Being Imrana

Re: # 90
Whatever the written word may be, is`nt it obvious that the actual practice is skewed to ``punishing`` the woman regardless of who did what to whom? And this can be found in other religions too; has a man ever been forced to go up in smoke on the funeral pyre of his dead wife? More likely to marry her sister for the noble purpose of `` looking after the children`` of course.

Re: # 90
Whatever the written word may be, is`nt it obvious that the actual practice is skewed to ``punishing`` the woman regardless of who did what to whom? And this can be found in other religions too; has a man ever been forced to go up in smoke on the funeral pyre of his dead wife? More likely to marry her sister for the noble purpose of `` looking after the children`` of course.

Zafar:

You got most of the things right in your article. First my understanding of some facts and I would be glad to be corrected if I my understanding is incorrect.

- Rape is covered by criminal law and not the Muslim Personal Law. It is the police responsiblity to prosecute the man who raped his daughter-in-law if such a rape did take place.

- Whether or not Imrana is halal for her husband or not is a question for Islamic law. But here again, my understanding is that the decision regarding personal law are still taken in secular courts by judges according to Muslim Law.

- Fatwa can be issued by any maulvi. It is just an opinion. Whether or not it can be enforced depends upon the credibility of whoever is giving the fatwa; in that respect a fatwa by someone from Deoband certainly carries more weight than the village mulla.

While you are right in saying that most rape victims would not go to the police (even in cities), you are wrong, in my opinion, in saying that it is not a religious issue. If Imrana were a Hindu, Sikh or Christian, there would have been no question of any religious figure issuing any edict in this matter.

re: masanamuthu # 67

Please give me a little time. I will explain.

mohar11, kuarasach, mike

I am not sure if you have had the opportunity to follow her postings for long, but Jawahara is NOT an apologist for anyone or anything. One can be completely confident that she is a world apart from zafar anjum and many galaxies away from some other active authors on Chowk. Let`s ask ourselves: How many people would write as sensitive a response as # 66?

Your impatience is as understandable as Jawahara`s concern with extremists among Hindus. It is also very hard to maintain distinctions. But we must. By doing so we can be fair and be mindful of real issues, without being taken advantage of by freeloaders with completely insatiable appetites.

Zafar Anjum is certainly not Zafar al Talib. The latter is sorely missed.

kaura:

i know what the difference is. i am not blind. i am talking about a way of thinking. a way of thinking that is unsparing and hateful in its generalizations. i am glad you don`t go around ``savagely`` killing, but one doesn`t have to kill to THINK like mohammed bouyeri. that i thought would be obvious to the blind as well.

you needn`t respond tomorrow. i quite frankly have seen enough hate to last me a long while.

take care.

ana,

i am leaving for the day....will reply tommorrow.

briefly, the difference is I don`t go around savagely killing.......i thought the difference was obvious even to the blind.

Re: # 92 ana

I follow my advice - otherwise I wouldn`t give it to you.

mohar:

i do agree with you, believe it or not. i agree with the last part of your post # 85, but might i suggest that you examine your own advice yourself as well?

kaura:

thank you for bringing that article to our attention. bouyeri`s statements are bone-chillingly disturbing, and insensitive to the mother, as well as to the country he is in. but kaurasach, who are ``these liars``. . . who are ``they``. . . when we make such statements, how thin is the line between mohammed bouyeri and ourselves in terms of what we think at least?

when will the intelligent interactors of chowk learn to stop making gross generalizations. and when will some also stop being apologists?

where is Farzana Versey`s article on Imrana.. ?

I still cannot get over this gem made by the writer .. no doubt a moderate enlightented educated progressive secular muslim...

``Islam takes a very serious view of rape. It penalizes the rapist even with death, depending on the circumstances. The raped woman is a victim and cannot be punished, unless it is proven that she had encouraged, or tempted, or otherwise facilitated her own rape.

And if the woman is unable to produce 4 muslim adult male witnesses to the rape , she will be deemed to have had encouraged, or tempted, or otherwise facilitated her own rape..

Marvellous !!

87,

these Liars aren`t surprised either....they just want kufrs to be unsuspecting of their intentions......till the kufrs are helpless........and easy to be converted....till then blame others for their own kanjarpana......... filthy liars.

Lets not forget...Islam is a religion of peace...

Re: # 86 kaura

Wow - such hate of the kufr. Well, who is surprised? Not me.

The Muslim extremist on trial in the slaying of filmmaker Theo van Gogh confessed Tuesday, saying he was driven by religious conviction. ``I don`t feel your pain,`` he told the victim`s mother.

Mohammed Bouyeri stunned the courtroom when, in the final minutes of his two-day trial he declared: ``If I were released and would have the chance to do it again ... I would do exactly the same thing.``

``What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. ... I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet,`` he said.

At one point, he addressed the victim`s mother, Anneke, who was sitting in the public gallery. ``I have to admit I don`t have any sympathy for you,`` he said. ``I can`t feel for you because I think you`re a nonbeliever.``

Yeah blame the STATE - you LIAR!

Those who are ecstatic to have found the exotic beast called ``reasonable prejudice`` - always remember the wise words: ``Donot hate your enemy, lest you end up just like him``. SO never be prejudiced against your enemy, that would be the worst things that you can do to yourself.

You can see an example right here - jawahara`s prejudice against RSS has blinded her so much that she fails to see that her actions has ended up working for the RSS agenda. RSS-hate has blinded her judgements to the point that she would not support UCC whole-heatedly, just because RSS suggests the same.......

Yes, we all have prejudices - prejudice against blue cheese is OK, but prejudice against your enemies will always be detrimental to your interests. To counter your enemies - you must always be clear-headed. So in a such a case - your prejudice is anything but reasonable.