Is Secular India really Secular and Islamic Pakistan really Islamic? Secular India, Islamic pakistan...oh who the hell cares.

Pakistanis and Indians are content with their nation however you label it for the most part...Indians perhaps more so than Pakistanis because India has delivered through development.

Rack your brains if this is a result of it`s secularism (or lack thereof) or not...the bottom line is, it doesn`t matter...results speak for themselves.

Now here`s to a prosperous Pakistan....yes, even an ``Islamic`` one...cheers...

Being Imrana God 2.0? Is Tom Friedman for real? This guy writes as if his audience are 6th graders. His grasp on the issues is no better.

The focus on ``suicide`` aspect of suicide bombings is idiotic. Terrorism is terrorism, murder of civilians is just that. Who the hell cares if the terrorist dies in the act or not?

Tom Friendman wants to make a boogey man out of a scare crow, he doesn`t talk about real life. .

Being Imrana ana,

``with all due respect, a few of the indians lumped into hating muslims or bashing muslims have never said a hateful word about islam or muslims from what i can read.``

With all due respect, that`s most likely because you started to ignore the interactors posting said statements early on in this thread :-)

Being Imrana arjun_m

``Wow...two pakis have the same delusions and victimhood complexes....stop the presses...``

Yeah, stop the presses...dumb ass can`t read.

I`m not Pakistani myself. My father was. My mother was Indian. I have but one citizenship, truth be told.

``Ask captain clueless what he felt about the imminent afghan invasion on Sept 13th, 2001..Betcha you didn`t know he was salivating to give up his point-of-sale representative job and drop the bombs on the afghans..especially when he thought joe sixpack would be falling at the feet of every paki in the US, speechless with gratitude...``

Wha?


``ut then, that leads us to the mode of thought that the Hindus we know are in fact much like the hate mongers here, but simply hide their hate in our presence.``

Read, arse...I said exactly the opposite. I`ve noticed that the Hindus I know in person are quite different than you lifeless saps...and that I`d never tarnish them with accusations of the kind of duplicity you`re accusing us of.

The rest of your diatribe has been ignored.

Being Imrana Romair,

I`ve noticed the same.

The Indians I know (most of whom are Hindu), though, have small-town roots. Really humble people, but they have a dignity about them and don`t display the sense of insecurity at wrongs, real or imagined, committed some hundreds of years ago.

I`ve noticed the trend on other forums as well. I don`t know what the root of this frustration is, but I do think their presence here on chowk vastly overstates their number. Unlike most sane minded Hindus, these type seem to seek out fora to vent their anger.

Then there`s the anonymous nature of the net, which seems to embolden people. But then, that leads us to the mode of thought that the Hindus we know are in fact much like the hate mongers here, but simply hide their hate in our presence...I`d rather not think that as it`s unfair and improper.

Being Imrana kaal,

``But the village idiots did suggest the lady marry her rapist, and that idiotic suggestion did carry the imprint of some religion on it.``

...and? So long as there are sufficient opposing voices (and I mean EVERYONE other than the village idiots were pretty much united in wanting to see Imrana`s father-in-law be put to death) then everything IS in fact fine.

I would want to go a step further, and see the village idiots arrested. But then, in the end what could a court do? The village council`s rulings were never implemented, nor were they taken seriously by the villagers themselves. If a law is on book, though, then these people should be charged.

The matter with the village council is in fact done with.

As for the RSS, it is a case of a terd calling a skunk stinky. If anything, it exemplifies the political opportunism of certain parties, who do in fact have anti-Muslim agendas, that has hijacked the Imrana rape case for an unrelated matter.

The surrounding hysteria by the mainstream Indian media, despite the subsequent rapes of other Indians from different communities, is perhaps more akin to the line of reasoning employed by RSS and their ilk than not.

That is cause for concern. Dare I say, given the violent history of this group which has never been brought to justice, more so than Imrana`s suggested inability to stay married to her husband.

This is hardly defending Deboand`s position, or even the position of the village council.

Questioning the disproportionate hysteria against the suggested injustice by pointing out that some of the people who are in fact fanning the flames of communalism are people like the RSS is not at all out of line.

So now the question is, what are people really so upset about? It`s certainly not the rape case.

Being Imrana mohar11,

Thanks for clearing that up. I mistakenly read your earlier posts as suggesting that identifying BJP opportunism over this case somehow aids their agenda...

Being Imrana mohar11,

So when Muslims complain about the BJP&RSS, the latter inciting and participating in mass murder, it`s simply a a hang-up.

Yet when the Deoband allegedly issue a fatwa that Imrana must leave her husband, it`s cause enough to use her rape as ammunition against the concept of Muslim Personal Law? Especially by the BJP and their ilk who are not only agitating against MPL, but have a well known anti-Muslim agenda?

I think the politicization of this rape has gone too far. If anything is a hang-up, it`s over the alleged deoband fatwa.

If calling a spade-a-spade supports the RSS agenda, then it is those people who would actually rush into the arms of the RSS by simply stating truisms that should be cautioned, not those like Jawahara.

If people are mentally unstable enough to start pondering and validating what the RSS espouses, then really...it`s not the so-called ``prejudice`` against the RSS which is driving people into their arms. More like internalized hate finding a means of validated public expression.

There`s no getting in the way of people who WANT to hate. They`ll find their own reasons even if the targret of hate sits still and does nothing.

Being Imrana burpinder,

Garbage? More like context. If I go off quoting blindly from the bible or the Gita or whatever without understanding the context of the text, I`m likely to look the fool. Trust me, the Quran (which is chalk full of implicit references to historical events) is no different.

Being Imrana kaal,

``You said it was clear to you that the uproar was not about the decree that a woman raped by her father-in-law should divorce her husband and marry her rapist.
Can you please explain how you reached that conclusion?``

Excuse me, no one suggested that she marry her rapist except the village idiots. Even the Deoband reject this view.

This is exactly what I mean. No one has their facts straight, yet feel they have enough ``evidence`` to talk about Muslim Personal Law and it`s right to exist (or not). And that`s what it`s all about, not that Imrana was raped and some people are suggesting that she leave her husband.

Rape is far more serious than the latter, and the fact that many rapes have gone by without so much a peep tells me that the uproar is feigned, and not about rape at all but something else.

Being Imrana kaurasach,

Umm...if the ONLY difference is that you don`t go around killing, you`re no ray of sunshine I`m afraid.

Now one wonders, is it only a matter of time, just like the Killer of Van Gogh? Or perhaps you yourself are a ``filthy liar``, and do in fact go around killing....who knows.

Being Imrana dost,

``...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.``

Perhaps not.

Now what edict? Which edict, that the father-in-law must die? Or that Imrana can`t live with her husband?

If the latter, then I`m rather disappointed in you. Here`s an exercise. Go to google news and search for ``rape India``. After wading through the news on the Imrana case you will find that, sadly, there have been other rapes in India during this time. Now, I would agree that this is a religious issue in that if it had been a Sikh or a Hindu or a Christian who was raped, all and sundry wouldn`t be making a political ploy out of the event. And that has been the case. Google doesn`t lie :-)

Never mind the ignorant fatwa that Imrana can`t live with her Husband anymore. Clearly, the uproar isn`t about that at all, but rather there is a minority which claims a historic right to have a separate personal law applied to them. Let us not beat around the bush.

If Imrana chooses to stay with her husband or not is ultimately her descision. She is in a position where too many eyes are on here. If she chooses to follow the Deoband fatwa (was it a fatwa?), then clearly she agrees with them for whatever reason. If not, then it`s really not an issue, is it? Well, obviously at some level it is...but then it`s hardly about Imrana...

And so through all this what does Imrana want? To be left alone. Go figure...someone tell that to all her ``defenders`` in the Indian media.

---

Google News is an intersting toy.

I`ve done a search on ``Deoband`` to see exactly what there latest position was. Instead, I get this:

Today - Muslims complaining, rightly imho, about how the Indian media is really taking things to far, and not even following developments in the story.

July 11 - More on Rushdie. Some Muslim body in Gujrat calls for a lynch law against rapists (yikes!).

July 10 - Bunch of news on Rushdie. Mostly from Indian media. They loves their Rushdie. Now, here`s a man who hardly steps a foot on Indian soil over the years, and now this story teller is supposed to be sociolgist and forensic psycologist rolled into one? Let`s give Rushdie a break.

July 9 - Typica opinions...no statement.

Yada yada yada.

Maybe when I have time, I`ll find an article which actually has information, and not political spin.

The latest article I could find was on July 3rd:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1419970,000900010004.htm

Being Imrana ana,

``if this is indeed the case, then someone needs to tell the people who changed the laws in pakistan. no, we are not talking about pakistan, but we are talking about sharia. and according to the laws based on sharia in pakistan, quite the opposite happens. the raped woman is the one who has been punished.``

Which is itself against Shariah. Guess what would happen if Shariah were to be abolished...I would garantee you would see rather draconian slander laws enacted with which rape victims will be silenced or locked up (which is exactly what happened with the Shariah law). This isn`t about shariah, but about a dysfunctional society with institutions that do in fact work, but only on behalf of the powerful and wealthy.

So poverty does have a lot to do with it, and Pakistan`s legal structure is such that it favours the rich. An education and a job changes the power balance.

At least in India, ALL muslim parties are calling for the death of the father-in-law, and no one is suggesting that Imrana was at fault somehow.

Being Imrana From a well-known Islamist website, a blurb about someone who had confronted the Mullah who had issued the fatwa. What is it they say about power?

http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-07/04/article04.shtml

To quote:

A Noida-based Urdu newspaper, Rashtriya Sahara, asked the mufti in India`s premier Muslim seminary, Darul Uloom Deoband, to give his opinion.

The mufti, Maulana Habibur Rahman, without ascertaining the facts of the case or going to the area or sending someone there to find out the truth, issued a fatwa on June 25, saying Imrana ``is now haram (forbidden) for her husband and should leave him``.

``We have obtained a copy of this fatwa and asked Mufti Habibur Rahman certain questions. He was unable to counter our argument that the Qur`anic injunction (``And marry not women whom your fathers married…`` 4:22) does not apply here,`` says this correspondent.

``The mufti gave us some references to support his view but when we read them, they did not seem to support the mufti`s interpretation which is the opinion of some Hanafi fuqaha (scholars) who consider rape also as a cause for prohibiting such marriages.

``We confronted the mufti again. This time he referred us to another maulana who, he said, was present in the meeting when the decision was taken. We asked him, why should we go to someone else when he (Mufti Habibur Rahman) had signed the fatwa. Seemingly he was not pleased with our argument and asked us to write down whatever ``problems`` we had in mind. We did this promptly and are still waiting for his reply.``

Other schools of thought like Shafi`i, Maliki, Jaafari Shia and Ahl-e Hadees reject this interpretation, as they hold that only legitimate marriage is meant in the Qur`anic injunction and a crime does not change the rule.

Just one day after our interaction June 29, the mufti`s office announced Friday, July 1, that the previous fatwa was not about Imrana, which is factually incorrect. While the name ``Imrana`` is not mentioned in the question to which the fatwa was given, her village and district are mentioned. Moreover, the July 3 issue of Rashtriya Sahara Urdu newspaper carries an article by Mufti Habibur Rahman which explicitly mentions the name of Imrana and pronounces the same opinion he earlier expressed in his fatwa.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, too, has now distanced itself from that fatwa and will soon reconsider the issue, says IOL correspondent.

Muslims Not Married in America gawali,

Post #24 was in response to grunge, not to you.

Muslims Not Married in America qawali,

`` A general question I`m asking is, why does a woman need a man? Specifically, why does a working woman need a husband?``

``Need`` in what sense, and why is this question asymmetrical wrt men?

`` One could say that YOU are the one ``creating mischief``.``

One could...but the point was the term is NOT to be treated lightly. It`s all nice in the abstract, but the idea that YOU can identify who is and who is not a mushrik, munafiq, etc. opens you up for criticism just as well.

“Possibly one of the factors is colonization where we were taught to hate ourselves and what looks like us, to sever us from our roots”

I dunno if colonization explains my mothers refusal to consider anyone from particular parts of India…