Re: A raped woman who cannot produced four witnesses should keep quiet about it
Hey Im only responding to posts as they come. Please read through my reply to see whether this is a general thread on the feasibility of shariah laws, or whether this is a thread raising questions on the leadings Islamist party’s interpretation of the hudood laws (He explicitly rejects options other than 4 witnesses) and opposing amendments to the bill on that basis.
All shardmanny’s post does, with relevance to this particular thread, is offer an Islamic jurist’s reasons for why the Molvi’s understanding of the rape laws were off the mark. Great! Frequently the point of amendments to laws is to clarify doubt. Its reasonable to think that if the head of the biggest Islamist party is so off-base about what a raped woman’s options are, and has been part of the leadership that agitated strongly against amendments to laws concerning it, then explicit clarifications to the law reinforcing the fact that raped women have more options than 4 witnesses should be welcomed by one and all.
With regard to the two cases, yes they were released on appeal, but the fact that lower courts convicted them and both cases became international controversies and their subsequent appeals had the whiff of caving to public pressure suggests that a) lower courts had an insufficient understanding of the law which should make explicit amendments welcome and b) shariat laws are hard for not just leaders of Islamist parties to understand, but jurists too.
Finally your point about Islamist being like the N word is hilarious. Islamist is a political designation, not a racial epithet. Otherwise you could apply your logic to pretty much any word. I can call myself Muslim but dont call me Muslim! I can call myself Pakistani but dont call me Pakistani!