The first thing that struck me as I read reports on Malala’s shooting was the village name: Saidu Shareef. Living in Pakistan, we have been conditioned to hear of shootings, bombings and barbarity across the country and get on with our day; unless you know someone who lives where today’s incidents took place. A selfish reaction, yes – but required when you hear of so much every day. When drone attacks were at their peak, there was a “situation” in Pakistan known as the “IDPs” – Internally Displaced Persons – much like refugees, but because no international borders were crossed, they were homeless in their own homes.

Campsites were set up across the country to house these people, all hailing from various quarters of the then North West Frontier Province (now KPK)  and Balochistan regions. These were the less fortunate who didn’t have family or friends they could set up house with temporarily, for an indefinite period. These camps helped them make new friends, formulate new families.

I volunteered at one such camp in Swabi, NWFP, where I met a family from Saidu Shareef.  From the minute Nasreen, a mother of three, propped her youngest, 8 months old at the time with Bambi-eyes and sun-burned brown hair, in my lap I fell in love. Their other two children, a boy of 11 and a girl of eight, were equally adorable and very energetic. When it was time for me to leave the camp, I joked with their father to let me take their daughter with me. Laughing, he pulled her close and said, “She is my princess, you can take a boy!” Growing up in Pakistan, we understood that the unprecedented love for a son is tantamount in our culture – more so in our rural areas. This man dispelled all those myths with one swift embrace. He said he wanted his daughter to study to become “a big person.”

I spoke with that family often after returning from my trip. We remained in touch for a couple of years until last year my phone got stolen and with it, the one number I had to reach them. Of course, I am often reminded of them, but the day Malala was shot my heart sank as I thought of them, and of Arooj, their princess.

The mother had told me tales of how the Taliban had restricted their movement as women, and how often they would sight severed limbs in the alley, lying in a puddle of blood, or heads plastered up against a pole as “admonition”. Nasreen explained how it was difficult for her to walk to the market and how she didn’t answer her front door anymore, out of fear of the Taliban. Her sister had been publicly harassed by the Taliban because she offered some Pakistani soldiers water. “And I thought it was our duty, as Muslims, to feed the hungry and provide water to the thirsty,” she said.

Maulana Fazlullah gained popularity in the Swat region after the October 2005 earthquakes, not by threatening the masses, but by appeasing them. He helped build madrasas, affording local boys education in the light of having no other educational institutions; he helped the poor marry their daughters and provide them with a respectable dower; and most of all, he helped the residents of Swat valley find serenity in prayer in a time when their entire villages were distraught and ignored by the government. Nasreen told me her mother sold her heirlooms and donated the proceeds to Fazalullah’s cause because he was educating her grandchildren. The love for education was a reoccurring theme.

Fazalullah was revered for all the right reasons. It was only later, in and around 2007 that he started imposing a parallel judicial system of the “shariah courts” where beheadings were commonplace; restricting the movement of women and girls, shutting down their schools and stripping them of their right to vote;  banning music and burning music stores; shutting down anti-polio campaigns for being part of a western agenda to promote impotency . A tyrant had replaced the once calm provider of solutions.

Even though the situation on ground has changed since that time (the army has taken control from the Taliban in the area), it seems that the Taliban continue to lurk in the shadows. Even in light of all that has come forth since Malala’s shooting – we are yet to hear an outright condemnation of the Taliban from any of our political leaders. Ordinarily hated by most, MQM leader Altaf Hussain issued a statement that he would “expose” the religious clerics if they did not condemn this shooting. The next day a fatwa was issued stating shooting an innocent girl was not within the injunctions of Islam. But still, no one has come out to say that the Taliban, who have expressed no qualms about owning up to their act but have only shown determination to finish the job should Malala survive, need to answer for what they have done.

Pakistan has come together over Malala’s shooting like never before. Today, Pakistan has declared as a Day for Prayer for the speedy recovery of Malala Yousafzai. The last “day” declared was the “Love of the Prophet” day that brought with it death and destruction over some movie, shown somewhere, stating something no one really knew about. This day, everyone knows what happened and everyone joins in prayer — peaceful, silent, heartfelt prayer.

Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, has said that this case will be the turning point for Pakistan. Turning from supposed “religious” barbarianism to emancipation and recognition of the peace that is really Islam? Quoting novelist Nadeem Aslam, writer Kamila Shamsie put in her piece for The Guardian: “Pakistan produces people of extraordinary bravery. But no nation should ever require its citizens to be that brave.”

No nation should require such bravery because its government should protect it. Every government should have the courage and the authority to speak out against wrong committed and make perpetrators answerable for what they have done. Kamila Shamsie asks these politicians “… do any of you know the way forward? Today, I’m unable to see it. But Malala, I’m sure, would tell me I’m wrong. Let her wake up, and do that.”

As we patiently wait for that turn of fate and awakening of spirit of those power-hungry in politics, we join the nation and the rest of the world in prayer for this girl and the suffering of her family and the hundreds of families similarly situated. We pray that their struggles be not in vain.

This post first appeared on www.foreignpolicyblogs.com on October 12th, 2012  |

Chasing Pavements

A week ago, in various necks of the Muslim world, protests broke out to show the disapproval with the video that was made showing Prophet Muhammad as an adulterer, child molester and murderer. I’m sure there was more to the movie, but I, like many others, have not seen it. As much as I have heard about the film annoys me, but that is my opinion, just as what is shown in the film is the opinion of those who made it. But this review of the movie is what has hundreds of thousands up in arms about its content. Content that they have not seen but only heard of as well. Basically, hearsay.

Based on this hearsay, today in Pakistan the government had to announce a national holiday in celebration of “our love for the Prophet.” This declaration came in light of the fact that most political and religious parties had already declared a day of protest. Friday is a holy day for Muslims — where mass congregations gather for the afternoon prayer. Here most clerics get their fifteen minutes of fame. It is these fifteen minutes that reverberated into an entire week of violence and bloodshed across the country. Protesters  wreaked havoc, cellphone coverage was shut down for security reasons and the army kept on high alert for the entire day. Burning tires is apparently for children now. And yes, children were taken to these protests — eight to twelve year-olds, wearing bandannas, screaming, probably haven’t a clue of what was going on. But they were there, and that is what they will remember of their childhood.

They say that the plight of the country, the living conditions, unemployment, energy crisis, inflation and general corruption have all agitated such protests. However, the fact remains that this uncertainty, matched by clerics declaring that the only salvation lies in defending the name of Islam (inadvertently, the name of the Prophet of Islam), has only escalated frustration and misdirected rage towards the only thing you have control over. The only thing one can vent such frustration on, is that which is physically within reach. For the rioters, this turned out to be small corner shops that were broken into and destroyed (after the goods were stolen); the police, who were trying to maintain the peace were brutally beat up; media personnel covering the “protests” were injured. Ambulances, cinemas and fire brigades, were destroyed. Things and places that had nothing to do with the movie which no one has seen, seemed to bear the brunt of all this violence.

News reports vary as to the number of casualties. At least a dozen have died and a couple of hundred have been injured. No matter how ignorant the protesters or how unrelated and unnecessary the deaths, the point remains that these families will never be the same. Such irresponsible hatred, shown in a film is not protected under the Constitution of the United States and does not represent America, just as these violent acts of frustration do not represent Islam.

I do not believe it is up to governments to fix this problem. It is our responsibility, as citizens, to ensure what we say and what we do does not offend others. Karen Armstrong said it best in “Socratic Questions”:

“How do we apply the Golden Rule, which requires us to look into our own hearts, discover what gives us pain, and then refuse, under any circumstance whatsoever to inflict this pain on anybody else… Confucius said: “Use your own feelings as a guide to your treatment of others. What do you feel when you see your own sacred traditions, your heroes, your national symbols, your flags, embassies and their personnel attacked and insulted? … Try to put yourself in the position of the ‘other side’ – as the compassionate ethos demands – and ask yourself ‘How much do I really know about their history of pain, achievement, oppression, disappointment, fear, idealism, and aspiration – all of which, on both sides, have contributed to this violence?”

Lets refuse to let such incidents take place again. Lets refuse to let more people die or suffer because of someone’s insensitive actions. As Jesus said, do to others as you would have them do to you.

This post first appeared on www.foreignpolicyblogs.com on September 21st, 2012

Fear Feeding Hate

Wade Michael Page killed six Sikh worshipers in their gurdwara (Sikh Temple) in Wisconsin earlier this week.  Page, a 40 year old who is said to have been an active member of a white supremacist group, died of a self inflicted gunshot to the head. Although the motive of the crime is unclear, or has “died with Page,” most analysts, reports and members of the Sikh community are assuming it was a case of mistaken identity — Page thought Sikhs were Muslims and thus responsible for 9/11. In an attempt to rectify this misunderstanding, Chicago’s RedEye printed a “Turban Primer” to explain the difference between a Sikh turban and turbans worn by Muslims throughout the world to ensure the hate-crime is not targeted at the wrong people next time.

Writing about such mistaken-identity-hate-crimes against Sikhs, Mr. Sonny Singh said, ” ‘We are not Muslims’ hasn’t been so effective for our community, has it? Even if we do so in a positive way that does not condone attacks on Muslims, simply educating the public about the fact that we are a distinct community and that we in fact “are not Muslim” will not get to the root of the problem. As long as we live in a country (and world) where an entire community (in this case, Muslims) is targeted, spied on and vilified, we will not be safe, we will not be free.”

Page has not been labeled a terrorist, possibly because he has no religious or ethnic affiliation to South Asians or Arabs, but these are just the semantics. Shakespeare said “in time we hate that which we often fear.” We often fear what we do not understand. Amardeep Singh, writing for the Guardian sees “rays of light in this tragedy. On Sunday, CNN and other print and broadcast outlets expended more constructive copy on Sikhs than I have ever witnessed. Journalists of all sorts rushed to explain the basic tenets of the Sikh religion and the practice of our faith.”

He goes on to say how it is the responsibility of the Sikh community to educate others about their beliefs. But it is also up to the media to report what these communities are doing — how the mothers in their communities are soccer-moms and how their children vie to be valedictorian. “Humanize” them.

Guru Nanak Dev, the founder of the Sikh religion, once said “owing to ignorance of the rope the rope appears to be a snake…”  Ignorance feeds fear, fear spirals into hate. So while there are discussions of what triggered Page to kill (“hate music“), the fact is he did. How are we going to ensure that this doesn’t happen again?

This post first appeared on www.foreignpolicyblogs.com on August 9th, 2012  

Ramadan Quest

Earlier this month, Mehdi Hasan of the Guardian wrote about having to deal with Islamophobia on a day to day basis; how his work and family were affected, but asserting that he would continue to do what he does. Mr. Hasan clarifies that he does not consider his Islamic beliefs exempt from public criticism — just that it be afforded the same respect others are, and that you not say about Muslims anything you would refuse to say about any other group or minority. “Believe me, Muslims aren’t endowed thicker skins that non-Muslims,” he says. As Mr. Hasan has experienced, it’s easy to find people who criticize a belief system based on their biased views on how life ought to be lived. Very rarely can we find someone who bases their views on well-researched practices. In the words of Karen Armstrong, “compassion is not a popular virtue.”

In January this year, I learned of an American journalist from Utah that had been studyingRamadan (Islamic month of fasting) for twenty years and now, and “as an exercise of empathy and solidarity” she was going to observe Ramadan how a Muslim would. In her “Ramadan Quest,” Ms. Peggy Stack observed how “Christians believe you should have a prayer in your heart always, and Muslims sure know how to program that into you” (referring to the five daily prayers, or salah). By fasting every day, from dawn to dusk and incorporating the requirements of prayer, alms giving, Quran reading, good behavior, control over negative emotions, etc., she realized that the process reminded her to be grateful for all she had, noting her good fortune that “going hungry can be a voluntary ritual, not a death sentence.”  

Ms. Naiara Leite, a lawyer in New York, similarly tried a “Ramadan Quest” of her own. In an attempt to understand one of her good friends better, she started fasting last Ramadan but only on Fridays. She answered the following questions via email from her home in New York: 

1. I’ve been reading the Quran for over 20 years, I find that I have to frequently revisit the Quran and ensure I come to it with no baggage. What was your experience like in reading the Quran? How does it compare to when you read other religious texts such as the Bible? What were your favorite parts of the Quran? Do you continue to read it? 

I am a born and raised Catholic from Brazil where we have relatively good coexistence among religions but little religious diversity.  It wasn’t until I moved to the US in 2007 that I met a Muslim friend who introduced me to the Quran.  Being such a well versed and religious person, my friend inspired me to learn more about Islam.  Like other religious books that I have come across, the Quran is a product of its time and society that has timeless teachings.  When read in context and in light of discernment, anyone can benefit from its wisdom.  Like the Bible, the Quran relates a universal quest of love for God and compassion for our fellow brothers and sisters.  One of my favorite parts in the Quran is “[…] onto everyone of you we have appointed a different law and way of life. And if God had so willed he could truly have made you all one single community. But He willed otherwise in other to touch you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ.” (Quran 5:48).  I continue to consult the Quran after my Ramadan experience, particularly by search term and theme. 

2. What were you expecting out of fasting and how did it compare in reality? Do you have favorite parts of the day while fasting? 

Honestly, my first goal was to feel closer to my Muslim friend whom I missed so much.  Also, I was determined to continue her advocacy for Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance even if in a smaller scale by fasting only on Fridays.  I felt that, as a Catholic, I also had a responsibility to correct the distortions that had been aired about Islam among my community.  So celebrating Ramadan was a window to encourage discussion and learning among my family.  What I was not expecting was to be humbled by this experience.  The other great surprise was the sentiment of communion with Muslims fasting all over the world.  My favorite part of the day was walking by the Mosque next to my house after work to see their celebration.  I felt like I could finally understand their excitement. 

3. We advertise the differences between religion too often. Did you find a lot of interconnected theories and analogies between Islam and other faiths that you have studied?

This is a great question!  Indeed, the more I interact with people of different faiths, the more I realize the universal sentiment that unites all.  But all too often our commonalities are clouded by one group’s use of its powers to subjugate a religious minority somewhere.  One way to overcome this is by going back to the roots of our own religions and we will all find that we share one fundamental truth: love, for God and our fellow humans.  It is also enlightening to see that the major religions share a sense of retribution for the good and bad we do.  It is within our power to be closer to God, something we commonly call freewill.

 4. What did it teach you, if anything and would you do it again?

 This was certainly an exercise of self-control and moderation.  The very first Friday was an uphill battle against my mind and body.  But the following ones were filled with introspective reflection.  I was able to realize that I was gaining more from the experience than what I had intended to give.  Fasting helped me clear my mind from daily distractions to focus on family, and my relationship with God.

 5. Lastly, do you have any anecdotes from your experience that you’d like to share?

Oh, yes!  Coincidently I was working long hours those weeks, so my boss decided to buy me and my colleagues lunch on Fridays.  Initially I did not know how to explain that I would not eat with them because I, a Catholic, was observing Ramadan.  To my delight, when I finally communicated my reasoning it turned into a healthy and positive group discussion about religion.  After that my colleagues were mindful of my fasting and avoided eating at their desks so that I would not feel ‘tempted’.  Little did they know that, by then, I had grown to value fasting so much that I actually did not miss food at lunch hour. 

Yesterday, with the commencement of Ramadan, Muslims around the world started fasting. It is a month of introspection and of shedding our vices; seeking enlightenment not to judge but to understand. As Muslims seek to better themselves this month, it would great to see others taking a page out of Peggy and Naiara’s book in order to learn about something new. Commenting on Mr. Hassan’s piece earlier this month, Mr. Owen Jones of The Independent put it best when he said “[i]t’s time for Muslims and non-Muslims alike to join forces against the most widespread – and most acceptable – form of bigotry of our times.”

This post first appeared on www.foreignpolicyblogs.com on July 21st, 2012 

Who Hates Whom?

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 24th May, 2012 and can be found here.

When I first came across Mona Eltahawy’s article, questioning “Why do they hate us?” - “they” being misogynistic rulers of Middle Eastern and Muslim nations, and “us” being the female population – I have to say my instant reaction was one of apprehensive agreement. Apprehensive, because I’ve seen womenfolk suffer cruel injustice in my part of the world (Pakistan, innately feudal and supremely “Islamic”), but never had I felt that I too was disadvantaged because of my gender and I knew the injustices though furthered in the name of Islam, had nothing to do with the religion and everything to do with politics. So I nodded, but with a guilty conscious.

In the days that followed the publication of that article, there was outcry on how “Muslims” treated their women and how the religion was to blame, but like any other argument, there was also the flipside which I was happy to find presented in a more articulate and accurate manner.

Ms. Hilal Elver put it best when she said, “there was nothing new in Eltahawy’s article. Many of the issues she raised were already well known, thanks to Western media that has been issuing frequent alarmist warnings to the public about the menace of Islam… Giving a platform to Muslim women writers critical of Islam has also become a very popular tactic in Europe… This makes the European public feel comfortable when they adopt public policies against Islamic practices.” Eltahawy singling in on Muslim culture and teachings of Islam as the reason for discrimination does the same. Not to undermine Eltahawy’s experiences or dub them untrue, the fact of the matter is, as Sarah Mousa put it, Eltahawy is “out of touch”.

Sherene Seikaly and Maya Mikdashi point out that the Foreign Policy’s “Sex Issue”, though being a world issue, with the exception for one article, “reproduces much of the dominant and sensationalist discourse about sex in the Middle East.” They rightly conclude “[t]he battle against misogyny does not follow a ‘men hate women’ formula. It cannot be reduced to a generic battle of the sexes spiced with a dose of Islam and culture. It cannot be extracted from the political and economic threads that, together with patriarchy, produce the uneven terrain that men and women together navigate.”

In the words of Ms. Elver “[v]iolence against women does not respect religious, cultural or state borders. Statistics are very clear on that. Women in politics in high level positions have to pay a big price no matter which country we consider, although some do better than others … A closer look into two areas in which Egyptian women are disadvantaged – one on a legislative level, and the other on a social level – reveals flaws rooted in governance, rather than culture or religion.”

Writing for the Washington Post, Dalia Mogahed points out “[r]eligion is the dominant social currency in the Arab world. Everyone from pro-democracy activists to anti-woman authoritarians invokes its imagery, moral authority and emotional appeal for legitimacy.” That is the reason politicians and clerics alike have abused the tenants of religion to promote personal agendas. We’ve seen it take shape in Pakistan against women and minorities, radicalizing in the Zia era (General Zia, Pakistan’s fourth military dictator, holding office from 1977 to 1988) and continuing to date.

None of this is to say that women are not treated badly in the Middle East or elsewhere, it is to state that they are treated badly in “secular” nations just the same. Muslim nations have been run by women yet a super power such as the United States has not; why then does that not translate to mean Muslims are more progressive? Mental barriers are created because we do not always get the whole picture. Let the reader decide, but give the reader all the facts - not your bias version of it. Eltahawy gave her side of things, it was up to the Foreign Policy Magazine to ensure they filled the gaps with other articles. Most critics of this particular issue of the Foreign Policy Magazine do not deny the good intent behind its publication, but what was that about the road to hell?

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 24th March, 2012 and can be found here.

Pakistan and the United States of America may seem like polar opposites, but when you push aside the semantics, you’ll find the same people everywhere: insecure, intolerant, injudicious and irrational.

In Pakistan:

The Domestic Violence Bill was first proposed in the Senate in 2009 and has since been lying dormant and the subject of much disapproval and suspicion. Members of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) [extreme-right-winged religious party] have said that the Bill was unislamic for promoting “western-style freedoms”. At first glance, the fact that the JUI-F are opposing something named Domestic Violence Bill seems to be self-serving.  Take a deeper look and you’ll find that they’re not wrong in opposing the bill as it is currently drafted – however, their grounds for rejection are more than flawed. Beside the abysmal state of drafting (e.g. the definition of “sexual abuse” contains the phrase “any kind of sexual abuse”), I have the following problems with the Domestic Violence Bill  as it is posed today and I’ll leave you to make up your own opinion on the matter.

First, its application seemingly is only in Islamabad Capital Territory – acts committed outside the jurisdiction are non-actionable under this Bill. Section 7 states that an “aggrieved person” shall not be evicted from the household without consent “whether or not he or she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.” Household is not defined.

Where most people seem to have taken issue is the clause defining Domestic Violence, to include “Emotional, psychological and verbal abuse” which is further explained as “repeated exhibition of obsessive possessiveness or jealousy constituting serious invasion of the victim’s privacy, liberty, integrity and security”.

The Bill means well – it aims to cover all forms of domestic violence, whether they relate to a married couple or an adopted child or a member of the family with special needs (coming under the definition of a “vulnerable person”). However, the potential that the Bill be misused and abused – as it is framed right now – is vast. It appears that it has been drafted on emotion and not on prudent understanding of the real issues. Much like the disinterest that was seen in Parliament during the passing of the Women’s Protection Bill (which has somewhat done away with the hudood ordinance backlash that left women at the mercy of the interpreters of the rape laws) – when female members of parliament were against this bill only because it was said to be against the injunctions of Islam. Why didn’t they take the time to do their job and understand the issue or even understand the purported injunctions of Islam that were the backing of such legislation? Because they were unfazed by its repercussions.

Similarly, those who have drafted this Bill, although meaning well, have not done so in the most sensible fashion. Legislation proposing to give the weaker members of society a voice is bound to be criticized and delayed; just like in the Acid Control and Crimes Act took a year to pass and the Anti-Women Practices Act which took three; it’s a shame reckless drafting is only further hampering the process.

In America:

The Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization. Since is enactment in 1994, there’s been a reported 50% fall in spousal abuse cases. The reauthorization would continue the current grants program, expanding efforts to reach the Native American Indian tribes and further allow safeguards to lesbian, bisexual and transgendered victims alike. In the words of Senator Patrick Leahy, “a victim is a victim.”

Some Republicans (or the American version of the JUI-F, however you wish to see it) think the reauthorization would widen immigration avenues (immigrant victims may claim battery) and “dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples”.  The NY Times reported that “the conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called the Violence Against Women Act a slush fund ‘used to fill feminist coffers’ and demanded that Republicans stand up against legislation that promotes ‘divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.’”

Vice President Joe Biden is pushing this re-authorization. “Imagine now the message it sends if [the law is] not reauthorized. Just ask yourself, what message would be sent to every one of our daughters, every one imprisoned in her own home?”

Granted, the debate in the U.S. Senate is on how much funding is going to be afforded to this program and who all shall be entitled to claim benefit under it, which is a step ahead of where Pakistan’s Domestic Violence Bill rests. The National Task Force to end Domestic Violence Against Women said that the reauthorization had been filed as “motion to proceed” in the Senate and is likely to be debated on the Senate floor next week.

Coming together:

An argument in the Pakistani Senate was that if the Domestic Violence Bill were passed, a spouse couldn’t question the other as to where they had been even if they come home at four in the morning, drunk. To this, Mr. Abbas Nasir, writer for a leading Pakistani newspaper said, “If his contention hadn’t been so sad, it would have been laughable. Doesn’t he know that if your spouse (man or woman) arrives home at four in the morning and you haven’t the foggiest where they have been and why, your relationship may well be over anyway and is best terminated?”

The president of Concerned Women for America, Penny Nance, wrote members of the U.S. Congress to oppose the Violence Against Women Act. “It pits husbands against wives,” said Janice Crouse, spokeswoman for the group. She said elements of the law were triggered by “very flimsy” claims of abuse. “A woman can, with the barest evidence and no evidence at all, claim abuse and get him out of the house.”

Moral of the story:

We’re all the same, save our preference for fashion.

'Til Kingdom Come

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 20th February, 2012 and can be found here.

It’s never a dull moment in Pakistan, but various moments filled with dull people. A rally was held on January 28, in the city of Rawalpindi, against the establishment of a place of worship by the Ahmeddia community. The Ahmedi’s are a minority community who consider themselves a sect within Islam, but were declared non-Muslims in 1974 by the government. A place where Ahmedi’s had been praying for the past 17 years (it is illegal for them to call their place of worship a “mosque”) became a central point of contention when, in the words of the official press release of the Ahmeddia Community, “miscreants” wanted to deprive them of the right to pray there.

Just some two weeks after this rally, the Lahore Bar Association banned the sale of products produced by Shezan, a company owned by Ahmedi’s, in the cafeterias of the subordinate courts. Of course, drinking fruit juice that came out of the factory premises of someone you consider an infidel must be a crime. I can just see the next campaign: “Satan loves Shezan”. Speaking with a local paper, the Lahore Bar Association Vice President Rana Javed Bashir Khan said cafeteria managers at subordinate courts would be directed to stop buying or selling Shezan products. He said strict action would be taken against those who did not heed the ban.

Then there’s Difa-e-Pakistan (literally: Defense of Pakistan), an emerging political or social force – it is still unclear which – that neatly amalgamates the extreme right and some supposed progressives into one little group, sealed with an intolerant chant. On February 12th, Difa-e-Pakistan held a rally that had attendee’s carrying portraits of Mumtaz Qadri, the assassin of former Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer over a blasphemy controversy. They were chanting slogans against Ahmedis and their ‘uncalled for’ activities in Rawalpindi. Praying is uncalled for, apparently.

All the while it is estimated that some 150 people have died in terrorism-related violence in the month of February so far. The bigger issues: the feeding of this rage and this anger that is translating into terrorism, terrorizing Ahmedi‘s and non-Shezan-drinkers alike, go unnoticed. The fact that Difa-e-Pakistan was allowed to host such a large gathering of people, propagate an agenda that is clearly exhorting violence and get all the media coverage they want, should leave us in a panicky-dismay. Instead, we defend them with the right to free speech – not realizing the difference between speaking your mind and inciting terrorism. We brush that off and sit around and debate the rights and benefits of selling fruit juice.

Followers of any faith will tell you that ‘Til Kingdom Come, there can be no judgment and no condemnation. That’s God’s job. The Qur’an talks about how the Jews and the Christians before the Muslims thought they too were God’s chosen people and would be awarded Heaven for their lineage alone. The Qur’an also says that they are mistaken. Where do we as Muslims get off thinking we’d be given the benefit of a different yardstick? Where do we get the right to brand the other a non-believer, liable to burn for time immemorial?

Come Judgment Day, will we be able to substantiate our claim of a moral high ground? If not, should we not be more concerned about the rampant support of groups such as Difa-e-Pakistan instead of making the life of another, equally entitled, completely unbearable and void of spiritual rights?

I suggest we all discuss this over a carton of Shezan juice.

The Power Game Where Women Always Lose

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 25th March, 2012 and can be found here.

Last year, a girl named Amina El-Filali was raped in her town of Larache, Morocco, where her parents filed a criminal complaint. The case was taken to court where, in accordance with Article 475 of the Penal Code the judge ordered the rapist to marry his victim, thereby absolving him of his crime. Since Amina was a minor, the court was required to obtain the consent of her parents before authorizing this marriage; Amina’s father now says he was pressured into agreeing to the marriage. Under the Family Code, once a decision is passed by the judge, it cannot be reversed.

Amina committed suicide last week. She was 16.

A bill was first introduced into the Moroccan legislature in 2008 to amend this law, but has been shelved since. Legislation, much like rape, is a power game. Since those who have the authority and power to change this law are unaffected by it, they do not pursue it with urgency. Requiring a woman to marry her rapist is telling her that her being is restricted to the honor (or dishonor) it brings to the family. No longer a virgin, she would only bring shame, so transfer her legal status to the man that started this mess to begin with – she’s his problem now. A hand-me-down.

It is this chauvinistic mentality that led to the creation of a law in Pakistan that required a woman to produce four witnesses before she could accuse someone of rape. This was the law of the land for some 27 years before it was amended in 2006. There were numerous movements in Pakistan throughout the years to change those laws, but they were always debated out of Parliament and vetoed by female parliamentarians just as much as men. Why? These women were from affluent families that remained sheltered from such crimes and they were told by clerics that changing this law (that was introduced in the garb of a religious mandate) would be against Islam – and these women blindly agreed.

Various countries have a law similar to Morocco, where the rapist gets away by marrying his victim. The fact that most of these countries are predominantly Muslim is often cited to be the reason for such codification; it is becoming a fad to blame all ill on Islam. I find no such injunctions in the Qur’an, and even though rape is not specifically mentioned, the Bible does address sex outside of the marriage contract:

“And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” (Exodus 22:16-17 – similarly, see Deuteronomy 22:25-30)

Whether based on religion or not, there is no argument for forcing a girl to marry her offender (or forcibly marrying anyone, for that matter – but that’s another debate all together) for shame of “losing her honor” for no fault of her own.

It wasn’t until 1991 that the English courts recognized marital rape as a crime; before such time, consent to sex was implied in a marriage. The House of Lords unanimously threw out this principle, calling it a “common law fiction” which was “absurd”. Many countries now recognize marital rape as a punishable criminal offense; many still, do not.

Moroccan women have taken to the streets to push the bill from 2008 into law. Let’s hope it doesn’t take the life of another Amina before we can discard these incongruous laws world over; because in the words of the House of Lords, they really have “no useful purpose to serve”.