"HOODED BANDITS"? YEAH RIGHT!
The article 'Ladies As Hooded Bandits' by Khalid Hasan appeared in The Friday Times, October 20-26, 2006. In the article, the writer lampoons women who take up the veil as misguided. He claims that the Hijab and Niqab have nothing to do with Islam and are inventions of medieval clerics who wished to use it to subjugate women. Thus, these instruments of oppression must be rejected by modern liberated Muslim women.
Maryam Sakeenah wrote a response to the article, the text of which is as follows:
Dear Mr. Khalid Hasan,
This is in response to your article 'Ladies as Hooded Bandits' in TFT, October 20_26, 2006.
You have every right to have your views as in fact every human being does_ but when you feel you have the liberty to ascribe those views to Islam, one is compelled to set the record straight.
For starters, you say that 'anyone who has taken the trouble to read the right texts would know' that hijab and niqab 'have nothing to do with Islam', I only wish, sir, that you yourself had taken the trouble to read the 'right texts'_ not something spewed up by some downright typical feminist-orientalist, but the universal, original sources of Islam.
I quote: "O Prophet! (S) Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close around them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful." (The Quran, 33:59)
"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms and not to reveal their adornment..." (The Quran, 24:31)
It is very clear that these verses prescribe an Islamic dress code for women. As implied by the word 'jilbab' used here, this prescribed dress must be an outer loose garment to cover what attracts the attention of a male stranger. The word 'khimar' used in the second verse means a flowing mantle and its root is from the word 'khamr' meaning 'poured down as a liquid'. This is a telling metaphor for this outer garment as prescribed by Islam.
Those who claim that these verses do not imply covering the head must know that Arab women before Islam, according to a cultural tradition, already covered their heads. However, they left their neck, chest and the rest of the body not covered by an outer extra bit of loose clothing. Owing to this widespread practice, it was quite redundant to give a repetitive order asking them to do something they were already doing. The verse therefore mentioned only that which they were not doing and must do: to extend the head garment lower, so as to cover the chest and the rest of the body. It is reported in an authentic tradition that as soon as this verse was revealed, there was hardly a woman in Madina who did not take off her waistband to make with it a loose garment to cover her body, as is the clear directive of this verse. They did not notice, as you seem to have, that the verse leaves out the head covering and therefore abrogates an Arab tradition. They very much included the head when covering themselves, which was clearly approved of by the Prophet (S), whose own wives were the first to take it up.
The true understanding and practical application of these verses can be reached solely through related ahadith and sources showing how the Companions (R.A) of the Prophet (S) understood and applied this ruling in their lives and time.
There is plenty of evidence showing that Muslim women at the time of the Prophet (S) covered their heads and according to certain traditions even their faces as part of the Islamic dress code. In a hadith it is said that Asmaa bint Abu Bakr (R.A) visited the Prophet (S) wearing a diaphanous dress. The Prophet (S) turned his gaze away and said to her: 'O Asmaa! When a girl approaches the age of puberty, no part of her body may be seen except this and this (pointing to the face and hands).'
While covering the head is a clear, unequivocal and agreed-upon command of Islam, covering the face is a matter of some difference of opinion. Although the majority concedes that it is compulsory, there have been scholars of note like Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz and Imam Abu Hanifa (and some contemporary scholars) who have dissented, saying that it is not an obligation on all women. However, these dissenting scholars also unanimously agree that it is still a highly recommended practice as it was done by the blessed Mothers of the Faithful. When certain Companions of note (including Umar R.A) were asked about the way a woman ought to cover herself, they demonstrated by covering the whole body including the head and face, only leaving the hands and the eyes exposed. Ayesha (R.A) narrates in the hadith of 'Ifk' that when she lay alone in the desert and Safwan bin Ma'tal (R.A) spotted her there he said 'Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajioon', realizing that she had lost the caravan and was alone and helpless there. She heard his voice and woke up from her sleep and immediately pulled her garment over her face. Similarly, Ayesha (R.A) says that on her way to perform Hajj or Umrah when people passed by, the women in the Prophet (S)'s caravan used to pull their head coverings on their faces.
While its obligatory nature might be debated, certainly desiring to follow these noble ladies who are examples and ideals for all Muslim women is admirable and praiseworthy. Even if one does not subscribe to this view, I believe one must at least respect it as a Muslim.
However, in a derogatory way, you call women who follow this noble Islamic practice a 'hooded bandit.' I wonder how a practice followed and upheld by the noble ladies of the Prophet (S)'s house 'flies in the face of clear Islamic injunctions'!!! I wonder as a Muslim what you would have had to say about Lady Ayesha (R.A), Fatima (R.A), Zainab (R.A), Saffiyah (R.A), Umm Salamah (R.A), Hafsa (R.A), or Mary, the blessed mother of Jesus Christ (A.S)_ all of whom dressed up thus, as have all Muslim women in history since the time of Adam (A.S). I really wonder...
Needless to say that the people whose interpretation you give weight to and quote as Gospel Truths do not qualify as a credible authority on Islamic jurisprudence by any criteria. Their research, contribution, training and experience in fiqh matters is a straight nil, to say the least. It is ridiculous that their feather-weight opinions could be given precedence over those who spent a lifetime striving to develop Islamic knowledge and jurisprudence leaving behind a comprehensive body of research, analysis and juristic rulings. What is more, the figments of the imaginations of a handful of orientalists and feminists is taken as an authority over and above the understanding, opinions and practices of the Blessed Companions (R.A), the Mothers of the Believers (R.A) and the Prophet of Islam (S) himself!!!! I only invoke sanity, sir!
Having studied at Christian missionary institutions all my life and being raised in a secularized set-up, I have chosen, Sir, to wear the hijab, and even the niqab for what it symbolizes; what it preserves, shields and protects me from_ for the freedom and confidence it gives me. To you, the hijab seems to imply that males cannot tame their libido_ Well, I have not lived the male experience, but as a woman I always felt in my 'pre-hijab' days, to often unwillingly and without my consent be subjected to an onlooker's lustful gaze which my whole being protested against but had no means to beat back or keep at bay. I felt objectified, reduced to a 'thing with a pretty face', lesser than myself, valued only for the exterior, the trappings of the skin. What's more, I know of countless women who, considering physical exposure to be their freedom, suffer lewd remarks, gestures and even assaults and I pity them. As I confidently walk down the public street in the God-given protection I have, I feel safe and free, and I see the bystander's gaze humbled, lowered. I feel the lustful stranger averting his gaze, held back at a dignified distance. I have got him to respect and preserve my dignity and thereby, educated him. That is the power I wield over him. I command respect, I get my womanhood honoured and respected. My hijab is my armoury. And I thank Allah. You have to be a woman, Sir, to taste that joy!
To conclude, I quote my Muslim sister Dr. Rakhshanda Jabeen who writes: "My decision to wear the hijab is an expression of my love for the Prophet (S) and the women of his family. Those of you who make cocksure statements about my dress, have you ever asked a woman who covers herself the way Allah wants her to_ what she feels? You are so sensitive to women's feelings_ but which women's? Your sensitivity to the 'plight' of the woman in hijab only pains her! You speak only for the right to reject the hijab of the woman who never chose it for herself in the first place! Who does that woman shout from over the rooftops for? We don't need her clamour. We are at peace. But the one who has never tasted the sweetness of submission to Allah, what would he know how much joy it brings us? Have you ever cared to understand the sensitivities and feelings of the woman who has chosen the hijab? Who do you sympathise with the one who doesn't need, doesn't want your sympathies? To me, my hijab is safety, honour and respect_ unattainable for the one who cast it off. My Prophet (S) said: 'Islam began as a strange thing, and will end as a strange thing_ so give glad tidings to the strangers.' It is we who, with our very being and our presence help to dispel that strangeness. And it is our rapidly growing numbers that ensure the thriving continuity of the spirit of Islam in this society."
Wishing you Peace,
A Reader.
Dear Miss Maverick
I suppose it is part of your observance of hijab/niqab that you do not sign your name.
Your long reaction to my column in The FridayTimes is very well written for which I compliment you.
However, what custom was right for 7th century Arabia is not right for the world in which we live, nor are such part of the Quran intended for all times to come. This is neither the essential message of the Quran nor is it the spirit of Islam. I would urge you to read Dr Fazlur Rehman's book 'Islam' to clear your mind.
If according to you only full coverage of the body and face can give a woman power and dignity, then by that logic those who do not follow your practice have neither dignity nor power.
I wish you a pleasant weekend. You write very well and you should use this talent to produce more creative work.
Khalid Hasan
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Sentiments in Kashmir
THE SENTIMENT IN THE STREETS OF SRINAGAR
Maryam Sakeenah
Kashmir burns... It has been, since the maharaja's fateful manoeuvring in 1947 that sealed Kashmir's miserable plight; however, not perhaps with so much passion and fervour of the mass-man on the streets in the face of indiscriminate brutality perpetrated by the army of one of the world's biggest democracies.
The string of mass demonstrations started after Indian troops brutalized protestors against the land transfer of Kashmiri forest land for the expansion of the Amarnath Shrine that attracts hundreds of thousands of Hindu pilgrims annually. A blockade was imposed on the occupied valley as protests intensified. The streets caught fire with the shooting by Indian police, of Hurriyat leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz during a demonstration.
As Syed Ali Shah Geelani commented, the land transfer was quite a non-issue. It merely acted as the glowing splint when it is inserted in a jar of highly inflammable substance. What is there today in the streets of Kashmir is public sentiment full of hurt, ire, helplessness, frustration and anger over the reign of terror and oppression unleashed in the region since its sixty-odd year old occupation. Today, the numbers of Kashmiri prisoners languishing in Indian jails suffering torture and abuse that is obscured by India's propaganda machinery is appallingly high. Kashmiris refuse to forget the fathers, brothers and sons killed or 'disappeared', the mothers, sisters and daughters raped. And the sentiment in the streets states clearly, 'we remember.' As the victimized always do. Leaders of Kashmir's freedom fighting movement labour in prisons; others including Yasin Malik are hurt or wounded, put under house arrest or with mobility strictly limited.
Yet the tide of popular sentiment refuses to be held in check by barricades or barbed wire. The people carry their leaders on their shoulders as they march through the streets braving batons and bullets, in the face of curfews, checkposts and routine Indian ruthlessness.
The message emerging from this spontaneous outpouring of raw grief and unafraid passion stands clear as day. Kashmir has suffered too long. It cries out today for freedom and the right to self-determination enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. Ironically, India lays claim to permanent membership of the United Nations' Security Council. Kashmir simply wants to decide its own fate_ a right given to it by all canons of international law.
The Indian government has perhaps kept its head buried in the sand too long. The convenient fiction of a militancy engineered by the ISI trained infiltrators into Kashmir at best sounds like an old joke too frequently told that fails even to make anyone laugh anymore. The recent events in the valley have shattered that fiction, and written in bold blocks: Azadi. As Arundhati Roy stated, 'it is the only thing Kashmir wants. Denial is delusion.' She observes and understands the meaning in the slogans that today have become the battlecry for a nascent Kashmiri revolution: "Day after day, hundreds of thousands of people swarm around places that hold terrible memories for them. They demolish bunkers, break through cordons of concertina wire and stare straight down the barrels of soldiers' machine-guns, saying what very few in India want to hear. *Hum kya chahte? Azadi*! We Want Freedom. And, it has to be said, in equal numbers and with
equal intensity: *Jeevey Jeevey Pakistan*. Long live Pakistan…Everywhere there were Pakistani flags, everywhere the cry, *Pakistan se rishta kya? La ilaha illa llah*. What is our bond with Pakistan? There is no god but Allah. *Azadi ka matlab kya? La ilaha illallah*. What does Freedom mean? There is no god but Allah…Another was *Khooni lakir tod do, aar paar jod do* (Break down the blood-soaked Line of Control, let Kashmir be united again). There were plenty of insults and humiliation for India: *Ay jabiron ay zalimon, Kashmir hamara chhod do* (O oppressors, O wicked ones, Get out of our Kashmir). *Jis Kashmir ko khoon se seencha, woh Kashmir hamara hai* (The Kashmir we have irrigated with our blood, that Kashmir is ours!). The slogan that cut through me like a knife and clean broke my heart was this one: *Nanga bhookha Hindustan, jaan se pyaara Pakistan* (Naked, starving India, More precious than life itself—Pakistan).
The street sentiment in Kashmir makes the truth about Kashmir_ which the Indian state propaganda machinery has been at pains to smother in lies_ only too obvious. The trouble in Kashmir is not about the ISI trained infiltrators fomenting an unpopular militancy. It is not about Pakistani 'terrorism' across the line of control. It is about the Kashmiris' rejection of Indian control over their land; it is about their rejection of an illegal occupation that has, over the sixty years, written their tale of woes in blood and tears; it is about an imposition of an unpopular, undemocratic and unscrupulous rule that needs the baton and the bullet to perpetuate itself; it is about the legitimate aspirations of a people who have been denied fundamental freedom; it is about foreign control that flies in the face of the right to self-determination of the Kashmiris which India itself committed to, through the promised plebiscite that was never let happen; it is about an occupation that never was, never has been, not is and never will be accepted by the people; it is about a people's desire to live the way they want, with dignity and freedom, beyond the shadow of gun-toting Indian soldiers.
India has covered up the reality in Kashmir with lies prepared by the State and fed into the public by its powerful media. Kashmiris today have broken through the fragile façade of state-authored fiction to show the world it is Kashmir against an aggressive, arrogant occupying power. The State is embarrassed by the outrage in the streets of Srinagar. In its shame-faced egotism, it intensifies its state-terror on a restive population. Kashmiris, however, have gone past the point where the hail of bullets could deter them. For them is Do or Die. Roy comments: "Raised in a playground of army camps, checkposts and bunkers, with screams from torture chambers for a soundtrack, the young generation has suddenly discovered the power of mass protest, and above all, the dignity of being able to straighten their shoulders and speak for themselves, represent themselves. For them it is nothing short of an epiphany. They're in full flow, not even the fear of death seems to hold them back. And once that fear has gone, of what use is the largest or second-largest army in the world?"
By a more finely tuned analysis, this is embarrassing not merely for India, but the international community that recognizes India as an upcoming superpower, a secular responsible democracy and an aspirant to a permanent seat in the Security Council. The US actively seeks a strategic nuclear partnership with India as a 'responsible democracy', while condemning Iran for suspected nuclear ambitions. Where is the condemnation of India's blatant human rights abuse in Kashmir? Where is the concern for the thousands killed, imprisoned, tortured with impunity by Indian troops holding their 'license to kill' approved by their Secular Democracy? Where is the censure, the international pressure, the otherwise so oft-used threat of sanctions? Where is international law? Where is the UN Charter that enshrines 'the right of self-determination of all peoples'? Where are the Security Council Resolutions calling for that long-forgotten plebiscite? Where are the champions of human rights, peace and freedom? The world's silence on Kashmir speaks loud of double standards, duplicity, hypocrisy, narrow self-interest and the merely rhetorical commitment to human rights and self-determination held by those at the helm.
What Kashmir pines for today is just what Pakistan had stood for and advocated since its inception, before things went topsy-turvy. Yet the country's U-turn on its principled stance on Kashmir and its lukewarm support to the aspiration of Kashmiri masses in the wake of its own war in the tribal north signifies the collapse of its Kashmir policy. Pakistan has failed to cash in on the moment, to reciprocate the trust and the deep ties the Kashmiris feel themselves to be held by with Pakistan. Pakistan has teetered on Kashmir, kept mum or merely feebly whimpered on crucial concerns in its pursuit of a narrowly selfish 'Pakistan First' policy conjured up in the Musharraf era. No clear condemnation of the mayhem in Kashmir has been issued, no word of support to the leaders of the freedom movement, no appeal to the international community to take notice of the unabated violence. Most conspicuously, the Pakistani media, perhaps also desirous of viewership in India and of ties with the media giant, has given no significant coverage to the recent events in Kashmir. The Kashmir freedom leaders' expressions of solidarity with Pakistan and aspirations to unite with it become embarrassing for Pakistan as it has so miserably fumbled on its tottering Kashmir standpoint.
Kashmir today stands alone, but it stands with pride and heroism soaked in blood, tears and an undying idealism. And it puts to shame the torchbearers of democracy, human rights and freedom whose vision is characterized by that 'blindspot' on Kashmir, as they narrowly pursue the agendas of self-interest. Suffering Kashmir stands tall in a world maddened by "the twisted logic of a country that needs to commit communal carnage in order to bolster its secular credentials. Or the insanity that permits the world's largest democracy to administer the world's largest military occupation and continue to call itself a democracy." (Arundhati Roy)
Maryam Sakeenah
Kashmir burns... It has been, since the maharaja's fateful manoeuvring in 1947 that sealed Kashmir's miserable plight; however, not perhaps with so much passion and fervour of the mass-man on the streets in the face of indiscriminate brutality perpetrated by the army of one of the world's biggest democracies.
The string of mass demonstrations started after Indian troops brutalized protestors against the land transfer of Kashmiri forest land for the expansion of the Amarnath Shrine that attracts hundreds of thousands of Hindu pilgrims annually. A blockade was imposed on the occupied valley as protests intensified. The streets caught fire with the shooting by Indian police, of Hurriyat leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz during a demonstration.
As Syed Ali Shah Geelani commented, the land transfer was quite a non-issue. It merely acted as the glowing splint when it is inserted in a jar of highly inflammable substance. What is there today in the streets of Kashmir is public sentiment full of hurt, ire, helplessness, frustration and anger over the reign of terror and oppression unleashed in the region since its sixty-odd year old occupation. Today, the numbers of Kashmiri prisoners languishing in Indian jails suffering torture and abuse that is obscured by India's propaganda machinery is appallingly high. Kashmiris refuse to forget the fathers, brothers and sons killed or 'disappeared', the mothers, sisters and daughters raped. And the sentiment in the streets states clearly, 'we remember.' As the victimized always do. Leaders of Kashmir's freedom fighting movement labour in prisons; others including Yasin Malik are hurt or wounded, put under house arrest or with mobility strictly limited.
Yet the tide of popular sentiment refuses to be held in check by barricades or barbed wire. The people carry their leaders on their shoulders as they march through the streets braving batons and bullets, in the face of curfews, checkposts and routine Indian ruthlessness.
The message emerging from this spontaneous outpouring of raw grief and unafraid passion stands clear as day. Kashmir has suffered too long. It cries out today for freedom and the right to self-determination enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. Ironically, India lays claim to permanent membership of the United Nations' Security Council. Kashmir simply wants to decide its own fate_ a right given to it by all canons of international law.
The Indian government has perhaps kept its head buried in the sand too long. The convenient fiction of a militancy engineered by the ISI trained infiltrators into Kashmir at best sounds like an old joke too frequently told that fails even to make anyone laugh anymore. The recent events in the valley have shattered that fiction, and written in bold blocks: Azadi. As Arundhati Roy stated, 'it is the only thing Kashmir wants. Denial is delusion.' She observes and understands the meaning in the slogans that today have become the battlecry for a nascent Kashmiri revolution: "Day after day, hundreds of thousands of people swarm around places that hold terrible memories for them. They demolish bunkers, break through cordons of concertina wire and stare straight down the barrels of soldiers' machine-guns, saying what very few in India want to hear. *Hum kya chahte? Azadi*! We Want Freedom. And, it has to be said, in equal numbers and with
equal intensity: *Jeevey Jeevey Pakistan*. Long live Pakistan…Everywhere there were Pakistani flags, everywhere the cry, *Pakistan se rishta kya? La ilaha illa llah*. What is our bond with Pakistan? There is no god but Allah. *Azadi ka matlab kya? La ilaha illallah*. What does Freedom mean? There is no god but Allah…Another was *Khooni lakir tod do, aar paar jod do* (Break down the blood-soaked Line of Control, let Kashmir be united again). There were plenty of insults and humiliation for India: *Ay jabiron ay zalimon, Kashmir hamara chhod do* (O oppressors, O wicked ones, Get out of our Kashmir). *Jis Kashmir ko khoon se seencha, woh Kashmir hamara hai* (The Kashmir we have irrigated with our blood, that Kashmir is ours!). The slogan that cut through me like a knife and clean broke my heart was this one: *Nanga bhookha Hindustan, jaan se pyaara Pakistan* (Naked, starving India, More precious than life itself—Pakistan).
The street sentiment in Kashmir makes the truth about Kashmir_ which the Indian state propaganda machinery has been at pains to smother in lies_ only too obvious. The trouble in Kashmir is not about the ISI trained infiltrators fomenting an unpopular militancy. It is not about Pakistani 'terrorism' across the line of control. It is about the Kashmiris' rejection of Indian control over their land; it is about their rejection of an illegal occupation that has, over the sixty years, written their tale of woes in blood and tears; it is about an imposition of an unpopular, undemocratic and unscrupulous rule that needs the baton and the bullet to perpetuate itself; it is about the legitimate aspirations of a people who have been denied fundamental freedom; it is about foreign control that flies in the face of the right to self-determination of the Kashmiris which India itself committed to, through the promised plebiscite that was never let happen; it is about an occupation that never was, never has been, not is and never will be accepted by the people; it is about a people's desire to live the way they want, with dignity and freedom, beyond the shadow of gun-toting Indian soldiers.
India has covered up the reality in Kashmir with lies prepared by the State and fed into the public by its powerful media. Kashmiris today have broken through the fragile façade of state-authored fiction to show the world it is Kashmir against an aggressive, arrogant occupying power. The State is embarrassed by the outrage in the streets of Srinagar. In its shame-faced egotism, it intensifies its state-terror on a restive population. Kashmiris, however, have gone past the point where the hail of bullets could deter them. For them is Do or Die. Roy comments: "Raised in a playground of army camps, checkposts and bunkers, with screams from torture chambers for a soundtrack, the young generation has suddenly discovered the power of mass protest, and above all, the dignity of being able to straighten their shoulders and speak for themselves, represent themselves. For them it is nothing short of an epiphany. They're in full flow, not even the fear of death seems to hold them back. And once that fear has gone, of what use is the largest or second-largest army in the world?"
By a more finely tuned analysis, this is embarrassing not merely for India, but the international community that recognizes India as an upcoming superpower, a secular responsible democracy and an aspirant to a permanent seat in the Security Council. The US actively seeks a strategic nuclear partnership with India as a 'responsible democracy', while condemning Iran for suspected nuclear ambitions. Where is the condemnation of India's blatant human rights abuse in Kashmir? Where is the concern for the thousands killed, imprisoned, tortured with impunity by Indian troops holding their 'license to kill' approved by their Secular Democracy? Where is the censure, the international pressure, the otherwise so oft-used threat of sanctions? Where is international law? Where is the UN Charter that enshrines 'the right of self-determination of all peoples'? Where are the Security Council Resolutions calling for that long-forgotten plebiscite? Where are the champions of human rights, peace and freedom? The world's silence on Kashmir speaks loud of double standards, duplicity, hypocrisy, narrow self-interest and the merely rhetorical commitment to human rights and self-determination held by those at the helm.
What Kashmir pines for today is just what Pakistan had stood for and advocated since its inception, before things went topsy-turvy. Yet the country's U-turn on its principled stance on Kashmir and its lukewarm support to the aspiration of Kashmiri masses in the wake of its own war in the tribal north signifies the collapse of its Kashmir policy. Pakistan has failed to cash in on the moment, to reciprocate the trust and the deep ties the Kashmiris feel themselves to be held by with Pakistan. Pakistan has teetered on Kashmir, kept mum or merely feebly whimpered on crucial concerns in its pursuit of a narrowly selfish 'Pakistan First' policy conjured up in the Musharraf era. No clear condemnation of the mayhem in Kashmir has been issued, no word of support to the leaders of the freedom movement, no appeal to the international community to take notice of the unabated violence. Most conspicuously, the Pakistani media, perhaps also desirous of viewership in India and of ties with the media giant, has given no significant coverage to the recent events in Kashmir. The Kashmir freedom leaders' expressions of solidarity with Pakistan and aspirations to unite with it become embarrassing for Pakistan as it has so miserably fumbled on its tottering Kashmir standpoint.
Kashmir today stands alone, but it stands with pride and heroism soaked in blood, tears and an undying idealism. And it puts to shame the torchbearers of democracy, human rights and freedom whose vision is characterized by that 'blindspot' on Kashmir, as they narrowly pursue the agendas of self-interest. Suffering Kashmir stands tall in a world maddened by "the twisted logic of a country that needs to commit communal carnage in order to bolster its secular credentials. Or the insanity that permits the world's largest democracy to administer the world's largest military occupation and continue to call itself a democracy." (Arundhati Roy)
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Cry, Lady Liberty!
CRY, LADY LIBERTY! – Maryam Sakeenah
Shortly after the disappearance of young Dr. Afia Siddiqui and her three minor children from Karachi in 2003, the American news channel NBC reported that she had been arrested in Pakistan 'on suspicion of facilitating money transfers for Al Qaeda.' Both Pakistani and US intelligence agencies, however, have since sworn an oath of silence over the issue. Senior Pakistani ministers have denied knowledge of her whereabouts. The Pakistani authorities have, however, insisted that Dr. Siddiqui 'was connected to Al Qaeda,' and that 'you will be astonished to know about her activities.' No evidence of these suspicious activities, however, has ever been shown the light of day.
Lord Nazir Ahmed, British MP, raised the issue in the House of Lords, highlighting the rampant human rights abuse the prisoner was subjected to. He held that this woman prisoner from Pakistan was 'physically tortured and continuously raped by the officers at the prison, to the extent that she had lost her mind.' Soon after, on July 6, British journalist and revert to Islam Yvonne Ridley who authored the book 'In the Hands of the Taliban', appealed to the Pakistanis to secure her release. She said: Today I am crying out for help – not for me, but for a Pakistan woman who you and I have never met, but she is our sister in Islam and she is in desperate need. She has been held in isolation by the Americans in neighbouring Afghanistan. As you know I was also held in Afghanistan, in prison for 10 days at the hands of the Taliban in September 2001. My story made international headlines, front page pictures and major stories on television. I was released on humanitarian grounds without charge even though I was guilty of entering the country without a passport or visa.But there has been not one word, not one paragraph about Prisoner 650 – the Grey Lady of Bagram … a murderous detention facility under the control of the US Military and intelligence services. I call her the Grey Lady because she is almost a ghost, a spectre whose cries and screams continue to haunt those who heard her."
Yvonne Ridley quoted from former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Beg who authored 'Enemy Combatant', in which he recounts: "I began to hear the chilling screams of a woman next door. My mind battled with questions I was too afraid to ask. What if it was… my wife? Eventually I did agree to say whatever they wanted me to say, to do whatever they wanted me to do. I had to finish it. I agreed to be their witness to whatever. At the end of it all, I asked them, "Why have you got a woman next door?" They told me there was no woman next door. But I was unconvinced. Those screams echoed through my worst nightmares for a long time. And I later learned in Guantánamo, from other prisoners, that they had heard the screams, too, and believed it was my wife. They had been praying for her deliverance." Other detainees from Bagram have attested to the same. In an interview on TV, a former Bagram detainee confirmed he had heard a woman's screams, and also that he had seen her. He told that the other prisoners in Bagram had gone on hunger strike for six days to pressurize those incharge to stop torturing the woman. Yvonne Ridley continued: "Today I am making a demand that the US military hands over the Grey Lady immediately. We do not know her identity, we do not know the state of her mind, we do not know the extent of the abuse or torture. What I do know is that this would never happen to a western woman – what is wrong with the US military? Don't they value a Muslim woman, is her life worthless, does she not deserve to be treated with respect? In truth I don't think any of us with a conscience can rest until she is released. Sadly, she is not the only one."
Weeks later, due to the overwhelming media attention on the issue, a frail, battered, badly wounded and immobilized Dr. Afia Siddiqui was produced in a US court. Her Lawyer Elizabeth Fink stated: "She is complaining of abdominal pain. She understands she lost part of her intestine, and suffers from continual intestinal bleeding. She has been here, judge, for one week and she has not seen a doctor, even though they (U.S. authorities) know she has been shot." In view of the fact that Dr. Siddiqui had a serious wound in her abdomen and stitches all the way up her torso, the judge ordered that she must immediately be seen by a doctor. The explanation offered for the enormous and untreated bullet wound in her abdomen was that she had been 'allegedly trying to fire on a group of U.S. troops who had come to question her in an Afghanistan prison.' How a woman who could not even move, let alone walk, talk or even lift a gun shoot straight at an armed security officer defies any explanation. Ridiculously, the U.S. prosecutor told the court in an effort to explain, that this was 'a complicated situation,' and because of her 'alleged attack on an American officer', the decrepit woman was considered a 'high-security risk.' The US authorities pull a straight blank regarding the whereabouts and condition of Dr. Siddiqui's three minor children. There have been conflicting statements about whether they are alive and if so, where. While the unforgivable brutality inflicted on 'Prisoner 650' has been shamelessly justified on the grounds of her 'suspected involvement with Al Qaeda', no amount of 'logical discourse' or 'legal argument' can ever attempt to justify how and why her baby and two toddler sons have been 'punished.' So much for America's commitment to fundamental Human Rights and basic justice.
And yet, there are those who would jump in defence of this naked viciousness and barbarism, those sitting on high seats in prestigious offices of the great and mighty empire of the United States of America. Ms. Anne Patterson, US ambassador to Pakistan writes: "Ms. Siddiqui is accused of seizing a weapon and firing_ unprovoked_ on US personnel during questioning… At no time was Ms. Siddiqui mistreated or abused in any manner whatsoever… The United States has no definitive knowledge as to the whereabouts of Ms. Siddiqui's children… She is charged in a criminal complaint filed in New York with one count of attempting to kill US officers and employees, and one count of assaulting US officers and employees. If convicted, she faces a sentence of 20 years in prison on each charge."
After 9/11, the United States granted exclusive powers to the Executive to detain suspected terrorists for indefinite periods, denying judicial review of evidence on the basis of which a suspect is detained. The appalling truth, however, is that despite years of detention, the investigating authorities have utterly failed to produce any tangible evidence about involvement in terrorism, except for a minuscule percentage. The evidence found, however, in most cases, only proved that a number of detainees were being held without having any past record of links to terrorism, on the basis of mere suspicion.
With the issuance of John Yoo's famous 'torture memos', certain methods of torture for interrogation of suspected terrorists were also licensed. These "torture memos," advocate enhanced interrogation techniques. They attempted to make these war tactics acquire legality by refuting the Geneva Conventions altogether, so that violating them was no longer required. The government has authorized coercive interrogation methods publicly for non US citizens detained outside the US. For this purpose, the State has sent foreign terror suspects to locations outside the US where coercive interrogation (even involving torture in most cases) can be carried out. The US government holds an undisclosed number of detainees (presumably over 2000) at undisclosed locations. The CIA and FBI as a matter of course hand suspects over to foreign intelligence services for intensive interrogation. One US official was reported to have said, "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."
In 2004, horrifying images from Abu Ghraib prisons in Iraq were released into the media showing humiliation and abuse of prisoners. Shortly after, similar information about widespread prison abuse at Bagram prisons in Afghanistan was revealed. It afforded a glimpse into the inhuman barbarity unleashed on suspects and detainees that had been going on unabated behind the scenes.
The fact remains, however, that the Geneva Conventions signed and ratified by the US prohibit torture of prisoners of war even if obtaining information can save lives. The evidence that torture has in fact been used in US prisons has steadily built up revulsion in the public mind regarding the USA's counter terror strategy and its unscrupulous conduct. President Bush, however, remained on denial amidst allegations of the use of torture: "The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."
Military lawyer Alberto J. Mora reported that policies allowing torture methods were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration. ABC News reported on April 9, 2008 that "the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency."
According to the New York Times, "What happened at Abu Ghraib was no aberration, but part of a widespread pattern. It showed the tragic impact of the initial decision by Mr. Bush and his top advisers that they were not going to follow the Geneva Conventions, or indeed American law, for prisoners taken in antiterrorist operations. The investigative file on Bagram showed that the mistreatment of prisoners was routine: shackling them to the ceilings of their cells, depriving them of sleep, kicking and hitting them, sexually humiliating them and threatening them with guard dogs -- the very same behavior later repeated in Iraq."
Steven C Welsh writes: "Under the Geneva Convention it is the United States as a nation which must confront its responsibility for the actions of the men and women representing it in its prisons."
The horrendous exposition of unabated use of the vilest torture on detainees, the latest of which that has come to light is the nightmarish tale of Dr. Siddiqui has left ugly, deep scars reaffirming the image of the US as a state not befitting of its gigantic role in world politics. With leadership comes responsibility. Abu Ghraib, Bagram and the suffering of Afia Siddiqui has taught us that the 'saviours' are no better than the 'terrorists' they fight. The gaping black hole of moral depravity at the heart of the War on Terror stands exposed. Perhaps uglier still is the façade of a superior civilization that the US chooses to put up, and to which Ms. Anne Patterson chooses to play along: "The US justice system is based on the abiding principle that defendants are innocent until proven guilty… We would encourage you to remain open-minded but skeptical of sensational allegations that have no basis in fact." Ms. Patterson's 'blind spot' towards the utterly miserable physical, emotional and mental state of Dr. Siddiqui who is as of yet legally unconvicted is only too obvious.
Prominent writer Bob Herbert rejects attempts at 'making over' the ugly face of the U.S like Ann Paterson has chosen to do: "... There is also the grotesque and deeply shameful issue that will always be a part of America's legacy -- the manner in which American troops have treated prisoners under their control in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. There is no longer any doubt that large numbers of troops responsible for guarding and interrogating detainees somehow loosed their moorings to humanity, and began behaving as sadists, perverts and criminals."
Abdul Malik Mujahid, understanding the degeneracy of a civilization represented through the horrors at US 'anti-terrorist' detention camps in an Islamic context, laments the loss of what Islam calls 'haya' in the West. 'Haya' implies an inner sensibility creating a sense of aversion from what is evil, obscene and indecent. It is a retraining influence that keeps the distinction between right and wrong, not letting it blur into a mishmash of confused morality. The Prophet of Islam (SAW) called it the 'distinctive feature of Islam.' Mujahid comments: "The photos of American soldiers abusing prisoners have stunned and disgusted the world. While such images shocked America, most Americans may not be able to comprehend what type of cultural threshold has been crossed in terms of dealing with Islam and Muslims. In a culture that sometimes values life less than honor, we have done the ultimate act of dishonoring people. May God forgive us. There certainly is a big cultural gap in the way people in the West deal with modesty and privacy of the body, and the way individuals in the Muslim world do, regardless of their level of Islamic practice. This Islamic sensibility of considering the human body part of a very personal realm is connected to the concept of honor, dignity and privacy. This should explain the deep pain, shock and horror over the nightmare of physical abuse and perverted sadism that went on in Abu Ghraib, (and that has victimized Dr.Afia Siddiqui and others like her). Unlike what some in America lead us to believe, no one hates America in the Muslim world because of democracy and freedom. It is the immorality of America (championed by Hollywood), along with American foreign policy which defines the conflict between the Westernized elite and religious elements in Muslim societies. Graphic images of this criminal behavior by some members of the most organized and educated army of the only superpower in the world are bound to become the most dominant images of this new "Crusade" in the collective psyche of Muslims."
Shortly after the disappearance of young Dr. Afia Siddiqui and her three minor children from Karachi in 2003, the American news channel NBC reported that she had been arrested in Pakistan 'on suspicion of facilitating money transfers for Al Qaeda.' Both Pakistani and US intelligence agencies, however, have since sworn an oath of silence over the issue. Senior Pakistani ministers have denied knowledge of her whereabouts. The Pakistani authorities have, however, insisted that Dr. Siddiqui 'was connected to Al Qaeda,' and that 'you will be astonished to know about her activities.' No evidence of these suspicious activities, however, has ever been shown the light of day.
Lord Nazir Ahmed, British MP, raised the issue in the House of Lords, highlighting the rampant human rights abuse the prisoner was subjected to. He held that this woman prisoner from Pakistan was 'physically tortured and continuously raped by the officers at the prison, to the extent that she had lost her mind.' Soon after, on July 6, British journalist and revert to Islam Yvonne Ridley who authored the book 'In the Hands of the Taliban', appealed to the Pakistanis to secure her release. She said: Today I am crying out for help – not for me, but for a Pakistan woman who you and I have never met, but she is our sister in Islam and she is in desperate need. She has been held in isolation by the Americans in neighbouring Afghanistan. As you know I was also held in Afghanistan, in prison for 10 days at the hands of the Taliban in September 2001. My story made international headlines, front page pictures and major stories on television. I was released on humanitarian grounds without charge even though I was guilty of entering the country without a passport or visa.But there has been not one word, not one paragraph about Prisoner 650 – the Grey Lady of Bagram … a murderous detention facility under the control of the US Military and intelligence services. I call her the Grey Lady because she is almost a ghost, a spectre whose cries and screams continue to haunt those who heard her."
Yvonne Ridley quoted from former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Beg who authored 'Enemy Combatant', in which he recounts: "I began to hear the chilling screams of a woman next door. My mind battled with questions I was too afraid to ask. What if it was… my wife? Eventually I did agree to say whatever they wanted me to say, to do whatever they wanted me to do. I had to finish it. I agreed to be their witness to whatever. At the end of it all, I asked them, "Why have you got a woman next door?" They told me there was no woman next door. But I was unconvinced. Those screams echoed through my worst nightmares for a long time. And I later learned in Guantánamo, from other prisoners, that they had heard the screams, too, and believed it was my wife. They had been praying for her deliverance." Other detainees from Bagram have attested to the same. In an interview on TV, a former Bagram detainee confirmed he had heard a woman's screams, and also that he had seen her. He told that the other prisoners in Bagram had gone on hunger strike for six days to pressurize those incharge to stop torturing the woman. Yvonne Ridley continued: "Today I am making a demand that the US military hands over the Grey Lady immediately. We do not know her identity, we do not know the state of her mind, we do not know the extent of the abuse or torture. What I do know is that this would never happen to a western woman – what is wrong with the US military? Don't they value a Muslim woman, is her life worthless, does she not deserve to be treated with respect? In truth I don't think any of us with a conscience can rest until she is released. Sadly, she is not the only one."
Weeks later, due to the overwhelming media attention on the issue, a frail, battered, badly wounded and immobilized Dr. Afia Siddiqui was produced in a US court. Her Lawyer Elizabeth Fink stated: "She is complaining of abdominal pain. She understands she lost part of her intestine, and suffers from continual intestinal bleeding. She has been here, judge, for one week and she has not seen a doctor, even though they (U.S. authorities) know she has been shot." In view of the fact that Dr. Siddiqui had a serious wound in her abdomen and stitches all the way up her torso, the judge ordered that she must immediately be seen by a doctor. The explanation offered for the enormous and untreated bullet wound in her abdomen was that she had been 'allegedly trying to fire on a group of U.S. troops who had come to question her in an Afghanistan prison.' How a woman who could not even move, let alone walk, talk or even lift a gun shoot straight at an armed security officer defies any explanation. Ridiculously, the U.S. prosecutor told the court in an effort to explain, that this was 'a complicated situation,' and because of her 'alleged attack on an American officer', the decrepit woman was considered a 'high-security risk.' The US authorities pull a straight blank regarding the whereabouts and condition of Dr. Siddiqui's three minor children. There have been conflicting statements about whether they are alive and if so, where. While the unforgivable brutality inflicted on 'Prisoner 650' has been shamelessly justified on the grounds of her 'suspected involvement with Al Qaeda', no amount of 'logical discourse' or 'legal argument' can ever attempt to justify how and why her baby and two toddler sons have been 'punished.' So much for America's commitment to fundamental Human Rights and basic justice.
And yet, there are those who would jump in defence of this naked viciousness and barbarism, those sitting on high seats in prestigious offices of the great and mighty empire of the United States of America. Ms. Anne Patterson, US ambassador to Pakistan writes: "Ms. Siddiqui is accused of seizing a weapon and firing_ unprovoked_ on US personnel during questioning… At no time was Ms. Siddiqui mistreated or abused in any manner whatsoever… The United States has no definitive knowledge as to the whereabouts of Ms. Siddiqui's children… She is charged in a criminal complaint filed in New York with one count of attempting to kill US officers and employees, and one count of assaulting US officers and employees. If convicted, she faces a sentence of 20 years in prison on each charge."
After 9/11, the United States granted exclusive powers to the Executive to detain suspected terrorists for indefinite periods, denying judicial review of evidence on the basis of which a suspect is detained. The appalling truth, however, is that despite years of detention, the investigating authorities have utterly failed to produce any tangible evidence about involvement in terrorism, except for a minuscule percentage. The evidence found, however, in most cases, only proved that a number of detainees were being held without having any past record of links to terrorism, on the basis of mere suspicion.
With the issuance of John Yoo's famous 'torture memos', certain methods of torture for interrogation of suspected terrorists were also licensed. These "torture memos," advocate enhanced interrogation techniques. They attempted to make these war tactics acquire legality by refuting the Geneva Conventions altogether, so that violating them was no longer required. The government has authorized coercive interrogation methods publicly for non US citizens detained outside the US. For this purpose, the State has sent foreign terror suspects to locations outside the US where coercive interrogation (even involving torture in most cases) can be carried out. The US government holds an undisclosed number of detainees (presumably over 2000) at undisclosed locations. The CIA and FBI as a matter of course hand suspects over to foreign intelligence services for intensive interrogation. One US official was reported to have said, "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."
In 2004, horrifying images from Abu Ghraib prisons in Iraq were released into the media showing humiliation and abuse of prisoners. Shortly after, similar information about widespread prison abuse at Bagram prisons in Afghanistan was revealed. It afforded a glimpse into the inhuman barbarity unleashed on suspects and detainees that had been going on unabated behind the scenes.
The fact remains, however, that the Geneva Conventions signed and ratified by the US prohibit torture of prisoners of war even if obtaining information can save lives. The evidence that torture has in fact been used in US prisons has steadily built up revulsion in the public mind regarding the USA's counter terror strategy and its unscrupulous conduct. President Bush, however, remained on denial amidst allegations of the use of torture: "The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."
Military lawyer Alberto J. Mora reported that policies allowing torture methods were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration. ABC News reported on April 9, 2008 that "the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency."
According to the New York Times, "What happened at Abu Ghraib was no aberration, but part of a widespread pattern. It showed the tragic impact of the initial decision by Mr. Bush and his top advisers that they were not going to follow the Geneva Conventions, or indeed American law, for prisoners taken in antiterrorist operations. The investigative file on Bagram showed that the mistreatment of prisoners was routine: shackling them to the ceilings of their cells, depriving them of sleep, kicking and hitting them, sexually humiliating them and threatening them with guard dogs -- the very same behavior later repeated in Iraq."
Steven C Welsh writes: "Under the Geneva Convention it is the United States as a nation which must confront its responsibility for the actions of the men and women representing it in its prisons."
The horrendous exposition of unabated use of the vilest torture on detainees, the latest of which that has come to light is the nightmarish tale of Dr. Siddiqui has left ugly, deep scars reaffirming the image of the US as a state not befitting of its gigantic role in world politics. With leadership comes responsibility. Abu Ghraib, Bagram and the suffering of Afia Siddiqui has taught us that the 'saviours' are no better than the 'terrorists' they fight. The gaping black hole of moral depravity at the heart of the War on Terror stands exposed. Perhaps uglier still is the façade of a superior civilization that the US chooses to put up, and to which Ms. Anne Patterson chooses to play along: "The US justice system is based on the abiding principle that defendants are innocent until proven guilty… We would encourage you to remain open-minded but skeptical of sensational allegations that have no basis in fact." Ms. Patterson's 'blind spot' towards the utterly miserable physical, emotional and mental state of Dr. Siddiqui who is as of yet legally unconvicted is only too obvious.
Prominent writer Bob Herbert rejects attempts at 'making over' the ugly face of the U.S like Ann Paterson has chosen to do: "... There is also the grotesque and deeply shameful issue that will always be a part of America's legacy -- the manner in which American troops have treated prisoners under their control in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. There is no longer any doubt that large numbers of troops responsible for guarding and interrogating detainees somehow loosed their moorings to humanity, and began behaving as sadists, perverts and criminals."
Abdul Malik Mujahid, understanding the degeneracy of a civilization represented through the horrors at US 'anti-terrorist' detention camps in an Islamic context, laments the loss of what Islam calls 'haya' in the West. 'Haya' implies an inner sensibility creating a sense of aversion from what is evil, obscene and indecent. It is a retraining influence that keeps the distinction between right and wrong, not letting it blur into a mishmash of confused morality. The Prophet of Islam (SAW) called it the 'distinctive feature of Islam.' Mujahid comments: "The photos of American soldiers abusing prisoners have stunned and disgusted the world. While such images shocked America, most Americans may not be able to comprehend what type of cultural threshold has been crossed in terms of dealing with Islam and Muslims. In a culture that sometimes values life less than honor, we have done the ultimate act of dishonoring people. May God forgive us. There certainly is a big cultural gap in the way people in the West deal with modesty and privacy of the body, and the way individuals in the Muslim world do, regardless of their level of Islamic practice. This Islamic sensibility of considering the human body part of a very personal realm is connected to the concept of honor, dignity and privacy. This should explain the deep pain, shock and horror over the nightmare of physical abuse and perverted sadism that went on in Abu Ghraib, (and that has victimized Dr.Afia Siddiqui and others like her). Unlike what some in America lead us to believe, no one hates America in the Muslim world because of democracy and freedom. It is the immorality of America (championed by Hollywood), along with American foreign policy which defines the conflict between the Westernized elite and religious elements in Muslim societies. Graphic images of this criminal behavior by some members of the most organized and educated army of the only superpower in the world are bound to become the most dominant images of this new "Crusade" in the collective psyche of Muslims."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)