This is in response to the article Why blame the victim by Mantasha Bint Rashid

A couple of days ago a piece on the fallacious outlook of our society towards women was penned down by Ms Mantasha bint Rashid. In the said article the author had mentioned about the collective attitude of our society towards crimes against woman-blaming woman for the crimes perpetuated against her. A sexist blame culture. Although the argument needs our sincere contemplation, it sure seems visceral in its standing as put forward by the author. The author has argued that the stoicism of women vis a vis domestic violence is a result of two factors. One, her financial dependence on the male, and second, the acceptance of violence against women as a commonplace in our culture. Regarding the first argument by the author, it is not absolutely veracious. Domestic violence against working women is prevalent in Western countries where woman who are mostly financially independent suffer violence in domestic life. In fact, studies show that working women are subjected to more domestic violence in India, (The Hindu, Oct 29, 2009). The author needs to contemplate that wedlock is actually a merger of attitudes, emotions, and considerations. The gist of the argument here is that a financially independent woman can counteract violence more effectively. And how? Throw caution to winds, pack her bags, rent a separate flat, et al. It leads to mammoth social repercussions. Western society has become a virtual black hole of social cohesion irrespective of the financial independence of the womenfolk. Divorces are profound commitments than marriages. On the other hand, in our society, the author has overlooked the role of women in violence against women. I think she will agree that domestic violence is also the result of negligence and insistence of women at the domestic front kyonki saas bhi kabhi bahu thi et al. If a husband maltreats his wife there are no appreciable cases of support from the other woman of the household to the sufferer. Regarding the second argument we must conclusively accept that our society is victim (by choice) of the relegio-cultural see saw effect. What I mean by see saw effect is that in different societies, religion and culture experience changes in dominancy over the other. For example in our society culture dominates religion in context of women affairs and empowerment issues. Sometimes, the most religious persons, especially women (Sorry Mantasha), find it ill omen to meet the first person as woman on their way to home, office etc. Religion may have magisterial influence in families but as far as rights of women granted by the same religion are concerned, we are ignorant. Women on the other hand find time to check fashion catalogues and glossies but dont deem it necessary to get acknowledged about their rights in constitution and religion. Islam, the religion of egalitarianism, a religion which makes no distinction on the basis of color, sex, nationality, financial status, where the Prophet(saw) stands up in respect whenever Fatima(as) passes by him, a religion that authenticates the lofty position of Zainab bint Ali, Rabia Basri, Masooma e Qom, etc is relegated to ritualism and identity. It is an ethical imperative to shun cultural prejudices against women and accept Islam as whole in its social and cultural obligations.

Regarding the statement of author that we have equated women with a repository of honor, she should take it in a complimentary way than otherwise. Our society has no reservations in maintaining that women stand up as symbols of honor. But it seems facile on the part of the author to take the statement in a different perspective without putting it forward in an analytic way. Even though our society equates the familial and social honor with women, we have done little to substantiate this outlook. Crimes against women are on the rise. Murders, rapes, date rapes, molestation, acid attacks are becoming a common thing in our society. Although, the author has blamed the society for ascribing the guilt to the victim, she has given an attitude in her writing of going to the other extreme. A crime is result of irresponsibility. By subjecting our women and also (sometimes) by women subjecting themselves to vulnerable situations crimes occur. A woman molested while walking in the middle of the night in Delhi from a cinema theatre is responsible for misjudgment in her situation while the criminal responsibility lies with the perpetrators of that crime. On the same lines a person walking with briefcase of cash and jewellery in the middle of night in areas of disrepute is guilty of misjudgment in his endeavor. Similarly, the parents of a girl child who is molested by her teacher at his home are responsible in judgment as are the teachers wife, parents, and siblings. Islam doesnt allow these interactions from both sexes which makes womenfolk vulnerable to crime. Why do we allow our daughters and siblings to present themselves in these situations? Why are we allowing our brothers, friends, acquaintances for the same? Cant a girl be educated under a female teacher? Cant we encourage a protected environment in these cases? Yes, we have to relieve ourselves of the hypocritical attitude which makes us identify ourselves as Muslims while being culturally primitive. Erroneously, the author has accused our society as one while male libido is celebrated and women are perceived as an object of sex purely on her clothing. The author has further termed our panacea as modest dressing. The author at the start of her article had protested against unwanted stares and gestures. That clearly answers her dilemma in the making. Dress and clothing play a role in the outlook of people. Has a policeman been ever mistaken for a doctor? You never wear casuals at presentations. I dont mean my argument in absolute but in relative way. There is no denying the fact the dress plays an important factor in the attitude of people towards the wearer. Chauvinism to counteract chauvinism seems to be the mantra of the author which is clearly indicated by questioning and urging the reader on the traditional upbringing of our society. Why dont we ask our baby girls if she has any male classmates seems a classic counteractive or corrective to our traditional, Atta boy, you got girl classmates? Both these attitudes are counterproductive. While the traditional reeks of chauvinism the latter seems to accept it and impose on the same lines. Besides, statics prove that a major percentage of rapes are committed by men whom the women know and interact. A survey by Ministry of Justice England shows that around 90 per cent of victims of the most serious sexual offences in 2012 knew the perpetrator. Instead of impressing these attitudes upon the tender and fecund clay, we can use productive methods of upbringing our children. After all, egalitarian society doesnt equate with equal number of relationships among the two sexes. It is not confrontational in nature but co operational in pursuit. Unchecked interaction among the sexes is also counterproductive to both. The attitude prescribed by the author is the same one that led to the downfall of the western societies. This confrontational instead of corrective attitude led to misnomer called empowerment of

women in the West. Empowerment, where a village belle had to shun her clothes in metropolitan cities to be equated with men, empowerment where woman has become a commodity whose body and emotions can be used to sell products, empowerment whose results are antithetical to justice. Liberal sexualization of societies is detrimental in all societies.

Furthermore, the author needs to contemplate the correctness of some social symbols. A woman may be equated with physical fragility but why cant she symbolize the same in terms of intelligence, hard work etc. Dont our more successful female siblings inspire us imbibe the aforesaid qualities. Yes, they do and in pertinent situations will continue to do so. After all, in our present society woman get more kudos on their achievements than do their counterparts. Fathers promise their daughters scooties on successful completion of exams, girls are encouraged to seek scholarships, newspapers carry congratulatory pieces on birthdays of girls, and still counting. The author has maintained that nature has bestowed different qualities on both the sexes. It follows that duties may differ too. But with our apron strings tied to cultural dominance we forget that Islam recommends cooperation of the highest order among sexes. Hazrat Ali(as) used to assist Hazrat Fatima(as) at her domestic chores, following the example of Prophet(saw) with Khadija(as). How our relegio cultural outlook has become constrained. A few years ago a reputed Islamic scholar was shocked while learning that Ayatollah Khomeini (ra) never asked for assistance in domestic affairs from his wife, he used to get meals from the kitchen himself, wash his utensils, lay his bed etc. besides assisting his wife. Terming it as ignorance he shunned the circle of sympathizers of the said cause. This is a perfect example reflecting our blinkered vision. But is it too much to ask the womenfolk that if a man toils during the day for livelihood, can he expect the food cooked back at home? We have to be accommodating with the objective of family felicity. The need of the hour is not movements like one billion rising but translating these movements and initiatives to eradicate cultural prejudices, to educate women on their rights, to implement imperatives in the legislature for women empowerment but also to stick to our egalitarian values prescribed by Islam. I conclude with a hadith of the Prophet (saw), "Women are the twin Halves of men. None but a noble man treats women in an honorable manner, and none but an ignorant treats women disgracefully."

Mohsin Ali ali.thefoundation@gmail.com