Mukhtaran Mai vs. the Rest of Pakistan

hamidm #159 you write ``which include soft-shoeing apologists like mr tahmed, islam cannot be separated from politics ``

I have lost patience with your constant lies, and the hell with your humor. So let me put it bluntly - you were lying when you wrote the above sentence. In all these years I have been on chowk, I have consistently taken the stand that religion is a personal matter. That by dragging religion into politics, both religion and the political structure are corrupted. And yet you insist on ignoring all this.

As I said, by denying any understanding of islam other than that of the maulvi, you are the unwitting servant of the ``bearded politicians``.

hamidm2#159:

``.......... look, theoretically it might be possible to come up with a new and improved islam that is more tolerant and less totalitarian, but as things stand now it is a pipe dream ........it might be possible in a hundred - maybe two hundred - years, but at this point islam is going through a ``revival`` that seeks to propagate a rather horrible and virulent strain of religion that is at odds with the rest of mankind ........... people like tahmed don`t count ............ ``

Who knows? From what I have read and heard, Islam in your grandfather`s village was not what you see today. They respected local jogis more than they respected the local mullah. I hope you know that Ranjha became a disciple of Jogi Gorakh Nath and instead of killing him they made a legend out of him.

ntsyed:
I did not read Yusuf Ali`s translation of the Quran but an Urdu version by a famous Maulana. If I recall, in one of the verses, Allah says that He is sending this message in a simple language so that simple, ordinary Arabs can understand and follow it. So, it`s not just the people on this website who say that.

Re: # 186 by dost-mittar

ntsyed:
I did not read Yusuf Ali`s translation of the Quran but an Urdu version by a famous Maulana. If I recall, in one of the verses, Allah says that He is sending this message in a simple language so that simple, ordinary Arabs can understand and follow it. So, it`s not just the people on this website who say that.

The underlined sentence in your statment is true, but my friend you`re missing the context again and sticking to this part to justify your interpretation as some chowkies do.

As I pointed out earlier, the basic tenets are laid out in the Quran in very simple language for ``ordinary Arabs`` to understand and follow in their daily lives. However, as one small example, He did not describe the procedures of Salah and Hajj in the Quran - two of the five pillars of Islam. So, a new reader must wonder what is the correct method of these two forms of worships. And there are many such things. That`s why Allah wants the believers to follow the Prophet (PBUH) in order to follow the Quran properly - i.e. the only acceptable interpretation of the Quran, because that`s how Allah instructed the Prophet (PBUH) to worship and teach the believers.

Quran is a comprehensive document that covers everything there`s to cover about life. But covering doesn`t mean everything should be thoroughly explained. For explanations one has to refer to other resources; in this case the Sunnah.

Secondly, while the Quranic statement may have been referring to the `oridnary Arabs` during the Prophet`s (PBUH) time, today even ordinary Arabs could not follow the Quran and Islam without the knowledge of Sunnah (which explain the background and circumstances as per specific verses), let alone the non-Arabs.

#184: Even with context, do you deny that Islam permits women captured during jihad as a war booty? I hope you do not say that this was consensual sex.

Please pardon my intrusion here, but sir, again I`m sorry to say that you`re ill-informed on the subject. Islam never permits rape - non-consensual sex - of ANY woman. Sure, women were taken as war booty, but Muslims were not allowed then, nor are they allowed today, to force themselves on any woman, even their wives. So yes, it had to be consensual. The why and how of this topic are a separate tangent altogether, which perhaps we can discuss later when I`m not so hard pressed on time.

ntsyed

sifzal #180 You are like the man who rapes and beats up the maid in his house, locks the door so she cant go out, and when her screams attract the attention of the neighbors says that this none of their business.

This is the line of thinking of a criminal, and I see it is shared by teshah #174 below as well who thinks the rape of a mere ``mai`` is something to laugh at. I can only thank God there are people like the village maulvi who first brought the mukhtar mai case to the attention of the world by bringing it up on friday prayers.

On the rest of your post, I see you assume that the Indian airlines hijacking to Afghanistan some years ago was staged by the Indian government. I remember that hijacking, and there has never been any question that it was done by the mullah thugs. Do you have any proof of what you now claim, or is this another convenient ``fact`` you have cooked up?

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

Romair#177

Thanks for posting my sentence. Reading your and others` posts it was beginning to look that I had said that the Quran wants Muslims to go out and rape Non-Muslim women. The dictionary meaning of condone is `` to overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.`` This is the sense in which I used, what I repeat was a qualifying clause. People who are so big on emphasisng the context should also interpret the words of a mere mortal like me in context. The context is the gang rape of a woman in a primitive, feudal set up. My post was against those who are blaming Islam for it. I was arguing this but added a qualifying clause, because I am aware of some quranic verses that might be interpreted otherwise, so in the interest of `the whole truth`, I added a qualification. Itni si baat thee jise afsaana kar diya.

Please note that I did not say that Islam allows rape of kafirs under normal circumstances or that it is the only religion that condones rape. That again was your and others` interpretation. Even with context, do you deny that Islam permits women captured during jihad as a war booty? I hope you do not say that this was consensual sex.

As for my comment leading to profiling, people are not profiled for what is in their religious books but by how they behave (thre is no dearth of gory details in other religious books). Muslims were not profiled before 9/11 although the Quran was still there. They are profiled now because there is a good deal of sympathy among Muslims for acts like 9/11

He said NGOs are “Westernised fringe elements” which “are as bad as the Islamic extremists”.

......I agree with Mr. Mush on the above statement.However the damage has been done on the PR front.It is futile to blame the officials too.The mullahs are getting a bad rap pn this one.But they have created bad publicity for themselves by coming across as fanatics.They also need to polish their image and indulge insome PR tactics.This is a ``no-win`` situation for all.One cannot prevent such things from happening.Pak should just wait for the dust to settle and everyone forgets about it.

Urstruly #153: ``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.``

It is quite time-consuming, fighting a battle with D-M on one side, and with you on the other. But, well, it must be done............

To the best of my knowledge, there is no Chapter in the Quran called, ``Elephants.`` Please recheck your version of the Quran. There is one titled, ``Feel,`` which means Elephant.

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............

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.

Re: # 178 by Romair

There is, in fact, no mechanism defined in the Quran, that allows one to make a binding interpretation of it

I`m sorry, but in spite of your sincertiy you`ve apparently missed the verses where Allah has ordered us to follow and obey the Prophet (PBUH) if we seek His optimum pleasure.

There is no other way to understand Quran if one sets the Prophet`s (PBUH) authentic traditions (sayingss and actions) aside. Doing so has been the source of evolution of so many fractions within Islam and its politicization.

Also, please do some research on the term Shar`ia.

ntsyed :-)~~

Dost-mittar #161: ``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.``

Following is your comment:

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

Actually, you did state, it was without rhyme or reason. It is a simple statement that Islam condones the rape of non-Muslim women...........

If you comment about Satti and if Hinduism actually does condone Satti then it is a legitimated critique. But if you comment about Satti and Hinduism does not condone Satti, yet you continue to project that it does, then that is uncalled for. You would be profiling a community, based on their beliefs. That is very dangerous.............

You seem to have issues with Hinduism, and perhaps with other religions also. That is fine. And that is your own personal opinion. But one does not have a right to paint a whole community based on one`s own opinions. If one does so, then one should be ready to accept others` that challenge it...........Similarly, merely quoting from something, and then stretching the interpretation to fit one`s views, doesn`t cut it. I would be interested in debating this with you, if you are so opinionated on the subject...........

Sattar2 #165: ``This small percentage of Muslims continues to persecute Ahamdis, incite sectarian violence … while the overwhelming majority stands by. What does this tell you?``

It tells me that the Muslim community is at the trough of its historical cycle. It is currently in a degenerated state. As are many other communities in the world. However, it does not tell me that Islam encourages murders of non-Muslims or rapes of non-Muslims........One really has to carry out a long strech of imagination and perverse interpretation of Islamic verses to state the later........This is the only thing I am highlighting.........The desire of others to paint communities in a certain manner, without any factual basis...........

If someone quoted that Islam allows men to hit their wives and debated that, it would be legitimate, because there are wordings pointing to that........They could then have argued till the cows came home..........

Having said that, I don`t the overwhelming majority of Muslim community stands by for sectarian violence. It overwhelmingly opposes it, and has shown an awful amount of patience in countries where it happens. It does, however, stand by in case of Ahmedis. Not only does it stand by, Ahmedis are the only minority that is persecuted by the majority, including the silent majority........

``He continues to be regarded a top notch scholar of Islam by the ummah. Go figure.....You have been around long enough to know what Urstruly, ntsyed, and Naqsh stand for. Do you really want me to quote them to tell you what they think?``

I don`t think Maudoodi is regarded as a top-notch scholar by too many people. I doubt too many Pakistanis could name a single book he wrote. Perhaps 10-15% could. I certainly cannot. He was able to turn his ideas into a political movement and became well-known for that.........

Religions, ethnicities, races etc. are larger than any time, persons etc. You need to look at them independently of the individuals, whose names you have taken. Bush, with the full support of the Christian Right, and the majority population of the USA, has carrid out the killing of over 100,000 Muslims. Hitler ordered the killing of 6 million Jews, with the full support of the Germans. Both successfully painted these killings, to their followers, as something, ``that had to be done.`` To the best of my knowledge Urstruly and Maudoodi have not done that.........But I still would not narrow in on Hitler and Bush, when looking at Christianity........

Anil #166: I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.

This has nothing to with the individual. It is the comments. In fact, if I ever state something about Hindus or Hinduism, which I cannot back up, I hope you will the first to challenge me on it. And if I keep doing it, I hope you will be the first to point out my bigotry.........You would be doing me a favor. Most people who make prejudiced comments never realize they are doing so..........

Prejudicism and bigotry is a disease in our society. Specifically in South Asian societies. It brainwashes people. And then gets them to do all kinds of strange things. Once a community is profiled and painted in a certain way, it immediately ends up on the defensive. The next step is the community being targeted and attacked........

A person can be the nicest guy in the world and still hold bigoted views about certain other communities. The US Southerners are some of the nicest gentlemen and ladies. Yet they have had a tradition of bigotry against African-Americans............

I think many people are too lenient when it comes to bigotry based on religious profiling. If the same comments are based on race, or gender etc. they immediately stand up for the rights of the group, being profiled. But not on religion. I would speak out just as much, had these comments been about Punjabi-speakers, or Pakistanis, or women, or Canadians, or South Asians, or anything else............

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

dumbass pakis...can`t even get their stories straight....

nicholaskristof - 5:51 PM ET June 17, 2005 (#830 of 830)

Today a Pakistani government official I know called me and we had a long talk about Mukhtaran – and about Pakistan’s refusal to give me a visa to visit her. This official emphasized that while Pakistan had made mistakes in handling the case, they were by lower officials and that President Musharraf himself was on Mukhtaran’s side.

Half an hour later, I found this wire story from Auckland, New Zealand:

Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Friday that he ordered a travel ban on the victim of a village council-ordered gang rape to protect Pakistan`s image abroad.

seriously...he`s showing the self-deluded paki thinking in public...(just like capt clueless who thinks OBL gets a bum rap when the real problem is the tamil suicide bombers)....just like he told pakis they were ahead of India in satellite technology when pakiland took charge of a pre-owned satellite...

earth to pakis: the world isn`t buying it...read Kristof`s column about it on sunday...

I stopped Mai from going abroad: president

AUCKLAND: President General Pervez Musharraf said on Friday that he ordered a travel ban on Mukhtar Mai to protect Pakistan’s image abroad.(how`s that working out for you....bwahaha...)

Gen Musharraf said Mukhtar Mai, the victim of a punchayat-ordered gang rape, was being taken to the United States by foreign non-government organisations “to bad-mouth Pakistan” over the “terrible state” of the nation’s women. He said NGOs are “Westernised fringe elements” which “are as bad as the Islamic extremists”.

He acknowledged that he placed the 36-year-old on the list of people banned from leaving Pakistan while responding to media questions during a three-day visit to New Zealand.

“She was told not to go” to the United States to appear on media there to tell her story, Gen Musharraf told the Auckland Foreign Correspondents’ Club. The government lifted the travel ban on Wednesday after Mai appealed to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. Musharraf said atrocities are perpetrated daily against women in developing nations round the world - “in Kashmir and many other places”.

“I don’t want to project the bad image of Pakistan,” he told the journalists’ club.

“I am a realist. Public relations is the most important thing in the world,” he said, adding that media misperceptions would discourage tourists from travelling to Pakistan.(well thank allah for the ban on mukhtaran..now tourists will be lining up outside the paki embassy to get visas for pakiland..brilliant...)

“Pakistan is the victim of poor perceptions. The reality is very different,” he said. He defended his regime’s treatment of women, saying it was working for their emancipation. Rape was not “a rampant malaise Pakistan suffers from every day,” he said. He said he was on the side of women and was trying to bring rapists to “justice in the strongest form”. His government was encouraging the emancipation of women through education and by reducing high death rates for women and children. Women’s right were also discussed during earlier talks with New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark. “This is a country with many women in powerful positions so we do take an interest. So I certainly have been satisfied today that President Musharraf shares that concern and would like to see his country move,” she said. As well as Clark, New Zealand’s top judge, parliamentary speaker and top business leader are all women. agencies