, and princely alike who were hell-bent on exploitation of the weaker sex by any means they could, as is the case today. As I watched on CNN not too long ago, people are peddling underage girls (as young as 5) as prostitutes in Cambodia. And guess what, they have adult customers for these girls; from the enlightened world too. That`s just one example. Such crap is going on in the USA, India, and Europe too – the largest of democracies and ‘the most enlightened nations’, or so they claim. The American darling CNN has also presented cases of forced slavery in the 21st century USA.

To answer your `why`, one needs to understand the simple principle behind laws: these are not meant to undermine the civility and common sense of the common man. Rather it is to control the uncivilized elements of the society to protect the general population. Similarly, the “Book” is not meant to undermine your sense of right and wrong. Rather it endorses this sense as the Divine Will and supports you to counter the corruption by prescribing appropriate precautions, punishments, and remedies for the social ills. Otherwise, just as you don’t need a Book to tell you that a rape is a rape without the `ifs`, `ands` or `buts`, you don’t need constitutions, laws, lawyers, judges, politicians, and bureaucrats to tell you that either.

Therefore, the ``Book`` is not supposed to protect the women or anyone for that matter; the subscribers, as in the believers of the book, are supposed to do that. The ``Book`` endorses the views of conscientious few, including you, to counter the degenerates to bring an order into the society. Otherwise, you have what you see today around the world – chaos, because the Book is not followed as it should be even where it retains some value.

If you remove the ``Book`` from the equation, then it`s your reason vs. mine. In that case, a wrong that`s ``blatantly obvious`` to me may be totally justifiable to you. Then with both of us being `equal humans`, only the might prevails as right. As is the case with MM. Even with hundreds of witnesses and confessions of the perpetrators for carrying out the panchayat`s verdict, the society is unable to correct this wrong. Why? Because the mighty panchayat officials thought her rape was justified. The verdict of the ``Book`` was overturned by the bloody secular court, and now even the President and PM are trying to keep her from seeking justice wherever she can.

Don`t you think the Pakistani ``secular`` govt would have punished the violators of MM and many such women long time ago when the crime is ``blatantly obvious`` to EVERY SINGLE person who hears about it....except may be teshah who thinks Quran is just paper and ink, vagina is just flesh and blood, and south is always behind his back; like hamidm who thinks a cold-blooded murderer has as many rights to live as the unborn babies, and taxes should be spent on violators of humanity than the well-being of the violated, and his right arm in the mirror is in fact his right arm and his actual right is the other right.

So, what do you think, should we scrap the whole concept of laws and everything linked to it just because you and I and few others know that a rape is a rape without the `ifs` `ands` or `buts`? Or should we make a `na-meri-baat-na-tumhari-baat` compromise to reinforce these with something that was not written by any human being?

Once again you`re expecting all men to be intellectually and morally equal, just as you expected the shoe salesman to be. Just as common sense is not so common, the ``blatantly obvious`` is not so blatantly obvious to some in this imperfect world. Even if it is, the degenerates always try to get away with it like that shoe salesman until they receive a reminder kick from that the recipient of their vulgarity is aware of the `blatantly obvious`.

The reason there`s a tremendous effort to discredit the ``Book``, today more than ever, is to silence the conscientious few who pose a serious threat to the degenerates when most others assume the ostrich position in the face of tyranny.

In case of general Muslims, discrediting the Quran will take away the only thing that can help them to weed out the black sheep from amongst them and fight the tyranny within their lands and from abroad. These black sheep are the ones who distort the text from the ``book`` for petty gains because they know that today’s common Muslim does not study the “Book”, let alone practice it, thus has no power to stop them from exploiting it.

Both of these groups have successfully proselytized the unsuspecting gullible Muslims to believe that Quran is just a Book and nothing more than paper and ink; and that Sunnah doesn’t mean anything. The hamidm ilk is confused to the point that they now believe their confusion is actually sanity – the self-fulfilling prophecy phenomenon, if you’re familiar with it. Otherwise, think of it as a looney calling his shrink looney.

These marauding disciples of darkness can only be countered with only the Book, not reason and logic that are meaningless and dispensable for them.

ntsyed :-)~~

Re: # 185
Thank you for your `remarkable` interpretation of what I meant and said, and your familiarity with the timings of the hijacking ... read news papers of october after the 9/11 incident you will come to know. I wish I had the clipping, I would love to scan and post it to you. But in any case your tone suggest, I should not be interacting with you any more, so be happy and keep on thinking the way you are, it does hurt, but I think I can live with it at this point in time.
Bye

Re: # 192
Your tone in the text tells me that you are writing what you really believe in and not merely for the sake of discourse. I, therefore feel its time to stop here for the dictionary of reality that you use and the frequency and selection of words that you use is all together different from mine. So lets move on and hope whosoever is going the wrong way may gets the right path.
Bye

I am extremely uncomfortable with ``don`t criticize Islam/Hinduims/Jainism/Buddhism` kind of argument. Or, the same argument presented differently: ``criticize so and so only if you have studied it.`` Who is say what studying anything means?

Surely, very often wild allegations are made, and complete distortions of commonly understood religious views are presented. So, it is reasonable to insist that arguments are decently presented and defended. That emotion is kept under control.

But let`s not leap to suggesting that no less than flattering arguments be carried out.

Asking for a moratorium on criticising `others` religion is not the way to go. That places too much responsibility on the shoulders of the believers in various faiths. A responsibility that simply cannot be met for many reasons, and is not met.

miriam #195

as you can see, besides kaalchakra ji, your question seems to have been set aside for now. everyone is too busy apparently listening to the sound of their own fingers tap. . . i like what you have to say though. very much to the point.

re: miriamk # 195

That view deals the most devastating blow against all religious nonsense, no matter what label that nonsense carries. More than any other, it will reveal the nature of `religion` a person stands for.

Anil #199: ``I am relieved to read your views about bigot and Dost-Mitter.............To me religion has a very limited role, and absolutely nothing beyond confines of my mind`s spiritual needs. I would indeed welcome that you or anyone else make comments about Hinduism or any other topic of my interest. I would challenge it, if necessary, just as I had challenged the hindutvawadi who was trying to convince me about good hindu and bad hindu.``

Everyone should have a choice to pursue whatever they want, in whatever manner they want. Live and let live..........But no one has a right to profile or paint others in a negative manner; specifically without clear cut proof........That is my point............That is first step of violence against a community........One needs to look at this angle also......

I am all for critiquing anything and everything. Including and specifically religion. Had Dost-Mittar carried out a debate on the subject, with educated interactions. That would be one thing. But to just plainly, without rhyme or reason, making such horrendous declarations about Muslims, is unacceptable. At least to me. I would never do that about Hindus, or about any other faith or group.......

Please notice my discussion going on with Urstruly. Within a reply or two, he will either declare me an Ahmedi or a non-Muslim. He will use some perverted interpretation of a verse from the Quran, and will stretch it to suit his own meaning. Or will quote some sort of a Hadith. I will challenge him on it. And he will not be able to prove his point. But he will be convinced of it, still.......

This is what I am against.........And this appears, albeit in different shades, amongst individuals of completely different personalities. I am completely against people trying to, ``reform`` or, ``educate`` others, when others have not asked for it. In the worst case, they will end up looking like bigots. And in the best case, they will end up looking arrogant.......

Once people are convinced that they can, willy-nilly, critique others, from a moral highground, I think they, or at least, their remarks, have become more harmful than good. They have lost touch of the sensitivities of others. They have formed rock solid opinions (in many cases, false) about the faiths, beliefs, customs etc. of others. And most of all, they have assumed that they are, themselves, of superior mind and evolution, and can thus, push their ideas onto others. Without having to factually back up their ideas........

I literally spend my complete day with Hindus, and have done so for 12 years. Never once, have I ever thought of trying to, ``reform`` them, or their religion. I am least interested in that. I do not want to get into the intracracies of their religion, and try to extrapolate on their religious beliefs to justify my views on whether they are potentials rapists and/or murderers......If they try to murder me, I will stop them. If they try to rape my family, I will stop them also..........As long as they do not do that and are nice to me (which all of them have been), I am least bothered in trying to, ``reform`` them or critique them or their faith.......If I were to do so, without being asked, and most of all, without knowing their faith, I will more than likely end up putting my foot in my mouth, and offending them.....Being a legitimate critic of something one is not a part of, requires an awful lot of credibility and an awful lot of knowledge............

People should concentrate more on reforming themselves..............And if they are hell-bent on reforming a religion, a race, an ethnicity, they should reform their own religion, race or ethnicity............

Re: # 178 Roamair

``I don`t have my own Shariah. That is my whole point. I study the Quran and try to understand it. But I don`t try to force it upon others............There is, in fact, no mechanism defined in the Quran, that allows one to make a binding interpretation of it...........This is the difference between you and me........I try to understand something. You simply ape whatever is told to you by someone............``


Doesn`t that contradict your stance in your original post number 143, where you said that ``Quran, neither lays down the need for Shariah, nor does it demand to be used as the basis for it. Theoretically speaking, there can be as many Shariahs are there are Muslims in the world.``

So the question was, what is your understanding of the 5 verses in the Chapter ``Elephant``. I already know that I ape other people I just want to understand the point of view of a genius who figured out their meanings all by himself. Won`t you even pretend to try before coping out.

#196 by temporal on June 18, 2005 9:34am PT

Nice try to sound erudite....but pakiland isn`t hermetically challenged...hermetically challenged would mean the jinnah`s green container has holes and information is flowing in and changing minds and introducing the paki junta to reality...there are holes, no doubt about it...like the one hamidm made when he bolted...but you`ve got a lot of self-deluded pakis like sifzal trying to plug the holes with their fingers from the inside(and capt clueless doing it from the outside)...don`t think the majority of pakis are anywhere near getting out of their self-deluded stupor any time soon...

Re: # 173

Romair:

I am relieved to read your views about bigot and Dost-Mitter.

To me religion has a very limited role, and absolutely nothing beyond confines of my mind`s spiritual needs. I would indeed welcome that you or anyone else make comments about Hinduism or any other topic of my interest. I would challenge it, if necessary, just as I had challenged the hindutvawadi who was trying to convince me about good hindu and bad hindu.

My position on rape, is what Mariamk articulated in her #195. It is not an issue of muslim-women or non-muslim women. Just as accepting people in a particular caste over other is not an issue. None can be tolerated or condoned in the times we live in. Rape is simply a question of a woman being raped and destroyed, while caste is all about a person being demeaned by behaving with him when he belongs to a certain caste.

The society that has indequate protection then that society must change. All forces - and yes including religion - that do not allow the society to change must be dealt very sternly with all the force that can be gathered. Mere enactment of laws is not enough. Racism has shown that already.

People must change for society to reform itself. Empowerment through education is the key to acquire modern knowledge. I hold knowledge, and certainly not just a BOOK, in very high esteem. Knowledge evolves and constantly changes. I believe in the paradigm that ``In knowledge lies the power``. There is no need to go back to regressive past to find whether a rape of certain women is condoned, while the rape of other women is not condoned. This attempt is futile, just as checking manu-smriti to find laws for today`s society is a wasteful exercise. Human knowledge and thought have evolved a great deal since then.

Anil Kapuria

further to #197 as for simians running out of gas...the prerequisite to that is for bovines to cease generating methane, and we all know when that is going to happen ... :-)

Mr. t #196 lagta hai dictionary rat li hai.

Anyhow....pedalling down the goodman path (which one may with certitude eclipses the badman path) certainly beats this jejeune caterwauling that serves as ersatz, faux considered discussion on chowk (where the badman and the goodman paths intersect).

hamidm various:

as with faith nationalism is supra-logic in that in the conflagration of sensitiveness when mixed with the insensitivity of a lesser order the degradation of the spirit in the epistemological sense overwhelms the antidisestablismentarian awkwardness generating topographical disarray that eventually leads to disenfranchisement of resistor efforts by the logical faithful over the illogical nationalist which in turn proves awkward for saturday morning calligraphy in hermeneutics...am out biking now on the goodman trail...upon return i expect a curmudgeonly riposte accepting in good faith these ramifications or presenting your contrarian obfuscations to the delight of the miserly miserables

arjun:

running out of gas? pls. find me a lengthy 10,000 word minimum diatribe on the rise of obfuscation in the theologically hierarchy of the hermetically challenged in the land of not so pure air

Ntsyed Saheb:
(or anyone else):

Please answer a simple question for me: Why do we need the BOOK to tell us the blatantly obvious? Are we so wretched in our humanity that unless a revelation says so we can’t figure out that sexually or otherwise violating a woman (any woman regardless of her religion) is an egregious act of the highest order? Does human reason at all, if ever come into this, or are we to blindly follow revelation whether it makes sense to us or not?

Truthfully, I don’t even know where the Quran comes down on the raping of non-Muslim women, and quite frankly I don’t care. I don’t need the Book to tell me that RAPE is wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts.

I apologize if I offend sensibilities. But as a woman I have trouble with this line of reasoning. You know as well as I do that countless men find justification for perpetrating heinous acts against women in the Book and the Sunnah. Whether they are following a true Islam or not is beside the point. The reality is that they get away with it. If they can distort revelation to their own ends, how is the Book supposed to protect women?

Perhaps the purpose of the Book was to provide us an overriding morality (who am I to argue with that) but clearly it hasn’t. That’s apparent from reading the various posts here. We all bring to the table our different interpretations and ways of practicing Islam. So, there has to be some common denominator for resolving issues of morality. My vote goes to human reason…also a Divine gift right?

christ...is this the hillary duff fan club forum? I see a lot of teenage girls whining about their feelings being hurt because someone said something not nice about their idol....It`s only going to make people abuse hillary/your idol more....

hamidm #189 OK, we are on the same side then. Stop shooting me with ``friendly fire`` in that case (i.e. attributing things to me that are the opposite of what I stand for.)