This blog is best viewed with the latest browser and an open mind!

Thursday, April 02, 2009

The coming dark age

I received a disgusting and painful video, forwarded by a young acquaintance. It shows the brutal killing - in public - of a young girl. The clip - showing the girl actually mercilessly beaten to death with fists, kicks, and stones - was impossible to watch in its entirety and I certainly could not bear to keep the sound on. More horrifying was the obvious: Someone had the time, the nerve, and a clear viewing spot from which he could film the entire process. Worse, one could spot some among the murderous mob holding cellphones in their hands and filming the scene while kicking and hitting the girl. Comments on my Facebook, where I posted my immediate reaction to it, indicate that others were as horrified. But FB is no criterion: After all, those who can and do comment on it are more than likely to be birds-of-a-feather (although, admittedly, some of our closest acquaintances are springing surprises on us in this area nowadays). The girl's crime was not clear - at least from the part of the video that I could bear to see. Conjectures among viewers ranged from charges of adultery to issues like being 'improperly' dressed or even to having ventured out without a mahram, all of which have been used as grounds for perpetrating violence against women. That the video was made and distributed by the perpetrators of this heinous act, is obvious ... for no one in their right minds (and, thus, opposing such a deed) could have survived that crowd. Any outcry or hint of sympathy and the chap would have met similar treatment. So why would they make such a video? Certainly not for record keeping (although the Nazis did keep detailed records of their atrocities, so one can't completely ignore the possibility). The release of it on the Internet was obviously done to instill fear among the whole society. I was unable, without sound - and I was NOT going to turn that on after the first scream that pierced my ears - to ascertain where this video was shot. The sender, too, despite having heard all of the soundtrack, could not identify the language or dialect. But it was widely believed by many that this was most likely an act of Islamic Fundamentalists. Wrong! Fundamentalism is the new face of all religions. In this case the girl was reportedly on the 'wrong side' for her alleged conversion to Islam for love. Her name, Du'a Khalil - (meaning 'The Prayer of Abraham') - and surname, Aswad, which brings another stone to mind - further underscored life's ironies. Oh .. so now that we know that it wasn't a Muslim mob, shall we heave a sigh of relief, happy at the fact that 'our kind' is not involved … for once? Does this exonerate the Muslim fanatics in any way? Can we not look at this, and at what is happening at our shrinking border, to extrapolate the danger present in Pakistan so that something can be done before it's too late? I knew that even discussing such matters can earn the wrath of some elements, but I'd always thought that that would be personal or party anger. However, soon after seeing the horrible video (it seems to have become hot recently, though the incident is a couple of years old), came RSF's report on Swat which made such discussions almost a sin: Maulana Sufi Muhammad, the founder of TNSM, told Reporters Without Borders that he believed in press freedom. He nonetheless also claimed that the Sharia forbids discussing past events, including the actions of Taliban activists. Right! I urge you to read the 6-page Swat Report here. (It's a PDF file so you can download it and read at leisure.)

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Anonymous Aslam said...

Disgusting, it makes me angry and turns my stomach. People participating in this should be brought to justice immediately. A human was murdered and bystanders had the audacity to record it, so low have we sunk. You are right they distribute recordings like this to instill fear.

I recall a t-shirt writing I saw you wear once, something like Oh ALLAH protect me from your followers, Amen to that.

02 April, 2009 16:36

Blogger Irfan said...

No words can describe the feelings. I am least bothered to know the details of what the girl did, as nothing would warrant such a treatment to a human being. And this case the girls obviously did nothing wrong except exercising her right to live a life of her choice. You are very right that fundamentalism is not a problem of Islam; it is a problem of every organized religion. The intensity and level of insanity shown may vary. Now the question that remains unanswered is: What can be done before it is too late, if something can be done at all?

02 April, 2009 19:47

Anonymous Anonymous said...

All fundamentalist religions are equally bad, but the evidence that some are more equal than others, is piling up at a rapid rate. Lets switch back to the Taleban for a moment:

03 April, 2009 19:28

Blogger Sidhusaaheb said...

Of late, as you are probably aware, there have been videos posted on websites like youtube, which depict violence for the sake of violence...No other reason at all...

03 April, 2009 20:29

Blogger Neena said...

Ironic, I’m not surprised a bit- they killed our woman leader, kills civilians, kills police, kills army jawans, use arms to harass kids, burn girls schools and our powerless government and shameless Army make deals with them.

03 April, 2009 22:19

Blogger Zakintosh said...


Several organizations have called for a Meeting at Karachi Press Club 3 PM Protest & Demo 4 PM against Talibanization and the Swat incident. Please join us. This requires a strong show of solidarity.

04 April, 2009 08:18

Anonymous Nuzti , Toronto said...

I have no words to express my feelings about the barbaric treatment of women in both incidents. Let this be a wake up call for all Pakistanis for times ahead if no action is taken. Inaction is not an option anymore! Each and every Pakistani must join in to register their protest and force change!
This is not a man or woman issue, it is a human rights issue and to hear some people justifying the punishment is beyond belief. Who are these people? And what dark ages are they living in?
Both incidents lead to one conclusion- the Mullah in every relegion is a horrible person!!!

04 April, 2009 21:31

Anonymous Citizen X said...


The video looked like vigilantism to me.

Vigilantism is not Islam nor is it Sharia Law.


08 April, 2009 15:35

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assalamalikum. Before you post such blog please find out the detail about this girl. She is 17 year old Dua khalil. She belongs from a kurdish yazidi sect with there beliefs in christianity. She was in love with a sunni muslim guy and wanted to marry him. Her Yazidi family killed her cause they felt she brought shame to them by becoming muslim.

08 April, 2009 21:48

Blogger Zakintosh said...

@citizen x - Absolutely! Sadly, such vigilatism is being practiced most often by religious fundamentalists, so much so that it has become linked exclusively to such movements in most minds.

08 April, 2009 23:56

Blogger Zakintosh said...

@ anonymous: Before you post such comments please read the post carefully: It clearly states:
A) ... the girl was reportedly on the 'wrong side' for her alleged conversion to Islam for love. Her name, Du'a Khalil ...
B) it provides a link to Wikipedia which spells out that the girl was a jurd/yazidi
C) that it was not a muslim act

Are you 'hard of reading', too?

09 April, 2009 00:19

Anonymous Citizen X said...

Vigilantism is not Sharia.

So a blanket condemnation of Islam, Sharia courts and punishment is not justified.


09 April, 2009 14:48

Anonymous Citizen X said...



But the question is how do you curb this religious vigilantism?

By making the religious fundamentalist and would be judges ineffectual.

Remove the politics out of Shariah and implement it as it should be. Sharia or Islam should not be a tool to score brownie points with the public as our politicians do.

Imagine Sharia law regarding zina implemented in Pakistan. The law demands for four witnesses to the actual penetration, and scourging when four witnesses testified to actually having seen the penis enter the vagina past the depth of the male's circumcision scar.

Accusing and not providing the four witnesses results in scourging of the accuser and having him blacklisted for being a witness in the court again.

Imagine if the full letter of the law was implemented.


09 April, 2009 15:19

Blogger Zakintosh said...

@citizen x

Sharia is too vaguely defined

Legal scholar L. Ali Khan explains that "the concept of sharia has been thoroughly confused in legal and common literature. For some Muslims, sharia consists of the Qur'an and Sunnah. For others, it also includes classical fiqh. Most encyclopedias define sharia as law based upon the Qur'an, the Sunna, and classical fiqh derived from consensus (ijma) and analogy (qiyas).This definition of sharia inappropriately lumps together the revealed with the unrevealed. This blending of sources has created a muddled assumption that scholarly interpretations are as sacred and beyond revision as are the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Qur'an and the Sunnah constitute the immutable Basic Code, which should be kept separate from ever-evolving interpretive law (fiqh). This analytical separation between the Basic Code and fiqh is necessary to" dissipate confusion around the term Sharia.

As for "The law demands for four witnesses to the actual penetration, and scourging when four witnesses testified to actually having seen the penis enter the vagina past the depth of the male's circumcision scar." ... where and how close would they all have to be in order to see this? Unless of course if it were on streaming video on a large screen via a camera placed 2"-3"directly above the couple's genitals. Tricky, I iimagine.

Most of these laws need to be brought up to date ... after all they ARE man-made

09 April, 2009 20:46

Anonymous Citizen X said...


>Sharia is too vaguely defined

That depends on who defines Shari’ah and what is their real agenda. Coercion, compulsion, power, tyranny or justice, duty, and being mindful of Allah!

The shari'ah is a path for individuals to follow. For those individuals who are also entrusted with the administration of common affairs, it provides clear guidance on how to honor those trusts. It
does not in any way set forth any "government." Muslims apply it to govern their own affairs, both individual and collective.

Shari'ah law cannot be applied to non-muslims. Muslims are charged by Islam to protect and defend other communities and preserve to them their God-given right to govern themselves according to laws of their own choosing, their properties, their religion if they have one, and their security from aggression and coercion of all forms.

The mandate of Islam is for universal liberty. "There is no coercion in religion." That statement is complete in itself and is completely unqualified, it means exactly what it says: there is no
coercion/compulsion in religion, period.

In regards to the four witness, tricky indeed, unless you make a confession or you view it in pornography!


13 April, 2009 13:04

Blogger Zakintosh said...

@citizen x (who has provided the Google Search Page as the link to his nick): If you speak with conviction, at least identify yourself. Or, remain anonymous but not link to pointless pages. I consider the discussion as serious enough for both of us to engage in, without frivolity.

You actually support the essence of my statement about Shariah being too vaguely defined by stating that there are too many versions and interpretations of it. Laws cannot be based or implemented if each sect, subsect, or even individuals - since religious texts frequently speak to individuals - can interpret them any which way.

Of course, such a 'personalized' situation can be part of an anarchist society, which is fine :-)Since you have written with such conviction (and possible knowledge) about Shariah, I think I - and others reading this post - may benefit from a not-too-long (and 'referenced') comment, by you or someone else reading this, on what "Shariah" means and where does one derive this meaning of it from.

I have done a post on the subject and hope to see you there.

28 April, 2009 14:06


Post a Comment

<< Home