Being Imrana

Re: # 45 jawahara
//....I, for one, am getting really tired of my fellow-Muslims not truly looking within, not understanding what it is that we might need to debate, discuss and perhaps change....//

You are not alone ..... we all are very tired of muslims not truly looking within. It`s frustrating and sometimes infuriating.

++++

//...I would rather be subject to a uniform civil code with the rights it promises than Muslim Personal Law. Of course, since I don`t trust the BJP/RSS, etc. who are the entities that push that agenda for their own reasons, I feel quite trapped as well...//

if you think UCC is good - then you should support it, no matter what RSS position is on that issue. Paradoxically, that will take the wind out of the RSS propaganda sails........ It will also show that muslims are finally taking charge of their destiny - they are finally breaking the shackle of the self-imposed orthodxy and backwardness. .... And that will work wonders in the inter-community relations.

Opposing UCC just because RSS supports it would be like ``cutting your nose to spite the face``[or whatever that proverb is]

+++

Overall, a good post.

Re: # 48 vaga

I think harimau is right. Rape is also a crime against the state. If it is NOT so in India - then it should be made so. So should be the dowry offence.... No matter what the victim says - the state must prosecute the offender. Because otherwise, the rapist might go on to rape others. The dowry seeker will seek the same elsewhere.

Haven`t you seen ``Law and Order :)?

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.

#49 by mohar11 : Opposing UCC just because RSS supports it would be like ``cutting your nose to spite the face``[or whatever that proverb is]

That might be true. However, I think the source of the change does need to be looked at. I also don`t want to play into the hands of Hindu fundamentalists and their own agenda because it gives them a perfect opportunity to piggyback other less savory items attached to this issue.. I acknowledgment I am torn about this but I think the desire for UCC needs to come from within the ranks not because of external pressure.

#48 by vagabond78

Just because a judge makes a ruling does not make it right. Of course, the judge was being patriarchal and insensitive. Just as another judge was so when he said a woman wearing a short skirt practically forced the rapist to rape her. Just as another one was when he said it was unnatural and therefore, obviously a lie that a father had raped his 8 year old daugher and that the mother must be *evil* and had made up lies. This was said without looking at the evidence. When a crime is committed, the perpetrator cannot start making deals outside the court. In the case you mention the perpetrator was (in my opinion) further victimizing the victim by a ridiculous proposal of marriage. The crime has to be prosecuted.This is not family court we are dealing with a crime against a citizen. It was not the judges decision to delay the judgment. If the rape victim had said `I do` then yes, his hands were tied but until that happened it was not his call to make. He was there to preside over a case not be a cog in a patriarchial system.

At one point in time slavery was legal in the United States. It did not make it right.

In a country like India where societal pressure is great and women (apart from some in the urban centers) are taught that they are inferior, that they should not be heard, that they should suffer in silence, a judiciary that does not takes this into account (and in fact is sometimes prey to these same ideas) is in effect victimizing them further. Rapists and other perpetrators depend on women being blamed for rapes. They depend on women being cowed into submission by the larger society. We don`t need judges who become part of this larger society. We need them to impartially preside over cases and decide them on the merit of the arguments and the evidence. That`s it.

This article is again an unmitigated disaster because everytime it says ``I am not saying,`` about something it ends up saying precisely that.

But it is a pleasure to see Jawahara discussing this important topic. Such is the force of her credibility that I know I will agree with almost everything she contributes.

Re: # 52 jawa
///.....I think the desire for UCC needs to come from within the ranks not because of external pressure...//

I was afraid of this. I was truly hoping that you wouldn`t tag this self-defeating line which, unfortunately, has been followed by many muslims all along. ......

And the results of such self-defeating policies are for all to see - The community stays backward, Imranas continue to suffer, inter-commuity relations are still bad. Everybody looses in the bargain - except, of course, the RSS - their propaganda machine is running full strength.

You are truly cutting your nose to spite the face. Ugliness of the whole spectacle makes us all cringe ..... and RSS is having the last laugh.
+++

As for the ``external pressure`` - Sati was abolished not because of ``desire from within`` - it was also ``forced`` from outside, by the hated and racist colonizers. So was the evil of child marriage. If you are looking for ``desire from within`` - then you can wait until cows come home - which basically will never happen.

Hate of RSS is blinding you so much that you are doing exactly what they want you to do. That`s a Pity.

mohar11 # 54

IMO, it`s not Jawahara`s job to not hate the R.S.S. but R.S.S.` responsiblity (if it wishes to) to win the trust of people like Jawahara.

Cloaked lies, agendas, conclusion, intentions.........what else to expect from a muslim......blame others, Jews, India`s state system.

It wasn your/religious narrow mindedness, archaic, dark, inhuman teachings that failed Imrana - NOT the state. Others live in that state.

When you refuse to send your kids to secular schools and insist on separate laws for muslims, what do you expect?

When you refuse to adapt to secular and adopt secular ideas, what do you expect? Schools are open to all, send your kids there, instead of the Madrasas.

There is an Afghan family here in the US. The kids are born here. The parents don`t send their daughter to school because they don`t want to spoil her culture, heritage etc.....they say they will wait till she grows up and has grasped her own culture. WHAT is your EXCUSE in this case? WHO will you blame this time?

WHY blame the system, when the fault lies within you?

You cloak your real intentions by mildly rebuking Deobandis in the begining (to pretend to be a rational and balanced muslim); and in the end, blame India`s system. This trick is getting old. Try something new. Stop playing the victim game.

Re: # 52

``That might be true. However, I think the source of the change does need to be looked at. I also don`t want to play into the hands of Hindu fundamentalists and their own agenda because it gives them a perfect opportunity to piggyback other less savory items attached to this issue.. I acknowledgment I am torn about this but I think the desire for UCC needs to come from within the ranks not because of external pressure...``

So how long do you wait and how many ``shah banus and imranas`` it would take to get you moving.. Almost all the reforms in ``Hinduism`` like ``sati/child-marriage-ban/temple-entry for dalits`` (possibly ``dowry`` and hopefully ``caste-based-on-birth`` in the future) have come through laws enacted by mostly non-religious people and ``external`` to the system.. It`s naive to expect that one fine day, the ``mullahs`` and the ``believers`` would realise the ``truth`` outside the ``book`` and change themselves..

#52 by Jawahara

In hindsight the marriage proposal is of course ridiculous. But how would a judge decide that? He obviously had to ask the victim right? And that`s what he did. And you admit it yourself that his hands will be tied had the victim said `I do`. So in this whole process the verdict will be delayed, no?

Then pray tell me what you mean by this:
[The crime has to be prosecuted.This is not family court we are dealing with a crime against a citizen. It was not the judges decision to delay the judgment. If the rape victim had said `I do` then yes, his hands were tied but until that happened it was not his call to make. He was there to preside over a case not be a cog in a patriarchial system.]

I`ll give a miss on the slavery part but you`ll find your last para in every judgement where a rapist is convicted. Each judgement would stretch to 70-80 pages where the judge will refer to a dozen cases and bemoan the society for illtreating women; accuse the state for failing to protect its citizens; and ask all those present in the court, ``are you not ashamed of yourself?``, ``isnt the accused a part of the society?``.

If the accused is an illiterate labourer and some such shit, he would also remind the state of the directive principles and will show leniency. Ask yourself: If a very rich woman is raped by a roadside beggar, shouldnt the judge be lenient in pronoucing the sentence?

Now, jawahara, you might wish to take back a few things you had said in #52.

masanauthu bhai # 57

Nobody will win if you (and Jawahara) don`t focus your energies against people with whom you really disagree.

Re: # 55 kaal
//... R.S.S.` responsiblity (if it wishes to) to win the trust of people like Jawahara...//

``RSS`s responsibility``? Well - first of all, you should never put ``RSS`` and ``responsibility`` should in the same sentence. I mean - that`s the problem to begin with, right? RSS are just a bunch of freaks....... And why would they wish to win trust? Their agenda is served by lack of trust.

Anycase - this is NOT about RSS. This is about muslim community, and what is good for them. If UCC is good for them, then they should go for it - in fact, they should demand that UCC be implemeted ASAP. They should rally community support against fatwas, against the mullhas, against the oppression of Shah Bano, Imrana......

The issue is very simple really. If you have monkey on your back - then you have to get rid of it, by hook or crook. Of course, your enemies are taunting you for stupidly carrying that monkey for so long - that`e even more reason to get rid of the problem. But instead, you are holding on to the monkey tightly, feeding it and letting it loose on yourself ..... and then you blame your enemies for your plight? I mean, come on - can it more clear than this?

RSS is just an excuse. The problem is what jawahara first said [and then ignored her own advice] - inability to look within and reform. That`s a problem with muslim communities world over.

#53 by kaalchakra:

Actually, I doubt that will happen :-). Partly because I am not afraid to acknowledge that I am equally prejudiced against the RSS as they are against me. That`s life and human nature. Of course, I am equally prejudiced against the tablighi, jamati folks as well and there`s little they could do to sway me even if they were so inclined. I am afraid we are at a stalemate here. Productive? No. But definitely the reality.

#54 by mohar11

Sati and child marriage might have been abolished by the colonizers but (1) there were enlightened folks within the community (Raja Ram Mohan Roy) and (2) we do live in a democracy now and are not a colony. The rules that govern the two systems of government are radically different and the communities within the nation have the responsibility for advancing their causes.

Look, I am not saying I have the answers and I have no problem owning up to my own prejudices. I believe that there needs to be some forward looking, educated Muslims entering into this space and not allowing bearded, toothless maulanas (my apologies to bearded toothless folks) to spout crap.

#58 by vagabond78

What I meant, Vagabond, was that the marriage proposal should not have had any bearing on the case unless and until the complaining witness agreed to the proposal. Holding off on the sentencing simply because he found out that the proposal was made was uncalled for. It is a matter of timing. The message he was sending by holding off on the judgment seemed to be a tacit way of letting the victim know that marrying your rapist may not be a bad thing after all. It seemed to say that rape and premarital sex were pretty much the same thing which is not the case. Would he have held off on a judgement if the perpetrator of an assault had offered apologies or a plot of land or whatever to the victim? Why, then this double standard for a rape victim?

Kudos to the judges and their 70-80 pages but we were not talking about those judges were we? We were talking about the judges who actually became complicit, in my opinion, in the further victimzation of the complainants.

No, I don`t think the judge should be lenient against a beggar raping a rich woman. What we should have are fair trials where the defendant gets a fair shake and a police force that does not beat confessions out of people. And we need a jail system that does not treat rich prisoners better than poor ones. If the beggar did rape the woman he should be prosecuted like anyone else and he should be treated no worse than any other rapist.

Other extenuating circumstances like mental illness or whatever are another matter altogether.

So, no, I am not taking back anything I said in my previous post. I stand by it.

#60 by mohar11
``
The problem is what jawahara first said [and then ignored her own advice] - inability to look within and reform. That`s a problem with muslim communities world over.``

I did not say Muslims should not reform themselves. Heck that is my basic point. What I *did* say was that the issue is not simple but complex and multi-layered and the fact that the RSS/BJP are so intertwined it it would make it an issue. This is not a simple `either` `or` situation. We can still reform ourselves and look within and ask for a common civil code but on our terms, due to our empowerment and not because of any radical organization anywhere. Why is that a bad thing?

And just because I, personally, cannot look past the RSS/BJP connection at this point in time does not mean some good, level headed leader cannot do so. But in this quest for a UCC it would be short sighted to gloss over the complexity that this issue would bring and whoever drafts a strategy needs to be cognizant of the fact and plan accprdingly.

i think this article has quite a few holes in it and makes quite a few sweeping assumptions. khair, nothing new here on chowk.

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.

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.

obviously one cannot deny that it is also very difficult for a woman to prove that she has been raped, according to sharia.

but to talk about this merely in terms of education and jobs, to blame this as a failure of the indian state? imrana`s community has not failed her any less. there are people in the state who do fail everyone time and time again. but what does education have to do with a woman`s reaction to being raped. why does being ``poor`` mean that one responds to rape in a specific way?

and as much as i disagree with mohar, i will agree with him on this. . . a uniform code of laws should be pushed by everyone. . . not just the RSS, but everyone, the congress, the muslims, everyone. ``the law`` is not perfect either, it is more than often an ass. . . but it also comes through for women. how often can we say that about clerical edicts, from any religion?

jawahara. . . when you say ``on our terms`` who is the ``our``? should a common civil code not be based on terms that all can agree with? isn`t that where the struggle should be focused?