The Other Problem with Islam
Picking up on Joe's post yesterday, and to bring this story to a slightly wider audience, I feel compelled to post today on the story of Aisha Parveen, a young Pakistani woman who was kidnapped at the age of 14, forced into prostitution for six years, and who, unless a Pakistani court decides in her favor, will face more rape, torture, and death at the hands of the brothel owner who enslaved her. The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof reported on Parveen's story on Sunday, and again today. Unfortunately, because of the Times' ill-conceived Times Select premium service, only Times home subscribers or Times Select subscribers can read his columns. This is unfortunate, because this is a story that needs to be heard.
This is particularly the case because it is not an unusual story. As most people are probably aware, in the Islamic world being raped is a crime -- not raping, but being raped. In truth, the real crime is being a woman, because Islam is even more deeply misogynistic than Christianity. Women accused of "zina" offenses -- fornication and adultery -- are routinely killed by their relatives to "protect the family honor." In this case, Parveen's kidnapper and tormentor claims that they are married, so she is being accused of adultery. She was luckier than most, because she met a man who rescued and married her. Now she is facing being returned to her captor and, she is convinced, murdered by him. The hearing was yesterday and, thanks in part to Kristof's column, the case was continued for a week. Because of the attention, Parveen's chances are better than most.
Kristof writes: "Saddest of all, her story isn't newsworthy in a classic sense. There's nothing at all unusual about a young Asian woman suffering years of sexual enslavement, or judicial malpractice or murder.
And that's the challenge for us all, Asians and Americans alike — to change our worldview and put gender issues like sex trafficking higher on the global agenda.
A quarter-century ago, Jimmy Carter plucked human rights abuses from the backdrop of the international arena and put them on the agenda. Now it's time to focus on gender inequality in the developing world, for that is the greatest single source of human rights violations today."
Kristof does not discuss in any detail the role of Islam in the "honor killing" and "zina offense" phenomenon. And, doubtless lack of education plays a role in allowing these draconian views to be perpetuated and go mostly unchallenged. But even if Islam is just the vehicle for advancing an agenda that is essentially political (and, really, aren't they all?), its destructiveness is just as horrifying.
Like Kristof, I will give Ms. Parveen the final word to give readers an idea of how much women are hated in Pakistan. She said, "God should not give daughters to poor people," she said in despair. "And if a daughter is born, God should grant her death."
This is particularly the case because it is not an unusual story. As most people are probably aware, in the Islamic world being raped is a crime -- not raping, but being raped. In truth, the real crime is being a woman, because Islam is even more deeply misogynistic than Christianity. Women accused of "zina" offenses -- fornication and adultery -- are routinely killed by their relatives to "protect the family honor." In this case, Parveen's kidnapper and tormentor claims that they are married, so she is being accused of adultery. She was luckier than most, because she met a man who rescued and married her. Now she is facing being returned to her captor and, she is convinced, murdered by him. The hearing was yesterday and, thanks in part to Kristof's column, the case was continued for a week. Because of the attention, Parveen's chances are better than most.
Kristof writes: "Saddest of all, her story isn't newsworthy in a classic sense. There's nothing at all unusual about a young Asian woman suffering years of sexual enslavement, or judicial malpractice or murder.
And that's the challenge for us all, Asians and Americans alike — to change our worldview and put gender issues like sex trafficking higher on the global agenda.
A quarter-century ago, Jimmy Carter plucked human rights abuses from the backdrop of the international arena and put them on the agenda. Now it's time to focus on gender inequality in the developing world, for that is the greatest single source of human rights violations today."
Kristof does not discuss in any detail the role of Islam in the "honor killing" and "zina offense" phenomenon. And, doubtless lack of education plays a role in allowing these draconian views to be perpetuated and go mostly unchallenged. But even if Islam is just the vehicle for advancing an agenda that is essentially political (and, really, aren't they all?), its destructiveness is just as horrifying.
Like Kristof, I will give Ms. Parveen the final word to give readers an idea of how much women are hated in Pakistan. She said, "God should not give daughters to poor people," she said in despair. "And if a daughter is born, God should grant her death."
posted by Sandi | 8:22 AM
5 Comments:
Wow. How tragic.
Enlighten my ignorance here, but what is the UN approach to this type of problem? I'm really out of it on lots of political goings-on, but I would think this would be a morally reprehensible problem on the worldwide stage and should be addressed there.
Don't get me wrong, I think America ought to be sounding the bell, but as an international problem, I think the international community is tasked with its solution. Is there anything being done on that level?
Doesn't the UN have some dealings with Human Rights violations?
Just asking...
Thanks, Joe.
I did a little research and ran across this interview question between middle school kids and Professor Philip Alston (chairman of a UN committee):
Q. How can we effectively enforce the Declaration for all members of the human race? (Mary Griffard and the West Middle School 7th graders)
A. It is true that some kind of "enforcement" would be desirable in some situations where there are terrible violations occurring and they show no sign of stopping. Situations of genocide in some countries are the easiest examples. But in most cases it is less a question of enforcement by the UN or forces acting under its authority, than one of trying to persuade governments and people in general to respect human rights. Voluntary groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and national or local groups like the American Council for Civil Liberties will often be among the most effective forces to compel governments to respect human rights. The best means of enforcement is through popular pressure at the local level rather than trying to see what sort of military-type options might be used. The latter are not likely to be of much use in most situations and other governments don't have the determination to use them consistently and in a non-political way.
Thanks, David, for your insight...
My question stems from a desire to do something to help, but on a stage outside this country, it's my belief/understanding that the UN is the body given legal status to do something. (Which is why I very much oppose the course of action our country originally chose in invading Iraq.)
I'm interested in their approach to the problem Sandi highlighted in her post.
David: Thanks for answering my question.
Joe: You know you would have made a great Confederate! :-) Just substitute "state" for "nation" and "Lincoln" for "U.N." and you'd have been governor of Alabamy!
I'm not going to argue about something I'm entirely ignorant about (flaws of the U.N.). I "will" say that just because something is flawed does not mean "necessarily" that its to be ignored (to mix news stories, think "Church of Christ" here). And I'm not saying that you are saying to ignore the U.N. completely, but for all practical purposes, it sort of seems that way (i.e. it's a good place to talk about things, but if it doesn't go our way, then we're not going to listen to what it says).
I do think I've got enough grasp on the concept of government to talk about it a little, and in any sort of civilization, interaction between people and/or groups of people needs rules. If not, then the biggest dog wins, and that flies in the face of democracy. "Majority rules" with "minority basic rights."
On an international scale, the established body to deal with all this at present is the United Nations. And if its system is flawed, we should work within that system to make it better. If not, then we dismiss democracy in favor of aristocracy on the international stage.
Post a Comment
<< Home