Death by brown skin

Sunando Sen, a 46-year-old Indian immigrant, recently opened a small copying and printing business in New York City’s Upper West Side with his hard-earned savings. Described by friends as “very educated” and “so quiet, so gentle, so nice,” Sen’s American dream ended in tragedy last Thursday when Erika Menendez fatally pushed him in front of an oncoming subway train.

Menendez admitted the hate crime, explaining she “pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hindus and Muslims ever since 2001 when they put down the twin towers I’ve been beating them up.”

Never mind that Sen was raised Hindu and the 9-11 terrorist attacks were coordinated by 19 foreign hijackers primarily from Saudi Arabia.

An unbalanced, paranoid mind marinated in our oversaturated Islamophobic environment is numb to such cultural specifics and susceptible to conflate anyone appearing “Muslimy” as the “enemy.”

Although Islamophobes did not cause the NYC murder, they contaminate civil society with their toxic ideological fuel and remain a beacon for bigots, hate-mongers, and the mentally unhinged, all of whom emerge from the same diseased infrastructure.

Citizens of this dangerous, fringe minority include Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, who killed 77 individuals last summer to punish Europe’s alleged leniency towards Muslims and multiculturalism. Upon reviewing Breivik’s 1,500 page anti-Muslim manifesto, which frequently cites notable American Islamophobes, counter-terrorism expert Marc Sagemen concluded thisIslamophobic  rhetoric is “not cost free.”

The cost of such hate is mostly borne by members of the AMEMSA (Arab Middle Eastern Muslim South Asian) communities, however the tainted profit is collected by bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, co-founders of the “hate group” Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), part of the lucrative  “Islamophobia network” subsidized by inciting fear-mongering and misinformation against Muslims.

SIOA claims that it is a “human rights organization dedicated to freedom of speech, religious liberty, and individual rights; no special rights for special classes.” However, the Anti Defamation League reviewed SIOA’s activities and concluded SIOA “promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy ‘American’ values.”

In the fall, SIOA purchased inflammatory anti-Muslim ads that continue to appear in New York City and Washington D.C. metro stations and buses.  One ad reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, Defeat jihad,” suggesting all Muslims are savages. Another ad features a picture of the World Trade Center towers burning next to two Quran quotes.

In light of SIOA’s recent propaganda in NYC subway stations, it is not far-fetched to wonder if Menendez’s hate toward Sen was in some way influenced by these ads.

After news broke of Sen’s murder, Robert Spencer tweeted what sounded like a justification for senseless, anti-Muslim hate crimes: “If Muslims would stop doing evil in name of Islam and jihad, no one would respond with evil to them.”

This is typical rhetoric from Spencer, a hack whose writings are so toxic they reverberate globally and damage both national security and our relationship with Muslim communities abroad. Before her death, Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazhir Bhutto name-checkedSpencer in her biography as an individual who “uses the Internet to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam…he presents a skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps sow the seeds of civilizational conflict.”

Spencer’s blog “Jihad Watch” was cited more than 162 times in mass murderer Breivik’s manifesto.  Spencer has published the writings of Serge Trifovic, one of the leaders of the Bosnian Serbs during the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims. Spencer believes the neo-Nazi group English Defense League “deserves the support of all free people.”

Spencer’s colleague in hate, Pam Geller, who never met an anti-Muslim conspiracy theory she didn’t immediately publish as fact, believes “devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?” She also thinks President Obama is a Muslim, illegitimate son of Malcolm X who once went to Pakistan for drugs and jihad, and that the Arabic language is a spearhead for anti-Americanism. She believes stealth jihadists have infiltrated Disneyland because employees wear headscarves to work. Like Spencer, Pamela Geller once strongly endorsed the English Defense League writing, “I share the EDL’s goals… We need to encourage rational, reasonable groups that oppose the Islamisation of the West.”

In a perfect world, these rantings would be amusing fodder for an amateur comic.  However, when over 60% of Americans say they do not know a Muslim and Islam has its lowest favorability rating ever, extremists like Geller and Spencer disproportionately inform and influence the nation’s conversation and perceptions about Islam and Muslims.

According to a new quantitive analysis published by the American Sociological Review, sociologist Christopher Bail mentions Stop Islamization of America as one of the “angry and fearful fringe organizations” that “not only exerted powerful influence on media discourse about Muslims in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, but ultimately became some of the most influential mainstream groups in the field. By 2008, these fringe organizations not only permeated the mainstream but also forged vast social networks that consolidated their capacity to create cultural change.”

These Islamophobic memes do not exist in a victimless vacuum. There is a cost to such dissemination of hate.

In 2012, The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported a 300 percent increase in anti-Muslim hate groups. In 2010, the FBI reported unprecedented 50 percent rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes, with 160 reported cases. In 2011, the number dipped slightly to 157.

SPLC mentions the 2010 Ground Zero Mosque debate as the key driver for the recent surge in anti-Muslim sentiment. The controversy and subsequent protests against the Park 51 community center, which is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero, was directly manufactured and orchestrated by Pamela Geller and SIOA. Now, there are over 50 ongoing nationwide movements against allowing Muslims to build their constitutionally protected houses of worship.

Recently, a man convicted of setting fire to an Ohio mosque said Fox News convinced him all Muslims are “terrorists.”

Last August, recently defeated Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) told a town hall in Chicago that Muslims in America are “trying to kill Americans every week.” A few days later, air rifle shots were fired at a mosque in north suburban Morton Grove, Illinois. Soon after, someone hurled a 7-Up bottle filled with acid and other unspecified materials at an Islamic school in Chicago during nighttime Ramadan prayers.

Nearly 31 states have introduced an anti-sharia bill, which is about as necessary as a bill banning big-foot or unicorns.  Yet, 6 states have passed it (Louisiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Kansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma.)  The author of the bill is attorney David Yerushalmi, who serves as counsel to none other than Pamela Geller.

Islamophobia is not just a “Muslim” issue. It never was. Sadly, it is a cancer affecting all our communities.

Sen’s horrific death was yet another episode in which an innocent individual’s brown skin tragically caused him to be mistaken as an anti-American threat. Last August, White supremacist Wade Michael Page murdered six Sikh Americans at their Wisconsin temple. The first post 9-11 hate crime murder was of Arizona gas station owner Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh American specifically chosen by the murderer because he was “dark-skinned, bearded and wore a turban.”

A senseless tragedy like this affords an opportunity, requires necessity and demands urgency for diverse American communities, especially Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus, to unite in solidarity against hate and intolerance. In America, there exists space for legitimate criticism, debate, and discussion about  religion, race, and ethnicity. But we must finally confront ourselves and ask how do we, as a society, benefit from hysteria, fear and scapegoating? What do these Islamophobes inspire except division and lucrative, personal paychecks?

Yes, we give the KKK a freedom to speak their nonsense, but we as citizens and as a nation have disempowered them, denied them a mainstream platform and silenced their megaphone.

The question now at hand is how many Sens and Sodhis will it take to expose these fringe Islamophobic voices, marginalize them, and move onward, together, as they slither in shame and eventually drown in their own irrelevance. 

Source

Where rape is seen as violence

Rape cultures are nourished by norms, attitudes, and practices that trivialise, tolerate, or even condone violence against women.The legitimisation of prostitution and trafficking will only support the myth of male supremacy, increasing such crimes

A cruel and bizarre idea has surfaced since the rape of the 23-year-old student in Delhi — that prostitution should be legalised because ‘men will be men’ and, if prostitutes exist girls from ‘good’ families will not be raped.

Besides the very elitist notion that poor women should be sexually available to protect middle-class women, the idea is an insult to most men who do not have an unbridled sexual desire. Most men will not rape women if they are not obtainable otherwise. Most men, like most women, know that there is an appropriate place and time for sex and build relationships around it. They don’t see rape as sex, but rape as violence.

However, the masculinity of the minority of men, who rape women, is not questioned by their fellow men. Men are silent, even if they don’t condone acts of sexual violence and domination by other men. They do not break the unwritten code of honour among men, by speaking up or reporting sexual violence and harassment.

This gives free reign to the cult of masculinity that creates supremacy crimes. Damini (name changed) was not just raped but monstrously violated with several objects ultimately leading to her death, showing that the rapists’ actions were based on a desire to dominate and violate. The legitimisation of prostitution and trafficking will only support the myth of male supremacy, increasing such crimes.

Prostituted women do exist. The CBI admits to three million prostituted women in our country. Yet National Crime Records Bureau data shows that between 1953 and 2011, the incidents of rape went up by 873 per cent. Obviously the root cause of rape is not lack of access to sex but a hatred for women and a desire for violence to women’s reproductive parts. Perhaps this data proves that the existence of prostitution normalises a rape culture.

Rape cultures are nourished by norms, attitudes, and practices that trivialise, tolerate, or even condone violence against women. They are further normalised if there is impunity for perpetrators either due to a lack of effective legal mechanisms or apathy to prosecuting crimes against women.

ROLE OF PORNOGRAPHY

These misogynistic norms are actually being promoted by the sex industry turning huge profits. India has become the third largest user of pornography in the world. Blue movies and CDs are available at any street corner, besides of course as phone and Internet applications. For many 12-year-olds, the first sexual encounter is a pop-up character on a TV screen, being penetrated in every part of her body, crying with tears streaming down her face, yet asking for more. This confusing message socialises some boys into believing that sex is connected to violence and domination and when a woman says no she means yes.

I would be curious to know if police investigators have thought to ask Damini’s rapists if they ever watched porn and how much. The answer may require a response, in addition to punishing the individual men.

It may require looking at a multibillion dollar sex industry that is creating notions of masculinity, which are increasing, not acting as a buffer, to the violence and rape in our culture.

Source

Animal Rights in Islam

Comment: one of the most pathetic ways Islamophobes malign Muslims and Islam is to say we are cruel to animals. They misquote hadith and write absolute rubbish to try and back up their stupid points. I would like everyone to know I love dogs. I also love cats, elephants, horses and rabbits etc etc. Isn't the above a beautiful dog, subhan Allah!

Islam not only has laid down the rights for humans regardless of race, color, language and riches, but has also laid down the rights for animals. Animals, like humans are one of the creations of Allah(swt). Prophet Muhammad(saw) was not only sent as a mercy to Mankind but as a blessing to all creatures as the Quran testifies: 

We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. – [Quran 21:107]

It is encouraged for Muslim to let Animals eat of the plants that they have planted. Prophet Muhammad(saw) is reported to have said: 
 

Narated By Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "If any Muslim plants any plant and a human being or an animal eats of it, he will be rewarded as if he had given that much in charity." – [Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 73, #41] Even if an animal eats from a plant which has been planted by man, the person will receive rewards for it. Moreover, another hadith is as follows: 

Narated By Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "While a man was walking on a road. he became very thirsty. Then he came across a well, got down into it, drank (of its water) and then came out. Meanwhile he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. The man said to himself "This dog is suffering from the same state of thirst as I did." So he went down the well (again) and filled his shoe (with water) and held it in his mouth and watered the dog. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Is there a reward for us in serving the animals?" He said, "(Yes) There is a reward for serving any animate (living being)." – [Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 73, #38] & [Muslim Book 26, Chapter 39, # 5577] 

Prophet Muhammad(saw) taught people to be kind to animals. Allah(swt) rewarded the act of the person who quenched the thirst of a thirsty dog. While men were accustomed to be cruel to the animals, Prophet Muhammad(saw) by the command of Allah(swt) taught Mankind to be merciful and kind to all living things. Not only were humans given their rights, the animals too were given theirs. Islam is a religion which teaches man to be merciful towards all living things. Thus there is reward for a human even if he feeds an animal. 

Animals have many purposes and are used for such by humans. This does not mean that men have the right to treat animals the way that they want to. While people would hit their animals on the face, Islam forbids such an act. Every creation is very sensitive as far as the face is concerned. If I were to lightly tap a person on the shoulder or on the back, they would not feel offended but if I were to do the same on the face then everyone would find that offensive. Allah(swt) realizes this and thus through Prophet Muhammad(saw) such an act was strictly forbidden as seen by the hadith below: 

Narated By Salim: That Ibn 'Umar disliked the branding of animals on the face. Ibn 'Umar said, "The Prophet forbade beating (animals) on the face." – [Bukhari Vol.7, Book 67, #449] & [Muslim Book 24, Chapter 21, #5281] 

During the times of ignorance (Ja’hillah) people would cut the limbs of animals while they were alive. This was a disgusting act and Islam was the religion that brought an end to this practice. Not only this but shooting at an animal who is tied was also forbidden by Prophet Muhammad(saw). 

Narated By Ibn ‘Umar: The Prophet cursed the one who did Muthla to an animal (i e., cut its limbs or some other part of its body while it is still alive). – [Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 67, #424] 

Narated By Hisham bin Zaid: Anas and I went to Al-Hakam bin Aiyub. Anas saw some boys shooting at a tied hen. Anas said, "The Prophet has forbidden the shooting of tied or confined animals." – [Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 67, #421; #422] 

While the animal rights were being laid down by Allah(swt) through Prophet Muhammad(saw), the Prophet(saw) also narrated an incident regarding a woman who imprisoned a cat and made it starve to death. 

Narated By 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : Allah's Apostle said, "A lady was punished because of a cat which she had imprisoned till it died. She entered the (Hell) Fire because of it, for she neither gave it food nor water as she had imprisoned it, nor set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." – [Bukhari Vol.4, Book 56, #689] 

This hadith clearly suggests that being brutal towards animals is a grave sin and Allah(swt) will punish him who treats the animals without kindness. It is obligatory for the owner of the animal to feed it. Many rights have been given to animals and Muslims are required to obey these guidelines for transgression would make them sinful. While oppressing humans is wrong, Islam also teaches that oppression towards animals is wrong. 

Islam gave animals rights at a time when animal rights were not recognized. Today the world is bringing awareness towards the rights of animals whereas Islam gave them their rights more than 1400 years ago. The most famous story about being kind to animals is seen when a cat came and slept on the robe of Prophet Muhammad(saw) while he was reading the Quran to the listeners. When it was time for the Prophet(saw) to get up, instead of disturbing the cat, he cut that piece of the robe and stood up. Today who would cut of a piece of their cloth so that the cat’s sleep would be undisturbed? 

Prophet Muhammad(saw) encouraged people to be good towards the animals and forbade acts which are cruel. Oppression is an evil whether the one being oppressed is human or an animal. In Tirmidhi as well as Abu Dawood it is mentioned that Prophet Muhammad(saw) prohibited the act of inciting animals against each other. This act is practiced today as well where cocks and dogs are caused to fight with each other and people place their bets. Not only does this become a sin for it falls under the category of gambling but also because two animals are caused to fight against each other. 

There are people who claim that Prophet Muhammad(saw) ordered the killing of all dogs. If one were to read the references they give it is indeed true that such an order was given. However these people will never quote the hadith which explains why such an order was given. 

Ibn Mughaffal reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and then said: what is the trouble with them (the people of Medina)? How dogs are nuisance to them (the citizens of Medina)? He then permitted keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds. In the hadith transmitted on the authority of Yahya, he (the Holy Prophet) permitted the keeping of dogs for (the protection of) herds, for hunting and (the protection of) cultivated land. – [Muslim Book 10, Chapter 31, #3814] 

When one reads this hadith one gets to learn about the context of the order. The people of Medina complained that the dogs were being a nuisance to them. This is just like today where many countries have problems with street dogs. There have been many cases where these street dogs have bitten people and transmitted diseases like Rabies. Many have even died from this disease. Due to the complains by the people regarding these stray dogs, Prophet Muhammad(saw) ordered that such dogs who are hazardous to the people should be killed. Back in those days there were not any animal shelter facilities and thus this was the only way to safeguard the people. The hadith further on explains that all dogs were not to be killed and the permission to keep dogs was also given. 

Moreover, Prophet Muhammad(saw) also instructed men not to overburden their domestic animals. Burdening a donkey with more load than that which he can easily carry is again a wrongful practice which was forbidden by Allah(swt). Even while sacrificing the animals, it is told that we are to use sharp knives and not blunt ones for the latter would cause pain and discomfort to the animals. Some people have suggested that the Islamic method of slaughtering the animal is cruel and should be stopped. This however was proven to be untrue as the animal dies a painless death. A study was carried out at the School of Veterinary Medicine by Professor Wilhelm Schulze and Dr. Hazim to detect the pain an animal feels when he is slaughtered by the Islamic way. The EEG recorded showed that with the Islamic way, the animal felt no pain and it was observed that most of the blood was thrown out of the body thus making the meat more hygienic as opposed to the captive bolt pistol stunning method. The conventional method was also observed to be painful to the animal. 

The earth has been made for all the creatures that inhabit it and thus they are given their due rights by Islam. 

And the earth hath He appointed for (His) creatures. – [Quran 55:10] 

Islam takes great care when laying down its rules and regulation and has made sure that men do not behave with cruelty towards them. Even in a state of war, the Muslims are prohibited from killing the animals in the lands of the enemies and are also prohibited to burning or cutting down trees for no reason. Indeed Islam is a mercy for everyone. It is not only a religion but a complete way of life which even secures the rights of animals.

- Ebrahim Saifuddin Source

Nouman Ali Khan: To My Angry Muslim Brother

Hear hear!

Average Muslim guy??

So, a lot of people have this pretentious bio that they have to use for conferences and events and the like. If you’re looking for that, click here. If you’re looking for who I really am, read on.

I grew up a pretty typical Muslim guy, to be honest. Besides the fact that I had a ton of non-Muslim relatives, because my dad is an Irish-American convert, everything was pretty standard. I used to go to weekend Islamic school, though my mom was pretty active at home with teaching. I have three sisters (two older, one younger) and a brother (older) that really molded a lot of who I am today.

I remember going to Islamic school for middle school. I remember Islamic studies class, Quran and Arabic class, the Muslim atmosphere. I remember going abroad to study with my brother in a program in Makkah during some summers. I remember going to Islamic conferences, I remember praying because I was told to, fasting because everyone else in the family was, going to taraweeh prayers at night. I remember it all, very vividly, like someone remembers the exactly indescribable flavor of a beautifully baked vanilla cupcake.

And, like a lot of young Muslims, I remember hating it. A lot.

I wanted to be who I was, I wanted to do what I wanted. I knew my limits, and I was sick and tired of the rules. I wasn’t going to hurt anyone else, I just wanted to live life, and the laundry list of religious things I had to do (and the list of things I couldn’t do) really made it tough.

So, when I got expelled from Islamic school midway through my freshman year in high school, I entered into the promised land - public high school. All of the fantasies that us private school kids dreamed about were there - and more! Girls, friends, parties, being on a real sports team, dances, not having to do anything religious. It felt awesome, it really did.

But living at home was still hampering my fun. It’s hard to come back from a friends house smelling like smoke when you live in a Muslim household. My relationship with my parents deteriorated to near nonexistence. Forced hellos, forced goodbyes - I always had love for them, but didn’t want to play the role of a good son. So, I did what a lot of us do when we don’t like dealing with reality - I ran away.

For a few years, actually, I lived away from home. Stayed with friends and their families, perpetuating this sob story about how Islam is too tough and how I just wanted to be a normal American kid. Even tried other religions. Church was interesting, wasn’t used to singing in a place of worship, and it was kinda embarrassing that everyone else knew the words except for me. But, I’ll admit, not being judged was nice.

So, after years of living a lifestyle of hedonism (serving the self, following desires blindly), I felt a new feeling. I had become accustomed to feeling awesome, feeling carefree, feeling fun. But this new feeling felt different. It felt empty. It felt tired. It felt dead.

I think it was my heart. Actually, I know it was my heart.

I tried to shake it, the dead weight in my chest, holding me back from furthering who I had become. I remember sitting in the parking lot of Woodfield Mall after work, one day. I went to buy a Christmas gift for my friend Tori. The deafening silence of the Chicago snowfall giving me a rare clarity. I had a weird, fleeting thought of who I’d become in the past 4 years, and I realized that I had taken my relationship with my Creator, and shattered it. I was destroying my heart, like sweets that taste delicious destroy the teeth of someone who eats them a lot - all for the sake of pleasing myself. 

The social scene, the girls, the popularity, the parties, the drinking, the smoking - all that had become my God. And so, the meaning of the phrase we were taught since we were kids “There is nothing worthy of worship except for Allah,” came to life. I had sacrificed worshiping the Lord that created and continued to bless me, and instead began to worship myself. My desires took precedence, sacrificing any and everyone who loved me along the way. A lot of you know exactly what I mean.

Tears didn’t fall, actually, but my heart did. Right into my stomach, giving me a sharp pain, something I hadn’t felt in a long time. It was there, in the middle of retail purposelessness that I realized - we have a purpose.

I’m not writing this to gain sympathy, or to impress anyone with a history that I really regret. I just want people to know where I’ve come from. A lot of people see me in person, or on a stage or minbar somewhere, or (the worst) on YouTube, and they think “he has no idea what I’m going through.” I may not know exactly what you’re going through, but I’m willing to bet that we can have a conversation about it.

I look back and regret what I’ve done. I really do. That’s part of the reason that I try to serve. I feel that if I don’t do my best to serve my community and our humanity, that I will be held to severe account by Allah.

After Prophet Musa went through his entire life of test and trial and tribulation, a difficult path to Allah, when he finally met Him in the Valley of Tuwa, Allah told him that all of the events in his life were preparation for something bigger.

“And I’ve prepared you for myself.” 20:41  Source

How not to think about violence against women: Noopur Tiwari

I woke up in Paris last weekend to the news of the Delhi protests. I felt relieved. People are not just watching or suffering quietly anymore, I thought to myself. I wanted to be there too, out in the streets of Delhi. For all those times I had to suffer sexual harassment in Delhi, I want to be part of this churning for change now.

My Parisian friends asked me what was going on. And I told them about the new “national outrage” and the stories that had been stoking the anger. That’s when I realised I needed to make a list. What was informing my idea of what’s going on? These stories making it to the headlines, do they have something in common?

Yes, they do have one very obvious thing in common. They are all “sensational” news items. They are either:

-gang rapes;
-cases with voyeuristic descriptions of how women are stripped or paraded naked;
-rapes that involving a celebrity;

-rapes ending in suicide, murder or mutilation.

We need to be careful here. These stories “sell” better than other reports of violence against women. They fire up people easily and the most recent has even triggered a ‘movement’. Awareness is a good thing half-baked awareness is not. While we are in the mood to fight for change let’s also be aware of the risks we’re running.

By highlighting only these sensational stories, we are making only these rapes seem “real” and making other, more common forms of rape, such as acquaintance rape or marital rape, seem “unreal” or not serious enough to require strict action. Let’s not forget the crimes against women that are being committed every day but not making it to headlines. The suffering of those women also deserves outrage.The Indian media has made a huge effort to break a common rape myth: that women “invite” sexual assault or harassment and that their life is “ruined” if they are raped. This has made a difference to the way in which we talk about victims and survivors. We slam the Khap leaders for saying rapes happen because women fail to do enough to shield themselves from uncontrollable male desire. We make Sheila Dikshit eat her words for saying a woman who is out very late at night is being too adventurous. We give room to “survivors” on television rather than feel sorry for “wrecked victims”. That’s perfect. But we still haven’t realised that the way we talk about the perpetrators of sexual crimes remains seriously flawed.

Rapists are being called “crazed animals” who cannot control their vile sexual impulses and anger. We’ve already heard reports in the media about how Ram Singh was a “volatile man” and his friends call him “mental”. One report says, “Singh is a cold and remorseless”. In fact, we are constantly trying to classify the perpetrator an outsider, someone on the fringes, a monster. Even the Prime Minister in his address spoke of “monstrous crimes”. But rather than say “they are beasts” we should really be saying “they are men”. That brings the responsibility of the crime squarely back on us, for tolerating societal norms that have led to a fierce culture of violence against women.

“When we are forced to confront the reality of a real live rapist, the discourses of both bestiality (“these people are animals!”) and madness are both summoned up, establishing a trend of constantly pushing the rapist to the bounds of society, in order not to have to recognise the one in our workplace, our home, our bed.”

 (“Rape Crisis. Women Against Violence Against Women”. Capetown Trust.)

Delhi Police Commissioner, Neeraj Sharma, said on TV that the recent Delhi gang rape case will be treated as “rarest of rare”. The media let him get away too easily! By calling this case “rare” the police is trying to say “no one is responsible”. Speaking of this crime as an aberration, leads to the idea, that no one could have done anything about it.

“By presenting stories of violence against women as separated isolated events, the news media reinforces the idea that the violence was an isolated pathology of deviance. Maintaining this mirage of individual pathology, the news media denies the social roots of violence against women and absolves the larger society of any obligation to end it.”

(“Monsters, playboys, virgins and whores: Rape myths in the news media’s coverage of violence” Shanon O’Hara, 2011.)

There is another dangerous trend in these reports. The stories being played up are often about victims from the middle class and rapists from poorer sections. In the recent Delhi gang rape case, the victim was a medical student and the prime accused a bus driver. In the Bombay Purkayastha case, the woman was a lawyer and the criminal a security guard. In both cases, these men wanted to “teach a lesson” to these women, both women were “better off” than them. In the Rueben and Keenan case, the press talked of “national rage” and here’s how the accused were described in a paper: “One of them is a labourer, another is a barber while the rest are unemployed, police said.”

A fear psychosis is building up about these “other” men from weaker social classes who are turning against educated, free women. The idea taking root is that these social classes are full of sexual deviants and more and more depraved men are attacking innocent, free thinking, middle class women. In reality, let’s not forget, that these are not the only rapes that are being committed, they are simply the only ones being reported in greater numbers.

With each rape case that gets wide coverage, the anger and the hysteria multiplies. “Hang the rapists in public” is the common refrain one hears on the social media. One particularly violent set of images, where a mob lynches a rapist in Lebanon, was doing the rounds on Facebook. Someone wondered why we weren’t doing the same to rapists in India. And sure enough, “national rage” led to the lynching of as many as five men for sexual harassment in Jharkhand. One journalist was shot dead by the police in a protest in Imphal. The media really needs to tread very carefully now. There’s a thin line between media activism and whipping up hysteria. The protesters have to be cautious too. Saying no to violence cannot be done with more violence.

There is still a great deal that is not said and not reported in the media about violence against women. We need to start making room for the stories that have been ignored or forgotten as we go along. Our fervour to get justice for women is well-meaning and our media is trying to make sense of it all. But our anger and emotions can also be manipulated. Let’s not forget that there will be sane voices but also misled ones. There will be TRP wars, lumpen elements and populist appropriation that will keep adding distortions to the larger picture. As individuals, whether we work for the media or consume it, we will have to constantly scrutinise what we are saying, why we are saying it and what it is leading to.

(Noopur Tiwari is a journalist in Paris.) source

Never Give Up Hope - Nouman Ali Khan