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.

It is amazing that people single out a wrongdoing and beat it up especially if it is in Pakistan or a Muslim associated with it. Wrong doing are happening every where many times worse than the case of Mukhtaran; my true sympathise for her and promise her that if her case is true, the culprits would suffer both in this world and hereafter - that’s my belief; she remains pure as her will was not there, and the society should stand by her.

As far as her going to other country is concerned, I can understand why the government is reluctant; for sure it knows that the international media will remain oblivious to 1000 good events happening in Pakistan, but blow out of proportion if some bad event took place. If Pakistan government is not telling other governments to send victims in their country to Pakistan, so they could propagate victim’s stories in media and bash other countries, other countries have no right to ask Pakistan for the same. The best policy is mind your own business, just as Indian government tells international media that mass killings of minorities is an internal matter of India, so let it be with other countries too.

Having said that let me say that all such cases should be condemned without any racism, ethnicity, and colour or religion association. I can present many cases in developed countries done by Hindus, or other religion followers. For example, these days an Indian doctor is under trial for killing around 100 patients in Australia, a year before another Indian doctor`s license was cancelled because he committed rape of his white lady patient, some Indian restaurants have been closed down because of non-hygienic conditions and even programs shown on television. Now should one start talking about these wrong doing due to their association with Hindu religion? or Indian nationality? A wise person would not say so, and it should not be, for the culprits are individuals at least in these cases, countries and religions should not be labelled in.

dost mittar #128 So you say you meant that it is not just Pakistan but in India as well that you believe women are taught that it is OK for them to be raped as punishment?? Even if this is what you meant, this still remains an absurd statement.

#129 by sifzal on June 17, 2005 5:45am PT

So what you`re saying is that Pakistan is the poor victim here....?

Even if we assume that to be true, what do you think about the monumental stupidity shown by your government in handling the situation...the bit about putting her on the ECL than taking her off(but taking her passport and thinking no one would figure it out)....

sifazl #129 So you think the it is OK to muzzle mukhtaran mai because the ``the international media will remain oblivious to 1000 good events happening in Pakistan, but blow out of proportion if some bad event took place.``

Your post betrays a very weak character - you wish to suppress the truth because you are so afraid of this dreaded ``international press`` will say. What a mindset!!

tahmed32:

Please use your common sense. We are not talking in the context of all of India and Pakistan but of of Mukhtaran Mai from Meerawaal and Saanwri Devi from a village in Rajasthan. We are talking about pockets of some very traditional societies where the old tribal laws/customs are still the norm. These are societies from where you sometimes read about a girl child married to a dog (in India and among Hindus, NOT Pakistan or Muslim, in case you overreact again!).

dost-mittar,

...... i think you are bending over backwards to be nice to mr tahmed ............ the fact of the matter is that political islam today is what it is - a violent ideology bent upon destroying modern civilization - and no amout of wishy washy white washing will make the problem go away ........... following is a good example of the ``mainstream`` :

dailyt

Anil/Dost-Mittar #113: “It was very interesting to see how Romair and Tahmed32 jumped to a distorted meaning and implication of your statements………What bewilders me is the power of religion over mind. How suddenly people are affected. Almost like opium.”

My comment had nothing to do with religion, or with the concept of criticism. As I stated, I think everything, including religion, should be critiqued. I spend a good deal of my time, on this site critiquing Islam. And have been declared an Ahmedi, a non-Muslim and God knows what, by people on this site. However, I refrain from critiquing other religions, since I don’t have much knowledge of them.

In the first case, I would be a critic. In the later case, I could end up being a bigot, if I formed strong opinions about Hinduism and expressed them, without having knowledge of the subject. You will never find me doing that. I have thus critiqued everything under the sun, on this site. But have never critiqued the Hindu faith (or any faith, other than Islam). It doesn’t matter how people react to it. I consider it my moral responsibility to behave in a certain manner.

Thus my comments, to Dost-Mittar, were about bigotry. There is a difference between criticism and bigotry. I am very pro-criticism. But I am very anti-bogotry. Bigotry is the basis of violence and discrimination. I would oppose Dost-mittar’s comments, equally, had he said all Blacks are rapists. Or Blacks are rapists because they belong to a certain ethnic group. Or because that is what they are taught. Or that they are allowed to be rapists.

In today’s world, generalizations against religions, ethnicities etc. are used to create a lot of discrimination. The people who posh such discrimination, never do so blantantly. They hide them behind generalizations, and, “critiques.”

If you can convince me that every Hindu’s religion tells him to murder non-Hindus and rape non-Hindus, then you can very easily get me riled up against him. I would want to kill him, before he murdered me. These are, basically, the two statements that D-M has made.

Even then, there is nothing wrong with such statements. Provided one can back them up with logical arguments and facts. But if one cannot do so, again and again, then I think one needs to first become a student of the subject. And then become a critic.

This is what I have been trying to explain to D-M over the years. He has a tendency to make outrageous statements about Islam (which is no different than making outrageous statements about other nationalities, ethnicities, genders etc.), and then can never back them up with an argument. He writes it off to, “legitimate criticism.” And assumes that other people are just too sensitive to his comments. If one uses that criteria, then all bigotry is legitimate criticism…………

I am, thus, simply challenging Dost-Mittar on his comments. I would do the same, had he, “criticized” Innuits or Haitians or Kurds, Bengalis or Jews, or anyone else, in a similar manner………And I feel it is a person’ right, and in fact responsibility to challenge prejudiced comments, i.e. strong opinions that cannot be backed up with facts…………

hamidm#34:

Mr. tahmed is a wrong target. He does not believe in political Islam. If only all Muslims believed Islam to be what tahmed does, there would be nothing to be critical about. His only problem is that he looks for anti-muslim statements which would make a Mcarthy proud.

Re # 135

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

Romair …

… I am not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing … but here are some follow-up thoughts …

While commenting on Taliban style shariah, don’t overlook their support for … executing people for apostasy, killing people on basis of religious differences under certain circumstances, treating female POWs as concubines. And this barely covers Urstruly, ntsyed, and Naqshbandi. Isn’t this just as bad as raping non-Muslim women?

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 asks believers to obey the Prophet … who in turn established the legal framework for conducting community affairs, probably on basis of his take on Quran. In case of disagreement with the Prophet what was a believer supposed to do? Simply tell Muhammad to go suck a cactus … ?

Quran declares prophets as leaders of communities and demands obedience to them. It supports the institution of khilafat. It insists on lashes for adultery and cutting the hand that steals … it provides precise injunctions regarding who a believer may marry, what a believer may eat, how to avenge murder. It outlines details of writing down contracts and having witnesses, it forbids riba, it sets minimum charity rate, it provides details of inheritance issues. It even specifies how long a mother should breast-feed a child!!! Clearly Quran aims to influence (establish?) the mundane framework for conducting personal as well as community affairs on a day-to-day basis. If not this … then what is shariah?

DM,

I concur with you in that tahmed Sahib has a habit of misreading posts and putting his own twist on what people write. This can be somewhat annoying and insulting at times. And to top this, he has a habit of demanding apologies. Aaaaghhh …

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.

``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............

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.

#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.

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…………