Professional
Sports & Muslim Women Athletes
By Siddique Malik
www.spreadfreedom.com
US
Had Mr. Shahid Athar restricted
his comments (Opinion, Nov. 4) to answering the
question I had raised in my response (Opinion,
Oct. 14) to his original assertion (Opinion, Sept.
30) that the rising Indian tennis player Sania
Mirza is facing a dilemma over her choice of her
sports attire, it would been more appropriate
than the typical mullah-style diatribe that he
unleashed against me and my website.
My question was simple: What proof did Mr. Athar
have that Ms. Mirza considered the insecurities
of the Muslim communities’ self-declared,
ever-present custodians of morality, a dilemma
for her? Instead of providing this proof, he assumed
that I had begged him to pass a judgment on my
contempt (of which I am proud) of omnipresent
exploiters of Islam. He decided to judge my question
rather than meet it with a plausible answer.
In his fury against the contents of my website,
he writes, “Instead of inviting others to
Islam, he (meaning myself) encourages his readers
to choose any religion they want to follow.”
How can you invite ‘others to Islam’
without respecting their freedom to choose ‘any
religion’? Or, is he inspired by the technique
used by Saudi Arabia and its now thankfully moribund
murderous gang of cohorts, the Taliban: if you
are not a Muslim, you are so at your own risk?
Mr. Athar’s ‘poor comprehension’
is obvious from his comment on my website’s
condemnation of the treatment of Christians in
Saudi Arabia, in which he equates it with the
“treatment of Muslims in Abu Gharaib or
the Guantanamo Bay prison”. The horror of
Abu Ghraib was the work of a few rogue elements
in violation of the standards espoused by a great
army of a great country. Contrarily, Christians
and other non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia are routinely
arrested on government’s orders for simply
practicing their faith. Has Mr. Athar ever been
arrested in America for pulling out his prayer
mat at O’Hare or the Convention Center in
Indianapolis? America would be ashamed of itself,
if this ever happened.
While the USA is within its rights to hold, in
Guantanamo Bay or any other place under its jurisdiction,
those who actively sought to harm its interests,
its government has no right to violate the values
cherished by its people while treating prisoners.
However, in an open society, government’s
derelict behavior cannot continue forever, and
any smudge inflicted upon such a society’s
conscience is eventually wiped away. On the other
hand, Christians who have been thrown into the
darkness of Saudi Arabian Guantanamo Bays, for
simply practicing their faith, have no such hope.
Just because in a suppressive society news is
controlled, it does not mean that the seized Christians
are ensconced in the Club Med. Ignorance is a
bliss and the blissful Mr. Athar thinks that all
is well in Saudi Arabia.
America’s bleeding heart Muslims who are
now complaining about the current administration’s
high handedness must take some responsibility
for it. Considering the tightness of the 2000
presidential race, it can be said with a great
amount of credence that the Muslim voters played
a significant role in putting Mr. Bush in the
White House. In 2000, many Muslims voted for him
simply because his opponent’s running mate
was a Jew. The fact that this Jew was one of the
most decent politicians of all times who would
have done his utmost to stop abuse of power at
all levels, did not seem to matter to these voters.
It’s about time Muslims emerge from the
illusion of the viability of mixing religion with
asymmetrical elements like politics.
Of course no venting of a self-declared ‘protector’
of Islam is complete without pillorying Israel
and the Jewish people, in an absurd disregard
of the irrelevance of these two entities to the
issue of the moment, and Mr. Athar’s ‘masterpiece’
is no exception. However, I still want to know,
how did he involve Israel with the matter of Ms.
Mirza’s freedom to choose her attire?
I would like your readers to evaluate the language
used by Mr. Athar in the last sentence of his
remarks of Nov. 4. He definitely has the freedom
to use such words but while doing so he reveals
a lot about himself. These words are so indecent
and so much smack of perversion that I cannot
even quote these words. My only regret is that
he used this repulsive language supposedly in
the name of Islam, thus denigrating a great religion.
This highlights the level of moral decay to which
some Muslims of the world have sunk. My fair-minded
fellow Muslims (I know you are out there), our
work is clearly cut out: We must continue to quash
ignorance with the power of truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
