“If Malala had been
killed in a drone attack, you would not hear her medical status update, neither
would she be called "daughter of the nation"; and neither would the
media make a fuss. Neither would General Kiyani come to visit nor would the
world media criticise and repeatedly report on it. This I'm afraid is the
bitter truth of the matter.”
(Author
unknown)
Despite
being enemies, it seems the Taliban and the Americans have something fundamental
in common: intolerance. Both advocate killing innocent people when they do not
concur with them; the attempted execution of Malala Yousafzai and the killing
of Anwar al-Awlaki and his family members have the same underlying theme of
intolerance. The Americans want to
impose western liberal democracy and the Taliban want to impose a draconian
(literal) version of Islamic law where there is no room for differences. What
do the ordinary masses want in Pakistan or any other Muslim country? Apart from
economic security and political stability, they want a society where there is
room for dialogue and discussion - freedom of expression within sensible
boundaries.
As
for the attempted execution of a 14-year-old girl, a soft target by any
standards and no doubt a cowardly act, there are two pertinent issues; the
Taliban ideology and the media duplicity.
On
the latter, the media duplicity is obvious, the selective outrage sparked by an
attack one teenager (Malala Yousafzai), yet there is total silence on the many
faceless and nameless Pakistanis killed and maimed by the American drones over
the last decade. The issue has nothing do with compassion for Malala; the undue
international media coverage is entirely political, another point scored in
construing the problem of militant Islam and Pakistan’s failure to deal with it.
The
last time I recall seeing the Taliban on the media presenting their side of the
story was prior to the American invasion back in 2001, since then they have been
largely absent from the media. Under such circumstances, there has always been
an element of doubt in my mind, when I hear stories of violent attacks, reported
as the work of the Taliban. I ask myself, maybe it is another covert CIA-led
operation designed to tarnish the Taliban.
Did
the Taliban in Pakistan really attempt to execute this young girl? How could
they? Apart from violating Islamic law, it’s politically suicidal. How do the
many impartial masses in Pakistan interpret this? And the widespread protests
are a sign that has sealed the Taliban’s future political fate. Perhaps it’s
some rouge elements within the Taliban, but then the duty is on the leadership
to clarify its position, and the reports so far state that the Taliban have
admitted to carrying out the attack, as the girl was allegedly spreading secularism. How could an Islamic group compose of devout
Muslims act in such blatant violation of the Islamic principles? This raises
the of the Taliban ideology.
From
the gamut of evidences taken from the Quran and Hadiths, the position is clear
on the issue of violence towards women; one of the first commandments after the
revelation began was the prohibition of burying new born baby girls alive; the penal
code is prescribed for slandering a woman; in times of war clear commandments
were given not to attack women, and the penal code on apostasy takes a lenient
view on women as compared to men. The Prophet (saw) never hit any of his wives
and was always exhibited kindness towards women. Even when individuals showed
hostility, the first response from the Prophet was to reply with kindness and
attempt to persuade the individual through discussion.
Therefore,
for similar actions between genders, one has to show much greater leniency
towards women. Even in the West with its militant feminist ideology that
advocates gender equality at every level, still maintains the ‘un-feminist’ ethos:
do not hit women. As nature and the long human history tells us, they are not
built to take physical punishment, they are vulnerable, more so when they
conceive a child. I wonder if it would have made any difference to those who
attacked Malala, if they knew she was married and pregnant.
Let
us assume Malala was guilty of something really serious - suppose she had
espoused open relationships between genders outside the fold of marriage or
written some sexually explicit novel. The accused has to be brought to trial,
then once found guilty, only the legitimate authority can pass and enforce
judgement. Before dispensing punishment, the Islamic law strongly emphasises on
forgiveness. This, even if the accused is found guilty in court, he should be given
a second opportunity like the Prophet (saw) did on numerous occasions?
These
radical groups seem to think they have the authority to exercise force like
some bandits, without even engaging in dialogue and applying the due process of
law. They often say they are acting in the name of Islam for the interest of
Muslims, yet they fear to compete with the secular groups in an open and fair
election to acquire legitimacy from the masses.
“We
sent you (O Prophet) only as a mercy to all people” Quran [21:107]
Yamin
Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org,
#yaminzakaria)
Published
on 27/07/2012
London,
UK (www.radicalviews.org,
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment