"Honor" Rapes
 

Salman Rushdie writing in the Sikh Times , reports:

In honour-and-shame cultures, such as those of India and Pakistan, male honour resides in the sexual probity of women, and the 'shaming' of women dishonours all men. So it is that five men of Pakistan's powerful Mastoi tribe were disgracefully acquitted of raping a villager named Mukhtar Mai three years ago. Theirs was an 'honour rape,' intended to punish a relative of Ms. Mukhtar for having been seen with a Mastoi woman. The acquittals have now been suspended by the Pakistan Supreme Court, and there is finally a chance that this courageous woman may gain some measure of redress for her violation.

Pakistan, however, has little to be proud of. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that there were 320 reported rapes in the first nine months of last year, and 350 reported gang rapes in the same period. The number of unreported rapes is believed to be much larger. The victim pressed charges in only one third of the reported cases, and a mere 39 arrests were made. The use of rape in tribal disputes has become, one might say, normal. And the belief that a raped woman's best recourse is to kill herself remains widespread and deeply ingrained.

Rushdie goes on to describe the situation in India which apparently is no better in the Muslim provinces there than it is in Pakistan. There is the Indian national law and then there is Muslim law. The former is disregarded in favor of the latter:

Such is the historical confusion on this vexed subject that anyone who suggests that a democratic country should have a single, unified legal system is accused of being anti-Muslim and in favour of the hard-line Hindu nationalists.

Unbelievable! I must admit to having great difficulty feeling much sympathy for Muslims after reading such an article, but the problem, I think, is more about fundamentalism than it is about the Muslim faith, per se.

Prayer in the schools, anyone? :eyebrow:

It's not necessarily Islam, as much as Islam is poster child for fundamentalism.

The instant you open your mind to the idea that an invisible man exists, made the world, and can talk to you, you set yourself up for an unknown number of possibilities for delusions, excuses, and ignorance.

It's not believing the invisible man exists, it's believing He tells other people what you should do. ;)

not meaning to offend any religion but
I agree that when you start thinking that "GOD"
tells you what to do and what every one else should do or
belive in what you do else they are in some way wrong or
not in touch with "GOD" only hurts your actual
spirtitual awareness

I belive I have a very good relationship "GOD"
if in "GOD" you mean the spirtatual energy that
connects us all to the universe

but do I belive in Zeus (I find if I use an out-dated god it softens the blow)
no but that doesn't mean I have an awareness or understanding of "GOD"

Although the day "GOD" starts telling me what to do I'm so done with him
he gets a 1 way ticket to Dumpsville

True, but a lot of people turn to deity when they've run out of answers meaning they are looking to be told what to do...

I agree, but I think a far greater proportion would hear the "right" thing, when tempered by their conscience and logic, than when they just listen to a clergy and just accepting what they hear.
Of course in terms of this thread, one very big fly in the ointment is tradition. Hundreds, sometimes thousands of years, of doing what is "wrong" in our view. I guess they feel the same about us. :crazy:

Big difference though, we're right.

Just ask Bush, God said so.

Well, I will say that our culture is more "right" in its treatment of women, and I knew that before W. ever got to be president and announce the word of god to the rest of us.

Up to 300 or so years ago, Western culture deemed it "right" to label some people (often women) witches and burn them at the stake. A mere 60 or so years ago, a significant portion of the German people either considered it "right" (or turned their heads the other way) to send Jews off to the crematorium.

As an aside: My parents met and married in Germany several years after WWII. I came across their marriage licence while going through some old papers the other day. I was interested to note that even 6 years after the war had ended and Germany was still pretty much occupied by the US, the German civil form for a marriage licence had remained unchanged since 1937. There was a space where the faith of each person had to be typed in, so it reads:

Marichiko's Dad - Evangelical; Marichiko's Mom - Catholic

A small reminder of a time when a person's faith was, indeed, a matter of life or death. I'd love to know what my Dad said to the German official who issued that document. He must have been having fun with the guy, because my Dad was ANYTHING but an "Evangelical" Christian!

But I digress. The point I was trying to make is that we often translate the word of the society which prevails at the time into the word of God. There IS a difference, but many people, ESPECIALLY fundamentalists, don't pick up on this minor point.

It must annoy God no end.

Ah ha, that explains it. You're half Evangelical. :lol2:

Yeah, Evangelical with Catholic. Talk about mind blowing! When I speak in tongues it comes out Latin! :eek:

Oooh, Latin! No wonder I couldn't understand what you've been babbling about.

I'm sorry.....that was just too easy. :blush:

I know there are women who find the speaking of tongues to be very arousing. Of course, it depends where one's head is buried while speaking.http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Know what would stop this? If the clerics issued an edict that future honor rapes would be performed on the MAN involved, not the woman.

"I am sorry, Achmed. I do not enjoy plugging your bunghole. But HONOR DEMANDS IT."

Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure. :rolleyes:

PS And I dare someone to translate the above. The winner gets a "musa" from me! :love: