Mukhtaran Mai vs. the Rest of Pakistan

Romair,

Wonderful posts - most objective and thorough.

ntsyed :-)~~

dost_mittar #125

{{I wouldn`t single out Islam.}}

I readily concede that the properties I’m interested in are not unique to Islam, particularly if we consider the broad sweep of human history. I’m interested in a comprehensive explanation for these phenomena and why they are such a prevalent part of the human condition. Stated most generally, ‘my’ explanation would say that they are rooted in biology. They result from a vulnerability of the human mind that is an unavoidable negative consequence of something inherent to human nature and essential to our survival – in the same way that human susceptibility to viral infections is an unavoidable consequence of the workings of the molecular machinery of life.

I focus on Islam, among other reasons, because it is by far the most prevalent and virulent example of a dogmatic religious ideology currently endemic in large populations. Moreover the opinions of believing Muslims and of people brought up in an atmosphere of Islamic religious brainwash are readily observable on Chowk, and particularly on this board, where there is no shortage of hilarious if pathetic examples.

{{The heart of the problem is the concept of blasphemy and this concept was not invented by the prophet of Islam.}}

There are at least four salient characteristics of Islam that put it on a collision course with liberal democracy. They are (1) supremacy of ‘revelation’ (2) assertion of finality/perfection (3) refusal to compartmentalise (4) attitudes to ‘blasphemy’ and ‘apostasy’. They are all central to the problem – it’s not just blasphemy.

Let me comment on ‘refusal to compartmentalise’ because striking though it is, it hasn’t received the attention it warrants. It manifests in several ways:

(1) - in the the claim that the religion is a complete way of life, that it has something relevant to say about most any aspect of human existence.
(2) - in the attitude that the ideas, notions that make up the religion are inseparable from individual believers or the community of believers – that an attack on or criticism of the religion is also a frontal attack on the community of believers and on the person of each believing individual, and that it needs to be opposed tooth and nail.
(3) - in the refusal to concede that a person might have the desire or even the ability to draw distinctions between the notions of the religion, on one hand, and those unfortunate human beings who are its victims, on the other.

You can easily observe these aspects of refusal to compartmentalise, on Chowk. The last sixty or seventy interacts on this board provide ample, if hilarious, evidence, from the usual suspects. (2) and (3) are most readily observed. There are also amusing instances of people who may claim not to believe (1) but who just cannot resist interjecting asinine remarks on the lines of “and this is also in accord with the essence of the Quran” at every opportunity.

The question still remains: how did all this come about? How did these bizarre collections of dogma and totally unsupportable belief come to infect huge human populations and persist for centuries or millenia? What is the comprehensive explanation?

Romair:

I am beginning to sound like a broken record but I come back to the question of religion and people.

The last time a case of Sati was reported in India was more than a decade ago. But can anyone say that it is disallowed in the Hindu religion? the last time I saw a temple where human sacrifices were performed was the film, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, still can anyone say that human sacrifice is prohibilted in Hindu religion? Hindu widows are remarrying all the time, but can anyone say that widow remarriage is not disallowed in that religion? Christians are mocking Jesus all the time on national TV, does it mean that it is not a blasphemy to do so in that religion? Just because practices have changed does not mean that what was there in the religion has changed.

You keep on saying that I have not given any proof whereas I have quoted from the quran to you on both counts (and I have no wish to repeat such things). In any case, I never said that Quran says that you could go out and kill non-believers or rape their women without rhyme or reason; that was your interpretation. You are right, even Urstruly - specially Urstruly - would not agree with that because he believes sharia to be the highest form of humanist code.

Your stance that one has to get an expertise on Islam to comment upon it is also not valid. Time and again, we have been told that quran is a simple document and that anyone can read and understand its message without the help of a Maulana. That`s exactly what I have done.

aqaris:

[Now If I would say..... Based on the BOOK MahaBharat ..... which is the story of
a WAR..... that it is allowed In Hinduism to KILL ..... even if it is your own cousin.
that is of the same religion.......( ...... I am sure many learned and those who know the content of Mahabharat ...can dig out such a content from It.... )....]

Question :- Where would I end UP....??``

You will end up being right!

ALL (except Turkey and a couple in SE Asia) mulsim countries call themselves ISLAMIC states. ISLAM is in their EVERY fabric of life - including the government, state, army, and JUDICIAL system. The atrocities and crimes committed in Darfur is also under the ISLAMIC banner. ALMOST ALL muslims haven`t said a word against such. Mukhtar Mai`s case is the FAILURE or ISLAMIC state. or a SHARIA.


Keeping the above in mind, WHAT is a non muslim supposed to conclude.

---

The message of Gita, is to perform DUTY - even if the duty requires killing cousins who are evil. A noble message indeed that the world can learn from.


PS. the justice failure happens inevery state including India. It is not due to a religious based failure.

aquaris #148: thank you for confirming and adding to the point I was trying to make. It is indeed incredible that this simple and obvious point has been missed by otherwise intelligent people on this board who are intent on blaming religion for everything.

aquaris #146 How about if I said that mukhtaran mai was assaulted because the perpetrators thought they could get away with it. And the reason they thought they could get away with it is because of weak implementation of criminal law in Pakistan. Which would put the blame on the government in power in Pakistan. Starting at the top, with musharaff.

Would that make more sense than saying ``islam made them do it``??

Re: # 147
`` How about if I said that mukhtaran mai was assaulted because the perpetrators thought they could get away with it. And the reason they thought they could get away with it is because of weak implementation of criminal law in Pakistan. Which would put the blame on the government in power in Pakistan. Starting at the top, with musharaff.
``

... yes I think that is the exact reason.......

.... A Failed Justice System.....

Other wise how would you explain..... The president of Pakistan Personally on TV..
Defending .....an alleged Rapist ( The Famous Dera Bugti Captain )......with out trial..
By passsing ..... even their own military Laws....and its procedures....which they are supposed to follow ....in case of such allegations....

Interesting .... very interesting.....

........At least it is there..... Muslim are BAD because their religion allows.....Killing/raping/looting plundering....etc..etc..etc......and.......etc......
as it is in their BOOK....

....WELL WELL I wonder..... What is Mahabharat or Ramayana.....
to me At least Mahabharat is an epic ..... a pretty heavy TALE or WARS....
between COUSINS ( Kauru / Pandu )......and also a book which roughly defines..
the way Hindus should Live....

Now If I would say..... Based on the BOOK MahaBharat ..... which is the story of
a WAR..... that it is allowed In Hinduism to KILL ..... even if it is your own cousin.
that is of the same religion.......( ...... I am sure many learned and those who know the content of Mahabharat ...can dig out such a content from It.... )....

Question :- Where would I end UP....??

Re: # 145


..... Let me point out My self....

I would look stupid and a moron.... who is quoting out of context.....

right....??

DM #136 Thanks for correcting on this point for hamidm by pointing out that I dont believe in ``political Islam``. This of course is not merely a question of what I happen to believe in. By refusing to recognize any understanding of the message of islam other than that of the ``bearded politicians`` (who have a heavy agenda whereby they seek to become rulers by misrepresenting the message of the Quran), hamidm is in fact their unwitting servant.

Sattar2 #138: “While commenting on Taliban style shariah, don’t overlook their support for “

Taliban are a microscopically tiny % of the Muslim community. If someone says the Taliban condone such things, and can prove it, then, by all means, they have a right to state that. It is legitimate criticism. Urstruly, NTSyed, Naqshbandi are three individuals. If someone can quote from their comments, and provide proof. Fine, also.

Though, imagine what would have happened had Urstruly stated that Muslims are allowed to rape non-Muslim women. All hell would have broken lose. He would have been called a barbarian.

As I mentioned earlier, I am arguing against bigotry, against any community; not exclusively Muslims. No one has a right to generalize, against any community, race, ethnicity etc. Unless they can prove it. They should be challenged. All D-M has to do is prove his comments in a solid, straightforward and logical manner, and the debate will be over…….His comments will become legitimate criticism………….

“And I don’t think you can separate Quran from shariah all that easily. Quran actively aims to provide basis for shariah. Shariah is an inevitable consequence of Quran.”

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. In fact, there is no group defined in Islam that even has a write to interpret the Quran, exclusively. Such a group would be a pre-requisite for defining a binding Shariah. Hence there is absolutely nothing in Islam that binds anyone to any Shariah.

If tomorrow, someone presents his version of a Shariah to me, and tries to force me to follow his definition of what Muhammad wants me to do, or God wants me do (for that matter). I can definitely tell him, “to go suck a cactus.” As can you…………

Re: # 143 Romair

``If tomorrow, someone presents his version of a Shariah to me, and tries to force me to follow his definition of what Muhammad wants me to do, or God wants me do (for that matter). I can definitely tell him, “to go suck a cactus.” As can you………… ``


Very well, lets put your conviction to the test.

The following lines comprise the Chapter 105 -``The Elephants`` in the Qura`n. Help me understand what they mean using your own ``Sharia`` and how did you reach to the explanation that you figured ot. Please keep in mind that asking my immigration status and whether I paid my last years taxes or not in response, is not a valid answer.


``105: 1-5
Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with the possessors of the elephant?

Did He not cause their war to end in confusion,

And send down (to prey) upon them birds in flocks,

Casting against them stones of baked clay,

So He rendered them like straw eaten up?

#140 by Romair

I agree with you on this. I think Indians and Pakistani both show a lack of understanding for where “valid criticism” stops and profiling and bigotry starts.

I think it would not be fair to single out Dost mitter on this as he, like many other people, fails to recognize that the attacks on “faith” or religions are different from attacks on a group that is using the religion and faith for political ends.

Recently, in the US, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or both said something derogatory about Islam and were roundly criticized for their bigotry. The religious right in the US aggressively pursues a political agenda and is constantly criticized for that but I have yet to see people quoting lunatic statements from the bible (and there are plenty in the bible) or calling Christ a bastrd to counter religious rights political agenda. People attack what should be attacked and that is the use of religion for political ends.

It is the same situation with fundos or religious right in Pakistan or elsewhere. They are using religion to promote their political agenda and in my mind, they have every right to that in any society. However, it is also everyone’s right to counter their argument. If we oppose fundamentalists approach of muzzling the criticism and their attempts to hide behind the religion we also should see that we are not ourselves promoting hate and bigotry.

The religious right in Pakistan, India, and the US or anywhere else has no monopoly on faith. Common folks have their beliefs and so far, nowhere a common majority supports the lunatic political ideologies of the religious right.

Respecting all faiths, religions, races, cultures and customs is what decency and common sense calls for and basic human values demand.

shishapa #137: ``And I suppose you would challenge dost-mittar if he were to say positive things about Islam and Muslims for the same reasons... ``

If the statements were false, then I definitely would. If he stated that Muslims have a right to invade Hindus, because all Hindus are rapists and murderes, and Muslims are superior to them, I would definitely challenge it............

As I said bigotry should always be challenged, and profiling should never be accepted.........regardless of the ethnicity, religion, etc. it is being propogated against.........And I hope if I ever make such statements, I am challenge to prove them also...........

Had he stated that Muslims have the lowest literacy rates in the world, he could probably prove it. Had he stated that they have the least democracies in the world, he could prove it quite easily. But to state that their religion condones rapes of non-Muslims (and earlier actually encourages them to murder them) is something he cannot prove (which is why he hasn`t done so).............

Hence, that is illegitimate profiling. And of all the people in the world, I think Indians should be the most sensitive to that, since so many of their countryfolk are Muslim. Imagine what would happen in India, if every Hindu had these views about Muslims and Islam..........i.e. they are allowed to rape and encouraged to kill those of other faiths............

There is a big difference between criticism and bigotry. Criticism should be encoruaged. While bigotry should be challenged and exposed.

``If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, then people will eventually
come to believe it,`` : Joseph Goebbel : Adolf Hitler’s propaganda chief……….

Let us get to the gist of the controversy. Following was the comment that was made by Dost-Mittar:

“Neither the quran nor the Prophet condoned the rape of a woman, except of the kafir variety;”

Basically it states that the Quran and the Prophet condone the rape of kafir women, by which the replier was referring to non-Muslim women. “Condone” means to forgive or to disregard, i.e. to allow. So basically he is stating that Muslims are allowed to rape non-Muslim women. Because their religion allows them to do so.

Is this criticism or bigotry?

It is criticism is the commentator can back it up with a solid logical argument. Not just his own opinion, but a solid argument, based on facts. If he cannot do so, then it is his own opinion, about the derogatory nature of others who have a belief system different from his. Basically he considers them rapists. And he is painting them as such, and passing on the information to everyone.

Let us change the wordings a bit. Suppose I say, ““Neither Ram nor Krishna condoned the rape of a woman, except of the Muslim variety;” Would that be a critique or would that be bigotry? Should anyone challenge this?

I hope someone would challenge it. Why?

Because tomorrow I could convince everyone in Pakistan that the Hindu faith condones the rape of Muslim women, by publicly making such statement. What will happen, when I do that? All Hindus in Pakistan will be profiled as potential rapists of Muslims. Not because they are bad people (i.e. I am not saying Hindus, as people, are bad. I am just saying that their religion tells them to be bad). But because, in the opinion of every Muslim Pakistani, it is part of their religion.

Suppose I combine the above statement with another statement that Hindus are encouraged by their religion to kill non-Hindus (a statement made by D-M earlier about Muslims). Now, suppose, if one fine day, a train carrying Muslims is passing through a Hindu locality in Pakistan and gets burned.

How hard would it be for the local leadership to get the Muslim population riled up against the Hindus? Not very hard, if the local Muslim population has already been convinced that Hindus are ordered to kill Muslim men, and rape Muslim women, anyways, by their religion. At that point, a Muslim mob could go and kill the Hindus in, “self-defence” i.e. protecting itself against potential murderers and rapists……

Profiling of any community (ethnic, religious, national etc.) is the first step in committing violence against them. The biggest task in convincing someone to attack the other, is to portray the other as the enemy, as the evil, as the rapist, or the murderer. Once that is achieved, the rest becomes easy. This is never done through a direct comment. It is always done through the back door, by making false statements about the others’ history, his ethnicity, his race. Those statements are made in the guise of, “criticism.”

This was the first step in convincing otherwise normal Germans, that they need to kill the Jews. This was the first step in convincing otherwise normal Pakistanis to kill Bengalis. This was the first step in convincing otherwise normal Hindus to kill Gujrati Muslims. And otherwise normal Americans to kill Iraqis.

Our friends from India, should be far more sensitive to this than anyone else, since they have such a large Muslim population in their country. And there are violent tensions at the political level that are faced by those Muslims.

Dost-Mittar’s statements fulfill the first step in the area of, “painting” a community and the belief system it is associated with. What is the second step? It was expressed in reply #118: “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.”

The third step is usually violence carried out against individuals whose religion, according to certain individuals’ views, teaches them to rape and murder those of other religions…………

It is, thus, no coincidence that the Jewish community in the USA and Canada, is so aggressive in attacking any anti-Semitic remark made at the public level. They are on the media in a flash, challenging the individual who made that remark to prove it. Why do they do this? Why don`t they just write it off as, ``legitimate criticism?`` Because they have learnt, through rough experiences that such, “criticisms” were the first step in the violence perpetrated against them.

The Muslim community, unfortunately, handles it completely in the wrong manner. Either they do nothing. Or they actually join the, “critics” who are calling them rapists (i.e. the Hamidm phenomenon), or they go and kill the people calling them rapists……….

They should not be violent and kill the individual profiling them. They should be self-confident enough to not join the individual profiling them. And they should be articulate enough to challenge and expose the individual profiling them.

This has nothing to do with religion. All communities, of all kinds – ethnic, national, religious – should challenge anyone who tries to profile them………..Hence the criticism of Dost-Mittar is very legitimate, and in fact, necesarry. He has made a racist and bigoted comment, and should be asked to prove it............

dost-mittar #106

That was rather condescending.

No one has questioned your right to criticize Islam or any other religion. (See #60)
People have challenged you on the CONTENT of your criticism.
Don`t they have a right to do that?

You have refused to engage on that issue. Instead you brushed us with another stereotype - that we can` t take criticism.